Loading...
2009 - Planning Commission - Agendas & Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2009 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Swearing in of Commissioners Hoffman, Hughes and Struck 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 10, 2008 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Letter from Mayor Reinhardt regarding upcoming training b) Appointment of Planning Commission Chair for 2009 c) Appointment of Alternate Chair d) Educational reading materials 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) March 2009 Calendar b) Council Meeting Minutes, February 2, 2009 - Unapproved c) Council Work Session Meeting Minutes — January 26, 2009 d) Council Meeting — January 20, 2009 e) Council Meeting — January 5, 2009 f) Council Meeting — December 15, 2008 7. MISCELLANEOUS Reminder: Perpetual invitation to commissioners to attend the council work session scheduled every fourth Monday evening, City Hall, 7 p.m. Please be advised the February meeting is tentatively canceled as well as May 25t (Memorial Day Monday). 8. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda — February 11, 2009 1 A CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Mason calls the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Struck, Hughes, Neve, Alternate Chair Mason and Sippel. Deputy Clerk Lewin, Ex-officio Dove. Oath of Office: Lewin administers the Oath of Office to Commissioners Struck and Hughes. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion to adopt the agenda. Hughes makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion passes. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 10, 2008 • Motion to approve the minutes Hughes makes a motion and Sippel seconds to approve the December Planning Commission minutes. All votes ayes, motion passes. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION Mason would like this changed to an election process versus the appointment. It is discussed whether the proper verbiage is appointment or election since there are not any ballots. Hughes explains the white ballot process being one in which there is not a written recording of the vote. Neve nominates Gary Hughes as chair. When asked if he was in favor of the nomination, Hughes said he left as chair and he would be willing to assume that position once again. Lewin explained that Commissioner Tyler was absent this evening but said if it was proper procedure via a phone conversation, he would like to nominate Doug Sippel. Sippel is in favor of the nomination for Hughes. Hughes calls for a white ballot. Mason makes a motion to cast a white ballot to nominate Gary Hughes to serve as the chair of the Planning Commission for a term of one year. Sippel seconds. All in favor, all votes ayes, nomination passes. Alternate Chair: Nomination for Sippel is made for alternate chair and a nomination is made for Neve. A paper ballot is cast. Sippel takes the paper vote by a three to two count. Sippel is named as alternate chair for the term of one year. Neve asked for clarification on the alternate's role and was told the alternate runs the meeting in the Chair's absence. Lewin said Mayor Reinhardt wanted to encourage commissioners to consider the training • opportunities as she found it very helpful information. Neve wonders if the employer has to allow an employee time off in order to attend these sessions and it is said it's doubtful. This is in the • case of an election process when an employee wants to serve as an election judge an employer must allow the employee to do so. 6. COMMUNICATIONS 7. MISCELLANEOUS Neve said he found Hughes presentation in December regarding the ISO rating very interesting. Hughes said he feels it's necessary to let everyone know it is their job to call their insurance agents in order to see if this will help reduce their rates. Hughes said Brimeyer had pointed out the important fact that commercial properties will really benefit from this new rating. Hughes asked if the February work session is canceled for sure and he asks this be verified by e-mail or a phone call. Mason said the acting administrator outlined the procedure and protocol on how to conduct meetings and he felt it will be a nuts and bolts primer on basic government. Hughes said in coming off the council and the last year, the public forum with the lakeshore residents and Hughes said this will more than likely something coming up. Hughes would like to have these minutes distributed so they can study them. Mason thinks there might be an opportunity to have the public hearing regarding docks filmed by • the LMCC. It's explained the LMCC allows one extra meeting per year to be filmed provided they have the staff and Mason thinks the docks public hearing might be a good choice. Hughes said from the public forum standpoint it might be difficult for the producer to film the meeting and there is the intimidation factor which might stop some people from expressing their thoughts. Hughes said he doesn't know if there will be an actual mailing to individual property owners or it will just be published in the paper. Hughes asked Lewin about the potential of some upcoming CUP's and Lewin explained the city has been approached about two potential conditional uses. Lewin said there is a proposal for a hoop house and a fireworks tent but so far it's just been information gathering and no applications have been submitted. Mason asked about the Norling clock. Lewin explained that Norling was sent a letter stating the city endorsed the clock and nothing has happened in that regard. Mason explained that Norling had come forward with a clock proposal and when he found out the county had been consulted he got upset and pulled his proposal off the table. Norling made it known that he didn't want the county involved if they didn't have to be as he found them difficult to work with in the past. Mason said when Hughes was on the Planning Commission previously, he would do an informational class during the slow times and it was found to be educational and informative. Mason said it was also highly participated. Hughes said he wants to know if the Planning Commission is also referred to as the park commission and he thinks it's in the minutes 0 somewhere. • Mason said speaking of Norling, he wondered if there would be alternate bids accepted for the beautification of the city. He said in him opinion the planters on the boulevard need more color. He didn't like the ornamental trees last year in the planters and he thinks more color would look nicer. Hughes said Norling keeps the entire median on CR 15 weed free and also waters so there is more to it than just planting the planters. Neve asked about the commercial space of The Mist and wondered what was going on. Lewin explained that space has been purchased and it is currently being finished for office space. 8. ADJOURNMENT Neve makes a motion to adjourn and Sippel seconds. The meeting is adjourned at 7:48 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, Acting City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Acting Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer • • • WHEREAS, the Council desires to follow the appointment schedule as initially established and, WHEREAS, this resolution only establishes the expiration of terms and official appointments to the Planning Commission shall be at a later date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Spring Park hereby establishes the following as the schedule of the current terms of the Spring Park Planning Commission: Term expires Janu ry 1 of 2008 2009 Maloney Mason Dove 2010 Si el Tyler 2011 Hoffman Neve 2012 2013 Hughes Mason Struck 2014 Si el Tyler 2015 Hoffman Neve Adopted this day of , 2007 • Jerome P. Rockvam, Mayor ATTEST: Sarah Friesen, Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer • Resolution 07-22 2 C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Resolutions 2007\07-22 Planning Commission.doc Page 1 of 1 • Wendy Lewin From: Wendy Lewin [wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 4:04 PM To: Bill Tyler(bill.tyler@atk.com); 'Doug Sippel'; 'Jeff Hoffman'; 'Neve, Graham' Subject: Notice of Canceled Meeting for Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Planning Commissioners, please be advised due to lack of items for the agenda, the January meeting of the Planning Commission has been canceled. At this date, I believe with certainty, we will be holding a February meeting in order to swear in new members of the commission and choose a chair. On Monday, January 26th, 2009, the City Council will be holding a workshop session at 7 pm at City Hall. The Council has invited the Commissioners to attend this workshop session as it will also be an orientation for new members. At that date and time they will be interviewing four applicants for the two Planning Commission openings. The applicants will be limited to five to ten minutes each so they anticipate the interviews collectively taking no more than one-half hour or so. We hope to see you then as it's been a while. Otherwise, stay warm and we'll see you in February. Wendy Lewin Deputy City Clerk City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, MN 55384 952-471-9051 • 2/11/2009 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Swearing in of Commissioner Hoffman 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 11, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION Public Hearing Re: 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion & Comments a) Memo dated March 6, 2009 from Wendy to Commissioners 1. Application 2. Site Plan • 3. Insurance 4. Membrane Permit Application 5. Property Owner Permission 6. Public Hearing 7. Notifications 8. Requested Input 9. Relevant Ordinances 10.Historical References 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) April Calendar b) Channels 8 March Schedule c) Council Meeting — February 2, 2009 d) Public Forum - Docks — February 4, 2009 e) Council Meeting — March 2, 2009 - Unapproved f) Council Work Sessions - changes for April and May g) Permits issued, Y-T-D h) Proposal for Alternate Planning Commissioner 7. MISCELLANEOUS . 8. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda — March 11, 2009 1 March 16, 2009 Spring Park Planning Commission Public Hearing notes of March 11, 2009 40ry Hughes—Chairperson: In the absence of formal planning commission minutes regarding the CUP application by Linder's I am submitting these notes to highlight the main discussion points. Complete minutes will be forth coming. Questions were asked by various members of the planning commission and the response by Caio Cella. Mr. Cella indicated that he had talked to the MGM manager regarding the water and electricity. The specific question was it the "owner" of MGM vs. the manager. Mr. Cella was not sure. I mention this to Wendy on Friday and she was going to confirm with the owner of MGM. Date range of the CUP. Several questions were brought up around the start and ending dates for the CUP. The concern of the planning commission was that it be long enough to complete the setup and tear-down activities within the time frame of the CUP. Mr. Cella explained their process in detail for setup and tear-down and assured the commission that the dates were adequate. Signage: Mr. Cella will fill out a sign application to comply with the Spring Park requirement. As part of the discussion he outlined the use of signs to open and close-out the season. Close-out signs will replace the signs used at the start of the season. Location of products for sale: Mr. Cella was asked about the bags of product that were outside of the fenced area last year in Navarre. He stated that 0 the items for sale will be "inside" the fenced area at the shopping center. No products will be stored outside of the fence. General safety of proposed location and the traffic pattern of the site: Due to the lack of a "to scale" drawing of the exact location of the Flower Mart the planning commission members voiced general concern over the customer parking and loading of personal vehicles'. A clear, to scale, plan with site dimensions was not evident.The initial review by the city planner suggested some changes in the rough location initially provided. While the various commission members had somewhat different ideas on what the final plan would look like, the overriding concern was the traffic pattern and safety in the parking lot. After a lengthy exchange of ideas two conditions came to the top of the ideas. The suggestion is to alter the proposed shape of the Flower Mart to make it more square; move the West fence further west to eliminate the possibility of perpendicular parking next to the fence. Perpendicular parking would risk customers loading shopping carts in the traffic lane of the parking lot. And, second to move the North fence to the South. This would ease the congestion at the entrance to the parking lot and comply with setback requirements. At the request of the Planning Commission Chair, Mr. Cella agreed to provide a scale drawing of the location at the shopping center and, in the absence of city staff for the rest of the week, send it directly to the city planner for review. This was done and-you have the updated city planner review. The planning commission members present voted unanimously to recommend approval with the above provisions. • Lt e v V PM ,•k ►V (L CA.! D� t�,� 4 t A a�ti� + vt t S 4IA� va.4o r p 4 t5 1 �ti t t F ✓ siW. s G'Ll.{!P ,�,�p�r e d' �1.'LS. V L� �.t+� CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 11, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Zoning and City Code Change - Docks 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion & Comments a) Legal Notice b) Memo dated April 3, 2009 from Interim Administrator 1. specific zoning ordinances c) Memo dated April 3, 2009 from City Attorney Nancy Beck is 2. Proposed Amendment to zoning ordinance 2. Proposed Amendment to City code 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) May 2009 Calendar b) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules c) Council Meeting — March 16, 2009 d) Work Session Meeting — March 23, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • Plan. Comm. Agenda — April 8, 2009 1 F� • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Struck, Neve, Sippel, Mason. Tyler and Hoffman excused. Staff present were Interim Administrator Brimeyer, City Clerk Lewin, Planner Brixius, Attorney Beck and seven members in the audience. 3. ADOPT AGENDA: Sippel makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 11, 2009 Hughes said in Lewin's absence from the last meeting (March), he prepared minutes in an abbreviated form. He asked for the Planning Commissioners' desire on the minutes: is the abbreviated form acceptable or would they prefer a formal preparation made from the taped version of the meeting. Struck and Mason said they believe what is presented will suffice. Neve makes a motion and Struck seconds to approve the presented minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Zoning and City Code Change - Docks 1. Open Public Hearing. Hughes opens the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. 2. Discussion & Comments a) Legal Notice. Hughes reads the formal legal publication out loud. Hughes said the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the council on the zoning ordinance but the Planning Commission does not have any authority with respect to the city code. He said the commissioners can make comments about the proposed code provisions but they cannot take any action. Brixius stated he will outline what is being considered. Brixius said the issue in the ordinance is a permitted accessory use of docks in single and multi family districts. He said it currently states it's for the sole use of occupants of the premises. Brixius said the current ordinance language states individual occupants can keep their boats at the dock but guests or tenants would not be allowed. Brixius said it has come to the city's attention that in spite of this provision, it is a common practice to ignore the ordinance. He said direction was given to go ahead and amend the zoning ordinance to allow for property owners to allow guests to moor their boat or rent or lease a dock slip. Brixius said what's been prepared is • both an ordinance and code change. He said the concern is land use and operational concerns. He said the private enjoyment of the neighborhood is an operational concern. Brixius reads from the specific proposal in front of the Commission. Brixius said parking is also a concern and it's been addressed. He said in the R-3 multifamily district permits will be required. He said the permit will stipulate that multi-housing will have to provide • adequate parking, restroom and trash facilities and comply with the rules and regulations of the city code. Beck said one of the main reasons to put the dock provisions in the city code is the ability to have enforcement by the police department. She said this will be similar to nuisance ordinances already present in the city code. Beck said the proposal is set up in the city code format. She stated it mostly addresses the R-3 district requiring a permit process. Beck said there will be a fee required and there will be an application process. Beck said they will still be following the LMCD rules. Beck said they are trying to keep out charter businesses so this has been designed for that. She said there is an enforcement mechanism and can be enforced by citation and an administrative fine. She said the first violation would be $250 and increases from there. Sippel asked if that is in any given year and Brimeyer said it should be specific to refer to violations within a twelve month period. Brixius said one of the clear distinctions is the placement in both codes, the zoning code and the city code. He said it's important to be able to have an enforcement mechanism and that's why it will go in both places. Hughes asked the audience if this reflects the wishes of what was outlined at the public forum in February. Steve Erickson said he believes in this new ordinance and he believes he started this so he is happy with what is being proposed. Neve asked about restroom facilities in R-3 and if they will be required to have running water or if portable sanitation facilities would suffice. Brimeyer said portable facilities would be all that would be necessary to comply. It's been asked if this has been adopted yet and audience member is told no, this public hearing is part of the process. Mason asked about the permitting process. He wondered if all of the information including what constitutes a violation and fines will be spelled out. He wonders if the information provided would serve as the initial warning. Brixius thinks it would be easy to structure the application for the permit in a way to put applicants on notice of the requirements. Mason asked about a timeline and wondered if there would be a period of time for staff to review this application. He thinks it's necessary to have a period of time to review the application and that it isn't an over-the-counter issue. He said it presents an opportunity to review the application to make sure everything has been covered. Roxanne Rockvam said she wants to clarify that the permit process is required in R-3 only. Brixius said it will be enforced through complaints similar to the nuisance provisions. He said they feel property owners will police themselves. Hughes said his understanding is the restroom facilities are only for R-3. He said he would like to deal with the zoning ordinance first and work through that and then work on the city code as a second item. Hughes said typically they would close the public hearing and the planning commission would continue with the process. He said he prefers to keep the public hearing open so the public can continue to provide comments. Widmer asked for an LMCD definition in an R-1 district. Hughes said if it's assumed the . property owner doesn't own a boat, that property owner could have two restricted Plan. Comm. Minutes — April 8, 2009 2 watercraft per 50 feet. He said if they go to a third restricted watercraft they all must be owned by the property owner. Restricted watercraft is 10 horsepower or more and that includes PWC's (personal watercraft). Mason thinks it's more like 9 to 9.5 horsepower. Widmer said it's important to note PWC's are considered restricted watercraft. Rockvam is asking what has changed. Brixius said what's changed is a property owner is now allowed to keep their boat at their property where before it was limited to the occupant of the property. Brixius said the LMCD has always been responsible for the number of boats at a dock. Brixius said a dock is allowed following the LMCD rules. Resident Dave McNichols feels there are different rules based upon whether they get along with their neighbor or not. Widmer said it all began with a complaint and the LMCD does do periodic shoreline checks. She said that is how it started to begin with. Brixius said the practice of allowing others to keep their boats at docks was common and the city's ordinance prohibited it. He said as far as setbacks and number of boats, that will continue to follow the LMCD rules. Rockvam said it's a question of who enforces it. Brixius said if there is a zoning violation, it could be an administrative citation. Brixius said if there are concerns forthcoming, this is used to head this off. Hughes wondered if the council didn't want to turn this over to the LMCD. Brimeyer said only on the water side. Brimeyer said they are now allowing what has been done for years. Rockvam said as a citizen and a resident, she shouldn't have to enforce the law. She believes if it's her property she should be allowed to enjoy her property. Brixius said there are no rules prohibiting a party. Rockvam is concerned that this is being pushed to the residents to enforce the ordinances. Mason said the city is aligning with the LMCD rules. Beck said it's valid to be concerned about getting along with neighbors, but complaints will be kept confidential. Rockvam thinks that isn't necessarily true. Brixius said in every community the level of police force is different. He said it does require a community to enforce. Hughes thinks Rockvam feels there should be a permit required for everyone. Hughes asked if there are other issues for the zoning code. Hughes refers to the suggested ordinance language and said under both R-1 and R-2 he wants to know what is meant by docking for boats stored off site. Beck said this is meant to over situations where boats are stored at a site not on the lakeshore and then boats are brought to a dock from the off-site location. Rockvam said boats on trailers are stored off-site and upon request, the boat is launched and tied at a dock. Hughes said he understands this to be an in and out services. Hughes questions public parking requirements. Brixius said for a single family and two family, the zoning code requires two parking stalls. Cars can also be parked in the driveway. Brixius said they are looking at whether or not there is parking on the street and we do not want parking related to dock usage to be disruptive to the neighborhood. Brixius said there are some areas where there is on-street parking and other areas are listed as no parking. He said it's better to provide a provision for parking. Hughes said he thinks this is a problem. Brixius said with on-street parking, they won't push it. He said in areas with limited parking, time will tell. Sippel asked if a parking violation is a parking ticket or is it an administratively violation. Brimeyer responded that it's a parking ticket. Plan. Comm. Minutes — April 8, 2009 3 Struck asked about the course of action if she feels her neighbors are bothering her. She used the example of noise on the dock and in the boat. She wonders if the police can be • summoned. She wonders what the city wants. Brixius said they should feel comfortable calling the police. Hughes wants to move to the R-3 languace. Hughes reads a submitted letter from Fred Puzak of Lord Fletcher's Apartments. Puzak cites that one to three ratio for parking has always been used in the past and he refers to his 1988 multiple dock application. Hughes asked for comments. Brixius said if that's been the past practice, and staff doesn't have a problem with it, a one to three ratio is acceptable. It can be dealt with in the future if it becomes a problem. Brimeyer asked if it's safe to assume half of the renters at Lord Fletcher's Apartments own boats and half don't so it probably won't be a problem. Brimeyer said the big issue is intrusion in the neighborhood as far as parking problems. Hughes referred to Section 12, 7. item c in the zoning ordinance and said he was concerned because guest parking was highly reviewed for the newer condominium projects and this is even more restrictive. Rockvam asked about the city permits. Hughes explained the multiple dock license is required by the LMCD and the city has to sign off on it. Struck wondered if the space goes with the apartment. Beck asked about the LMCD multiple dock license and wonders if it's one for three. Brimeyer said LMCD doesn't care about parking. They only care about the water part. Sippel thinks if they're going to directly tie the parking to the slip, he thinks one to two would be appropriate but wondered if they should propose changing it one to three, regardless or should they tie parking spots into who they're renting to. Mason said they've always had the same number of boat slips and that hasn't changed. Hughes thinks it should go back to the past practice and recommend that to the council. Struck said there are other apartment buildings so she is concerned if this change is made will it work for the other apartments. Brixius said parking ratios have just been updated recently to include higher ratios for guest parking. He thinks more lenient would work better than making it more restrictive. Mason said past history is Lord Fletchers Apartments was initially found to be in violation and the other apartments were not reported as such. Hughes closes the public hearing on the zoning ordinance at 8:07 p.m. Sippel said he has questions on enforcement and administrative fines. Brixius said one thing not addressed is there is a section under general provisions about accessory buildings in the zoning ordinance referencing docks and lifts that needs to be revised to make it consistent with the new recommendations for residential docks and boat lifts which revisions was inadvertently left out and should be included. Sippel wants to talk about enforcement before making a formal motion regarding the zoning code proposal. Sippel questions administrative fines and wonders about the process and the documentation required. He wants to know what would happen if someone doesn't pay. Brixius said there is an appeal process but if it's not paid, the city will assess it against the property. Sippel said so it's more like a lien. Brixius confirmed. Sippel said the proposed fines would be the same no matter what district and Brixius said that's what's being proposed. Sippel wondered if there could be a notification letter first with a timeframe stated before a citation would be issued. Hughes said in R-3 it could be established with a letter at the beginning of the year giving them adequate time to apply for their permits for Plan. Comm. Minutes — April 8, 2009 4 • the season. Brimeyer said it's a good point and wonders if there will even be any permits issued for this boating season. Brimeyer thinks letters could be sent this year as a test. Mason said it should be encouraged to have a deadline for response set. Brimeyer suggested it correspond with the multiple dock license applications through the LMCD. Mason said something could go in the newsletter and be publically displayed. Hughes wondered if a fine could be levied every day and Brimeyer said probably not because it will depend on staff review. Brixius suggests there be a checklist with the permit that includes a date range for checking on the permit and it won't be issued immediately. Question from the audience in regards to a noise complaint and who would get issued a citation if any. Hughes said it would be up to the responding officer to make the determination. Sippel thinks the administrative fine would be levied if there were repeated disturbances. Sippel thinks the city would want to know about warnings in order to track the frequency of the disturbances. Hughes asked Brimeyer to have a discussion with police in order to discuss the process. Struck asked if the city tracks nuisances routinely. Mason asked about neighbors and how does somebody know if someone is renting out a dock space. Struck wondered if there was any discussion about day permits versus season permits. Hughes thinks this is a test and it's important to try it first. Erickson said he has let friends use the dock and he doesn't charge them anything. He said there are other factors. Hughes asks for a motion for a formal recommendation to the council. Sippel makes a motion to recommend adoption of the amendments to the zoning ordinance as proposed with the following changes: For the R-3 district, the parking • requirement be one space for every three boat slips regardless if it's rental and, to revise Section 12 on page 36 to make it consistent with the other proposed changes. Struck seconds. Hughes asked if there is anything left out in the recommendation. Beck asked if they should add anything about the in and out service. Hughes said he initially didn't understand it but he does now that it's been explained. All votes ayes, motion carries. b) Memo dated April 3, 2009 from Interim Administrator 1. specific zoning ordinances c) Memo dated April 3, 2009 from City Attorney Nancy Beck 1. Proposed Amendment to zoning ordinance 2. Proposed Amendment to City code 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS Mason said he mentioned at the last meeting that Jean Mork-Bredeson submitted a letter about being an alternate representative in the absence of planning commissioners. Mason doesn't think it would work. Mason likes something in the newsletter about dogs kept on leash and picking up after their dogs. Sippel asked about street sweeping and Brimeyer thought mid April and perhaps in May. Hughes would like to have standing agenda item for a CIP plan. Brimeyer asked what they would like to see. Brimeyer said council authorized • an analysis be done by Ehlers and to look at funding sources and formulating policies and balances. Brimeyer said what there is now should be e-mailed out to Planning Commissioners. Plan. Comm. Minutes — April 8, 2009 5 Mason asked about beautification. He has talked about flowers in the planters in the past. • Brimeyer said he had a tour with Norling and they are working on two planting plans. One is along the trail with Tree Trust and it will be around May 16t . Brimeyer said there are also annual plantings. Brimeyer said the council cut the budget to $25,000. He said that amount is just about enough for maintenance only. If there is additional funds needed, he said we would have to find a way to fund those. Brimeyer asked what role the planning commission plays in beautification. Mason said they are supposed to do this but they have not had a voice in the past. He would like to see more color in the planters. Mason asked about the trees along the trail. Brimeyer said it's confusing. He said when the Lakeview Lofts (LL) were built, as part of the railroad right-of-way, LL gave the county $12,000 to do landscaping. Brimeyer said he thinks the townhomes think it's the city's money and they can dictate the plantings. Brimeyer said he was informed it's not city's money, it's the rail authority's money, but the city can give input. He said about a month ago there was a proposition for planting an area from Sunset Drive to the locomotive shed with 200 trees by the Tree Trust. Brimeyer said usually Tree Trust puts in very small sapling sized trees and he's requested some trees be larger and they have agreed. He said most of the plantings are on the north side of the trail. Brimeyer said LL is very happy about the plantings. Hughes requests Brixius review a copy of the planting plan. a) May 2009 Calendar b) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules c) Council Meeting — March 16, 2009 d) Work Session Meeting — March 23, 2009 • 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Struck makes a motion and Sippel seconds to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, Deputy Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Interim Administrator is Plan. Comm. Minutes — April 8, 2009 6 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 8, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 1) Sign Permit Application, Spring Park Auto, 4500 Shoreline Drive a) Staff Memo b) NAC Memo c) City Code — Sign Ordinance 2) Memo from Administrator dated June 5, 2009 COMMUNICATIONS a) July Calendar b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) CIP Update d) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules e) Council Meeting — April 6, 2009 f) Admin Committee Minutes — April 8, 2009 g) Council Meeting — April 20, 2009 h) Council Work Session — April 28, 2009 i) Council Meeting — May 4, 2009 j) Council Meeting — May 18, 2009 k) Police Commission Minutes — May 19, 2009 1) Council Work Session — May 26, 2009 m)Council Meeting — June 1, 2009 (Unapproved) 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Dakota Trail Regional Opening, Saturday, June 20, 10 am — 3 pm b) Thank You note to Commissioners from Jamie Gjellstad c) Letter from Richard Stanek dated May 26, 2009 d) e-mail from Scott Boris, Orono PD, regarding Citizens Academy 8. ADJOURNMENT • Plan. Comm. Agenda — June 10, 2009 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 2008 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, Sippel, Hoffman and Mason Interim Administrator Brimeyer, Clerk Lewin and Tom Plantikow, Spring Park Auto business owner in attendance. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Mason makes a motion and Sippel seconds to adopt the agenda. Chair Hughes states he would like to add number 7 e. purchase of bike racks, to the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 8, 2009 - Hoffman makes a motion and Sippel seconds to approve the minutes from April 8, 2009. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 1) Sign Permit Application, Spring Park Auto, 4500 Shoreline Drive Hughes asks business owner, Plantikow, if he received a copy of the planner's report and Plantikow said he had. a) Staff Memo b) NAC Memo 0offman said under content, second paragraph and second sentence he asked if the site contains an auto sales lot already and Plantikow responds yes. Brimeyer stated he has asked the right-of-way be illustrated and Plantikow pointed out where it is. Mason asked about the old sign. Plantikow said it says Spring Park Auto Sales and Leasing. Mason asked for an explanation of why he is requesting new signage. Plantikow stated he wants to increase his business by adding more services. He stated there were trees planted along the boulevard, after the sign was in place so the sign is no longer visible. He stated the new sign request is a monument sign. Hughes asked about what will happen with the old sign and whether it will come down. Plantikow stated they are still looking at options. He thought maybe a rooftop sign. Hughes stated a rooftop sign would not be allowed. Plantikow said there was a rooftop sign on the building when he bought it and they took it down. Hughes referred to the number of monument signs allowed on a property per building which is one per property. Plantikow wondered about the sports dealer on Shoreline Drive that has several stacked signs. Hughes said that is considered to be one sign. Plantikow said he is open for suggestions. Mason said the sign could be placed lower on the property. Plantikow said they had talked about shortening the pole. Mason asked Plantikow to elaborate on his business. Plantikow said they will do service work and sales and they will operate like a small dealership. He said they are looking to expand the building space. Hughes said it looks like they are looking to do painting and custom painting. Plantikow said they paint now and plan on increasing in the future. Hughes said he and the administrator had a conversation with the planner and, before the sign is acceptable, this would be a change of use of the property requiring a site and building review process. He said it would have to come before the Planning Commission and Council. Brimeyer said it looks as though they are suggesting a business expansion to accommodate painting. Plantikow said that is in the future. He said right now they would be doing it on a smaller scale. Mason said to be helpful, they've probably been painting all along. Plantikow said y do reconditioning of vehicles for sale now. Plan. Comm. Minutes —June 10, 2009 1 Brimeyer said the sign states more than just auto sales. Brimeyer said if the painting expansion is proposed, a site and building process would have to be pursued at that time. Hoffman said technically right now there is not a change of use. Brimeyer said it seems as though the sign could be reconfigured to accommodate all his jftrvices on one sign. Plantikow stated he believes he has adequate square footage to accommodate two ,gns. He said he knows a stacked sign is an option. Hughes said the ordinance says two signs are not allowed, he's only allowed one. Plantikow is asking if he can add on to the sign right now. Widmer asked if the fire department has been contacted about the potential expansion. Plantikow stated he has been working with Dean Mau, the fire inspector, about the add-on. Hoffman asked for clarity. He stated they could approve the sign permit application and Plantikow could take down the other sign. At a later date he could come back and apply to stack the sign. It's agreed it might be an option. Plantikow asked about whether if this is tabled or not, what is the timeline. Plantikow believes the current sign could be converted to a stackable sign. Hoffman wonders if there is anyway to make a motion to approve and give the power to the staff to approve the reconfigured sign. Brimeyer said they would need a new drawing and they could then get it to the Planning Commissioners and ask for any objections. Brimeyer stated he would also ask for a cash bond to remove the old sign in order make sure the poles come down. Mason said there have been problems in the past with signage so this is the reason for the questions. Brimeyer said the other option is to recess to next Wednesday and reconvene in a week or so to make the decision. Brimeyer said he is reluctant to approve this administratively. Hughes said he would feel more comfortable with a confirmation from the sign company. Hughes prefers to recess for a week and agree on a mutual time for a reconvene. Hoffman asked how to streamline this in order to not physically meet. Brimeyer said a written poll cannot be accepted. Hughes said he feels the consensus is there is somewhat of an agreement for one sign, a combination of the existing in the proposed location versus where the current sign is located and, the other pole comes down. Sippel thinks they could approve stacking the existing sign now and if there's a change he would have to come AWck next month. Widmer asked how far back from the exit onto Shoreline Drive will the proposed sign be. antikow points it out on the photocopy. Hughes said a vehicle should be able to stop prior to the sidewalk and see oncoming traffic. Sippel makes a motion to approve the sign permit as presented with the following conditions. To allow stacking of the existing Spring Park Auto sign and any modification other than stacking the existing sign would require another meeting. The other condition would be the existing pole comes down. Hoffman seconds. Hoffman asked per the recommendations from the planner if they are outside of the public right-of-way. Hughes asks for a friendly amendment to the motion to say all set backs as exhibited in the application will be complied with. Hoffman seconds the amendment. Sippel agrees to the friendly amendment. Hughes asked about the wordage on the sign regarind collision repair and painting. Brimeyer said the red flag is the painting but he is advertising what is already being performed. Mason asked about when the pole will be removed. Plantikow said the pole will be removed and they might be without signage during that time while the new sign is installed. All votes ayes, vote is unanimous. Motion passes. Brimeyer said the drawing will be sent to all the commissioners in order for them to examine the new proposal. Mason asked about cars traveling from east to west. He asked about signage for vehicles coming from the west. Plantikow said it's a dual lens sign and it will be below the tree line. c) City Code- Sign Ordinance 2) Memo from Administrator dated June 5, 2009 Hughes said this is a culmination of the meeting with Admin Committee and State code states the Planning Commission approves the CIP. Hughes asked when this will be in some form to approve. Brimeyer said what's been attached in the packet is as good as it is now. Brimeyer said the council hasn't approved this yet. Hughes would like to see this on the next PC agenda. Sippel said he would like to see what the street improvement costs include. Brimeyer said regarding the Channel Road project, the original number was just to redo the street, nothing else. He said later on it was determined sewer and water needed to be replaced. �ppel said burying utilities might be worth exploring. Brimeyer said this CIP has been extensively reworked d a storm water utility fee has been discussed. Plan. Comm. Minutes —June 10, 2009 2 Brimeyer said the sign ordinance is a PC function and they feel this could be reviewed and updated. Regarding the zoning ordinance and dealing with outdoor storage, Hughes said this has been discussed many �es. Brimeyer said it sounds as though this has been discussed to death. Hughes thinks temporary and ation of signage needs to be reviewed. Hughes said perhaps a one time fee should be considered for those businesses that put out several temporary signs over the course of a season. Landscaping buffers were also considered. Hughes makes a recommendation in the next budget cycle that the sign permit application fees be reanalyzed to incorporate extra costs associated with the process. He said a $25 fee for a permanent sign doesn't begin to cover the consulting costs sometimes associated. Hughes would like to go through a sign demonstration. Discussion held about various signage in the city. Brimeyer thinks the permanent signs are not that bad but the temporary signs need to be redefined. He thinks a 30 day sign renewable for forever doesn't make sense. Staff needs to think about how the enforcement will take place. Hoffman said he would look for suggestions from staff about enforcing the signs. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) July Calendar b) 2009 Buildiing and Sign Permit to-date c) CIP Updates d) Chanels 8 & 20 Schedules e) Council Meeting Minutes — April 6, 2009 f) Council Meeting Minutes —April 20, 2009 g) Admin Committee Minutes —April 8, 2009 h) Council Work Session —April 28, 2009 i) Council Meeting — May 4, 2009 j) Council Meeting — May 18, 2009 k) Police Commission Minutes — May 19, 2009 . 1) Council Work Session — May 26, 2009 m)Council Meeting — June 1, 2009 (Unapproved) 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Dakota Trail Regional Opening, Saturday, June 20, 10 am — 3 pm b) Thank you note to Commissioners from Jamie Gjellstad c) Letter from Richard Stanek dated May 26, 2009 d) e-mail from Scott Boris, Orono Police, Citizens Academy Hughes wants to put in a plug for the citizens academy and thinks it's very worthwhile to attend. e) Hughes stated he thinks it would be a good idea to have a bike rack at city hall and he makes a motion to recommend to the city council to put in bike racks at the city parking lot and a rack in the rear. Hoffman seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hoffman makes a motion and Sippel seconds to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, Deputy Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Interim Administrator • Plan. Comm. Minutes — June 10, 2009 3 Page 1 of 1 • Wendy Lewin From: Wendy Lewin [wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:26 PM To: 'Doug Sippel'; 'Gary Hughes'; 'Jeff Hoffman'; 'Neve, Graham'; 'Sarah Struct' Subject: FW: Notice of Canceled Meeting for Wednesday, May 13, 2009 From: Wendy Lewin [mailto:wlewin@mchsi.com] Subject: Notice of Canceled Meeting for Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Planning Commissioners, please be advised due to lack of items for the agenda and discussion with PC Chair Hughes, the May meeting of the Planning Commission has been canceled. On Tuesday, May 26th, 2009, the City Council will be holding its monthly workshop session at 7 pm at City Hall. As always, you are invited to attend. If you have any questions, please call otherwise, we'll see you in June. • Wendy Lewin City Clerk City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, MN 55384 952-471-9051 • 5/5/2009 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 8, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 10, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 1) Memo from Administrator a) Capital Improvement Plan b) Signs/Memo Al Brixius c) Future Items Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses COMMUNICATIONS a) August Calendar b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules d) Council Meeting — June 15, 2009 e) Council Work Session — June 22, 2009 f) Police Commission Minutes — June 16, 2009 g) Plan Commission attendance 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda — July 8, 2009 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 8, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners in attendance, Hughes, Mason, Sippel, Tyler, Struck. Staff in attendance, Administrator Brimeyer, Clerk Lewin, Planner Brixius. Neve absent and Hoffman excused. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Mason makes a motion and Sippel seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes yes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 10, 2009 Mason notes a typographical correction needed and makes a motion to adopt the minutes with Sippel seconding. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 1) Memo from Administrator Brimeyer said the sign applicant at the June meeting has not presented his drawing for the permanent WS He said he has stopped by there several times since, left business cards asking for an update and had no response. Brimeyer thinks signs and the CIP are the items that should be studied for now. He thinks commercial storage, fences and expansion of non-conforming uses should be delayed. He said the council struggles with long-term debt financing so there will need to be more research done. Brimeyer said signs are something that continually comes up and is not clearly defined. Brimeyer said the CIP is more critical because of the budget process starting. Hughes asked when the PC should recommend to Council and Brimeyer said by August. Brimeyer thinks tonight can be for information gathering purposes. Since Brixius is here tonight, Brimeyer thinks the focus should be on signage. a) Capital Improvement Plan Brimeyer wants the Commissioners to look at the list to see if there is anything that has been missed and he wants the funding to be examined. Mason asked about parks and it is pointed out there are some numbers assigned to park equipment. Mason thinks a tour of the city should be done because he feels things can be described at the moment. Tyler said he would be interested in this tour as well. Hughes said with regard to the CIP and looking at how to plan improvements to the city in a logical way and fund them in a logical way, he said this is daunting. Hughes thinks a better understanding needs to be done as far as the scope of the project. He said, for example storm water projects. Sippel said certain streets seem to be prioritized and he feels it looks about right. Hughes said a road study was contracted a few years ago and they rated every street according to a criteria sheet. Sippel is concerned because the infrastructure was not considered at the same time. Brimeyer said the dollar amount on the CIP does reflect the cost of sewer and water replacement. Brimeyer thinks sewer and water needs to be considered with all of these street improvements. Brimeyer said he told Goman to televise the sewer lines W e five worst streets in order to have a final number to present. Brimeyer said they've talked about ing a dollar amount and looking at how much that dollar number will do. He said debt is not all bad. He suggested the cash can be spent and later a resolution could be passed for pay back by a bond issue. Hughes suggested a break line be inserted on the CIP for what has been accomplished and the total then Plan. Comm. Minutes — July 8, 2009 1 changed to reflect removal of the completed projects. He wondered if there should be more park projects or should there be anything else on the CIP. He asked if streets should be bunched together for future projects and if there is anything missing, including beautification projects. Hughes said radio reads for $40,000 needs to come off. Hughes asked about street lights and said there are a lot of rusted lights at • the base. He wants to go on record to escalate the replacement of these rusted street lights. Hughes asked about sidewalk replacement and feels there is a lot of sidewalk that doesn't meet code. Mason said it was discovered that Channel Road had a lot of infiltration. He said regarding the water and sewer fund, instead of raising rates, he wonders why some money can't be taken from other funds to subsidize this. Brimeyer said there is a real hands-off attitude for water and sewer and subsidizing is a bad word. Hughes said this needs to be looked at because next month there will need to be a recommendation to the council. He said commissioners should call Brimeyer if they have questions. Brimeyer said he is going to put something in the budget about remodeling the council chambers. Sippel asked about the Thor Thompson playground upgrade and he wondered where the $75,000 came from. Hughes said the insurance company does regulate some of it and he said Goman said if something is replaced, the entire structure needs to be replaced. Struck would like a summary of each item, what is the scope of the project and a little discussion about it. Brimeyer said a summary can be drafted as to why or why not these items are needed and it can be spelled out in more detail. Explanation of phase one and phase two for projects and recommendations can be made. Struck also wondered if there is a model CIP from the League that she could educate herself with. Brimeyer said he'll get a description of the projects so they have a better understanding and in the meantime if commissioners have questions or concerns they should contact city staff. Hughes requests these things should be sent out as soon as they are completed versus waiting for the packet. Mason asked about the tour in the near future and not necessarily on a meeting night. Hughes said the next meeting coming up is going to be very full. He thinks we could add as an agenda item the city tour at the next meeting and discuss it then and formulate the plan. Sippe► and Tyler think it should be done before the next meeting. The tour could include the items on the CIP so they can be examined. Brimeyer• thinks the August meeting would be a good time to do the tour. The tour route will be planned according to the CIP review. (Note: tour established for August 12th at 6 p.m.) Struck asks for the League's model for the CIP plan. Mason asked for Brixius's model for signs. b) Signs/Memo Al Brixius c) Future Items Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses Brixius said he understands some model ordinances are going to be brought forward to study. He wants to focus on some areas that are relatively new. Brixius said the City of Hopkins is being sued by a billboard provider because the ordinance was not content neutral. Brixius said the League has come out with content neutral language for commercial and non-commercial speech and establishing limits within the district for number, location, size and height. He said campaign signs are established by state statute. A non commercial speech sign could be "The PC is doing a great job" or "I really don't like Spring Park." Brixius thinks the ordinance needs to stay away from controlling the content of the sign. He said districts need to be examined by what is appropriate. Free-standing signs in commercial areas allow 200 square feet for face and he said that's a big sign. Brixius strongly encourages 100 square feet as a maximum and 30 feet in height. Sign setbacks should be from the closest appendage to the right-of-way. Brixius said temporary signs in a commercial area are increasing such as special event type signs, sales, grand opening signs. He said what needs to be considered is how may temp signs in a given period, the duration of the temp sign and should there be a permitting process with a fee. Brimeyer said there will be• an escrow required. Brixius said reader boards on wheels should be described along with banner signs regarding duration, size, location and time period. Plan. Comm. Minutes — July 8, 2009 2 Residential district: Brixius said address numbers and a discussion should be held about real estate signs 0allow for some non-commercial speech activities. Hughes asked about garage sale signs and Brixius s ,d that is considered special event. He said you should ask if there should be off-premise signs — garage sale signs, real estate signs, directional signs. Brixius said signs are difficult to regulate. Brixius said other things difficult to regulate are dynamic signs. He said they are large television sets. He said it's the newest technology in signs. He said they are distractive, they can be flashy so can be nuisances in neighborhoods and light pollution producing. Tyler asked if there is a way to eliminate many signs and allow those to go on one large dynamic sign. Brixius said if they are to be allowed, greater setbacks might have to be considered. It should be looked at from the business person's point of view and the neighborhood impact. Brixius said currently Spring Park prohibits flashing signs and this should be discussed. Brixius said when looking at the districts, look at single as well as multi occupancy needs. He said in shopping districts each tenant should be allowed a sign. Non conforming uses in signs and structures. He said where previously there was a non conforming condition if it was destroyed beyond 50% it could not be restored. He said that has changed and these non conforming business signs can be pursued if it is within 180 days. Hughes asked Brixius if the sign ordinance was updated today, how much of the existing ordinance could be deleted. Brixius said he would hold it up but say district standards need to be examined and the non conforming language has been changed. He said he would examine prohibitive signs to see if they're comfortable. For commercial he thinks we shouldn't allow for off-premise signs. Brixius said he thinks it should be kept as basic and simple as possible but if there is a sign you think shouldn't be allowed, don't 0 w it. Hughes asked how to address the non-conforming signs in existence now. He said what do we about those grandfathered signs. Brixius said because everything is established and fully developed, those non-conforming signs will be respected unless they were illegally erected. Brixius said signs attached to fences, trees, etc are prohibited and they can be told to be removed. Hughes said the definition of temporary signs is not clearly defined. He said for example Lord Fletcher's has about eight events a year and he wonders if there could be an annual temporary sign permit. Brixius said businesses need to be recognized how they operate before restrictions are put in place. Brixius said when looking at Lord Fletchers where they have lots of signs, one thing to be built in is a comprehensive sign plan for these types of unusual uses. He said it might be even something for the old Balboa Building (4144 Shoreline Drive) where there are multiple tenants. He said the avoidance is for signs just being stuck in the ground everywhere. Hughes asked about charging for a temporary sign if they want to go beyond the time limit. Brixius said you want to be careful about extending this out too far. Hughes asked how someone like Lord Fletcher's has signage all over their private property. Brixius said there is a potential for a project screen for a sign. Brixius said advertising inside a building is usually allowed to occur. Brixius said it will have to be decided how the city regulates this. Brixius said if it's displayed outwardly toward the right of way, there might be a problem. If they are directed towards their patrons it might be difficult to regulate. Brixius said he will write the ordinance however the city wants. He said be careful about what can be construed as harassing. Brixius said regulating signs is the most sensitive thing that can be touched. Brimeyer asked about what if someone comes in for a temporary sign that is like a big screen t.v., would we would have to allow it. Brixius said temporary signs are not specific. Hughes asked about real estate dch signs that advertise real estate agents. Brixius said these signs are financed by a private person onating a bench but advertising is part of the deal. Brixius said there is probably a lease agreement for these benches. Mason asked about the earlier sign applicant where his existing sign is now covered Plan. Comm. Minutes — July 8, 2009 3 by foliage. Brixius said the setbacks for signs are lenient. He said because the streetscape is part of the city, it would be a hardship for the property owner. Hughes wonders if monument signs should be encouraged to avoid tree foliage covering the signs. • Brixius said that might be a good example of something to regulate in that particular area. Brixius said once the ordinance is in place there should be a summary cheat sheet passed out with each application that lists specifics so there are no secrets. Tyler said every city has their own specifics but he wondered if there is a model ordinance. Brixius said he wants to keep it simple and he encourages looking at the League because they are neutral. Brimeyer thinks it's important to have a model to follow. Tyler thinks we shouldn't reinvent the wheel and it would be nice to find someone's ordinance that would fit our city. Brixius said he will work through this and he can flag items of concern. He said the biggest part of his job is balancing the business friendly versus esthetically pleasing issue. Brimeyer asked about the League's model ordinance and Brixius said what he can do is give a model ordinance on dynamic signs, he can get the League ordinance and he will look at his communities that resembles Spring Park the most and he can tell what would work. He said he did Brainerd's and New Hope's. Mason said for most businesses on the north side of Shoreline Drive, the trees are more canopy like. He said maybe signs could be specific to the type of trees growing for future consideration. Mason would like to see temporary signs, anything less than a permanent sign, should be worked on first. Hughes said a lot of the temporary signs in today's economy have become permanent. Hughes asked about sandwich signs and Brixius said they are temporary signs. He referred to Parade of Homes signs that fill up an entire boulevard. Brimeyer asked about off premises signs and what would happen if they were disallowed. Brixius said directional signs are still important for real estate. Sippel said definitions read like legal speak and examples would be helpful. Brixius said examples can't be spelled out because of the risk of leaving something out. Hughes said when looking at redevelopment, he's concerned about construction signs and one sign for each major street the project abuts. He said when The Mist was being developed, every subcontractor put up their signs on the fence. Brixius said hemw thinks he'll hand out the New Hope ordinance because it's the most recent and it will deal with this particular problem. He said he will reference certain sign ordinances that will be specific to Spring Park. Brimeyer said he'll get the forwarded ordinances from Brixius as soon as possible. Brimeyer said for instance the Yacht Club has a nice sign but when he goes down Shoreline Drive the signs out there are cluttered and unappealing. Sippel thinks the permanent sign ordinance existing is fairly tight except for the dynamic signs but the temporary signage needs to be addressed. Tyler said it seems as though the ordinance is in place but it's not being enforced. Tyler thinks it may not be necessary to rewrite the ordinance but look at enforcement tactics instead. Tyler agrees temporary signage probably needs to be cleaned up. Struck agrees with Tyler and Sippel. She thinks what she's been thinking of how it looks now and communities where signage is more restrictive. She thinks certain communities can have a cleaner feel and we should be looking towards how we want the community to look from an esthetic standpoint versus a mish-mash. She said since the content can't be controlled, the size, location and type of sign needs to be defined. Tyler said this is probably bigger than what can be tackled tonight, when thinking about surrounding lake communities there are usually a word or two that define cities. Tyler wonders what words might be conjured up for Spring Park. Meticulous comes to mind when thinking of Wayzata. Mason said everyone is an individual. Mason said at one time colors were discussed for a color scheme and that doesn't seem to work. He thinks enforcement needs to be done and rewrite what needs to be rewritten. Hughes wants to be business friendly because that's what will keep good businesses here. He said there are some issues, definitely. He said there is something in the ordinance about brand advertising and yet it exists. He said if Ford was to put up a dealership, they would want to display their Ford sign, not just cars for sale* and he thinks that would be a violation of the current ordinance. Plan. Comm. Minutes — July 8, 2009 4 Hughes said there is a sample sign application in the packet and he asks the commissioners to look at the 0ication for clarity. Mason thinks applicants should fill out the application off site. He thinks they s -Juld spend more time thinking about the application. Hughes thinks the definitions should be cleaned up. He mentions the time and temperature signs and now the gas station has digital signage displaying prices. Brimeyer said information will be coming from Brixius and it will be looked at. He said the outdoor storage issue is sending a very cluttered message toward the streetscape. Hughes said after going through the redevelopment of properties, he feels they need to be sign specific. He said signs accompany redevelopment. Hughes said it was not only subcontractors it was the marketing of The Mist. Mason said it was discussed at the time and it was felt some of those signs were necessary at the time for the project. Hughes thinks focus points should be discussed for specific parts of the sign ordinance. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) August Calendar b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules d) Council Meeting — June 15, 2009 e) Council Work Session — June 22, 2009 f) Police Commission Minutes — June 16, 2009 g) Plan Commission attendance 7. MISCELLANEOUS 9 hes asks if the commissioners would prefer to receive the requested information as electronic or hard ,Jy. Everyone wants electronic except for Mason who needs a paper copy. 8. ADJOURNMENT Sippel makes a motion and Tyler seconds to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. All votes ayes, motion passes. I - 1 .4, Wendy Le in, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator Plan. Comm. Minutes — July 8, 2009 5 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL f�`Y `, Tour of City - 6:00 - City Hall 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 8, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION • 1) Memo from Administrator a) Review Sign Ord options b) Capital Improvement Plan c) Presbyterian Homes Schedule — August 24, 2009 Joint Meeting d) Future Items Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) September Calendar b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules d) Council Meeting — July 6, 2009 e) Council Meeting — June 15, 2009 f) Council Meeting — July 20, 2009 g) Council Study Session — July 27, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS .. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda — August 12, 2009 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL k= 1 Tour of City - 6:00 - City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER at 7:14 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL All commissioners in attendance. Chair Hughes, Commissioners Tyler, Hoffman, Struck, Neve, Mason, Sippel. Administrator Brimeyer and Clerk Lewin, Council Rep Widmer. Hughes asked to hear comments about the tour from the commissioners. Mason said he was surprised at how little everyone really knew about the city. Hoffman said he believes people don't really understand what it takes to flush a toilet or turn on a faucet. Sippel said he was surprised to learn how difficult some issues will be because of right-of-ways and drainage. Struck was surprised at how many issues there seem to be. Tyler said in previous meetings they have talked about • changing the personality from a lake community to something more and the tour showed how difficult this will be. He said it will take a lot of money and they will take a lot of criticism. He wonders if they can get to those goals. He said he doesn't think we'll ever be a Wayzata and Excelsior. Neve said he enjoyed seeing how unique our city really is. He was surprised about some of the neighborhoods. Hughes said he was surprised at the amount of dead-end water lines and he's in favor of looping the water. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. Hughes wants to add under the miscellaneous section a moratorium discussion as subject matter. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 8, 2009 Sippel makes a motion and Mason seconds to approve the minutes of July 8, 2009. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 1) Memo from Administrator a) Review Sign Ord options Hughes asked how thoroughly the commissioners have had a chance to look through the options. Sippel said he found the Hopkins ordinance helpful to read through. He said Hopkins specifically excluded portable signs and changeable copy signs. Sippel said he assumes the changeable copy sign is the same as a dynamic sign. He said what caught his eye was the interchangeable wording signs. He said those portable signs are an eyesore in his opinion. Struck said she doesn't like the idea of dynamic signs because the community is too small. Struck said the League suggests a • moratorium in order to study this and she agrees. Hughes thinks the definitions need to be studied Plan. Comm. Minutes — August 12, 2009 1 and temporary signs need to be redefined. Struck said she wondered where to start talking about this and she said the League's model suggests to restate the purpose of the ordinance. Neve asked why we are studying signs when there doesn't seem to be an effective way of enforcing them. Hughes said it's gotten too loose and the signs currently out there are not being regulated. Hughes asked 40about a process to review the sign ordinance and where to start. Mason thinks they should maybe talk about each type of sign but Hughes wonders how to arrive at a drafted ordinance. Sippel said he thinks they need a process with a goal under a guiding principle. Hughes asked about a work session being set up in order to dig into this and work with Al Brixius. Brimeyer thinks it might be nice to identify issues and devote a full hour at the next planning commission meeting and ask Brixius to be here. Hughes thinks Brixius should have a draft ordinance to present to the commissioners. Sippel said he really likes Hopkins sign ordinance and Struck agrees. Brimeyer also thinks it's very good. Hughes said he likes parts of it. Brimeyer said this is a high priority with the council. Neve thinks we should talk about enforcement before we dive too far into it because otherwise it's a waste of their time. Hughes repeated, for the record, the Commissioners have a big concern about sign enforcement tactics and before a reconstruction of the sign ordinance commences, enforcement tactics need to be in place. Hughes reads from Brixius's memo and recommends the League's comments about putting forth a moratorium on dynamic signage in order to have a one year stall in order to study this. Hughes makes a motion and Struck seconds to recommend to the city council an implementation of a moratorium on any dynamic signs within the city for one year. All votes ayes, motion carries. Hughes said the bike rack has arrived and there is some thought about putting a picnic table and a trash receptacle down in the grassy area across from city hall. Mason asked about the signage for on the trail and Brimeyer said he hasn't heard anything yet. Mason asked about a possible sign for trail • parking in front of city hall. Brimeyer said what he hears is the commissioners like Hopkins' sign ordinance for the most part and thinks Brixius could customize it. Brimeyer asked about window signage and Struck thinks it could be regulated more. Not a complete elimination but a regulation on the square footage of it. b) Capital Improvement Plan Brimeyer said when looking at the list, Lift Station One is completed. He said Channel Road is coming to a close and the water treatment plant is complete. Brimeyer said he totaled all the street projects and it adds up to over $3 million but they are talking about doing one or two a year. Brimeyer said apparently there is an informal policy that the council won't do a street project unless the residents request it. He said if people know they have to ask for it and will have to pay for part of it they most likely won't come forward. Brimeyer is suggesting a storm water fee but it didn't go over very well. He's now trying to set up a storm water fund and that isn't going over very well either. Tyler asked what if a street needs to be repaired, would residents have to pay for that. Brimeyer said if there is a complete replacement done, the resident frequently pays something. Neve asked about who pays for water and sewer for new construction and Brimeyer said the city pays to the property line and the home owner pays from there. Brimeyer goes through the CIP and discusses the reasoning for the numbers. Hoffman doesn't want Sunset Drive sidewalks taken off the CIP. He feels it's necessary and even more so since the trail opened. Mason said when Sunset Drive was redone last year they did narrow the fog lines on the roadway in order to widen the shoulders. Brimeyer said streetlights might qualify for stimulus funds. Brimeyer said the CIP can be redone based on tonight's discussion. • Plan. Comm. Minutes — August 12, 2009 2 Hughes would like to go around the table to see if there are any items that should stay on or come off of the CIP. Hughes: Street sign replacement— no; radio meters, no; city hall remodel, yes. Neve: doesn't see too much. Thor Thompson playground upgrade, yes; Tyler: thinks to speak to safety and health, the lift station that has sewer back ups needs to be upgraded and he thinks that should be •very high on the priority list. Tyler says to leave everything on the CIP. Struck agrees with other commissioners. She said if residents have the threat to get sewage back up, that needs to be addressed. Struck thinks the playground could be looked at in a couple of years. She's interested in exploring the sidewalks on Sunset Drive as the pedestrian traffic is increasing. Struck wants clarification about fixing a street. Brimeyer said if someone wants a street reconstructed, they would have to come to city hall. Sippel said he thinks the things on the CIP are appropriate. He thinks the stormwater issue for Thor Thompson Park is a high priority item and should be moved up. He thinks the council chambers remodel should be moved up and he thinks Lift Two should be done. Sippel thinks in regards to streets, he wonders why Black Lake Road isn't the highest priority street on the list. Neve said everyone is worried about the replat because of the road placement. Hoffman questions the park and asked about depreciation accumulation. Brimeyer said the only place there's depreciation is water and sewer. Hoffman said the equipment is depreciated and he wondered about the playground equipment being depreciated. Hoffman asked if some of the park moneys can be funded through the park and recreation budget. Hoffman is in favor of setting up a savings account to put aside money for future improvements. Hoffman questions the street improvements and wonders if staff input and resident input could change these priorities. Sippel said with the streets, it makes sense to group roads as projects, such as Park Lane and Togo Road should be done together. Mason said in regards to health issues, his thinking is about drinking water and the dead end lines should be looped to get rid of sediment. Mason thinks city hall is a priority and fix the drainage ditch at Thor Thompson park. Hoffman thinks there might be Minnehaha Creek money if phosphorous removal proven. He said it seems as though health and safety, lumping the • street projects, city hall remodel, Thor Thompson Park and lift stations are all priorities that seem to reign highest. Struck said the CIP list speaks about roads but she wonders about the infrastructure and she thinks that's part of the safety factor that they are looking to prioritize. Brimeyer said he would like to summarize the comments tonight and he will send it out to the commissioners for their review and then forward the recommendation. Hughes asked if they agree on principle and Struck said yes but she thinks a strategy should be developed. Neve said Mound seems to take on huge areas of reconstruction projects and he wonders how they handle these large projects when Spring Park only seems to be able to look at one street at a time. Widmer said Mound is taking small chunks and they meet with the residents. Brimeyer thinks they are probably doing some bonding in order to fix the streets. Mason said it's always better to stage these projects. Mason said he would like to see what they have proposed here tonight. Brimeyer will take the PC suggestions and then modify the CIP accordingly. c) Presbyterian Homes Schedule — August 24, 2009 Joint Meeting Brimeyer said they are going to start at 7 p.m. and they'll be done by 8 p.m. Hughes said there will be a presentation to the council next Monday night and the commissioners are welcome to come to that. Brimeyer said the Development Review Committee met at city hall yesterday and the concept plan was discussed. He said issues were discussed and the list of things to do will be ready after Monday's meeting. Sippel said he noticed Williamson's comments in unapproved minutes regarding tax exempt status and he wants to make sure they aren't asking for tax exempt status. • d) Future Items Commercial Storage Plan. Comm. Minutes — August 12, 2009 3 Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses •6. COMMUNICATIONS a) September Calendar b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules d) Council Meeting — July 6, 2009 e) Council Meeting — June 15, 2009 f) Council Meeting — July 20, 2009 g) Council Study Session — July 27, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS Tyler said it would be helpful for him if there was a plan going into the year for goal setting. He thinks the focus should be on that. Tyler thinks there were some very valuable thought processes tonight and he would like to see this continue. He's looking at a couple of large goals that are measureable and trackable. He said he would feel like they're making more of a contribution and what the commissioners think is important and how they can help. Hughes said the CIP work was very valuable. He thinks this was very productive and they've got a lot of traction. Mason thinks goals are important and it would be nice to have some targets to shoot for and complete. Mason said Presbyterian Homes is going to muddy things but those things are to be expected. Hoffman said the commissioners could bring a short wish list to next meeting for items to work on. Hughes said because the PC is the park board, they should look to do some work on their vision for the parks. 8. ADJOURNMENT Sippel makes a motion and Neve econds to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wen ewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator Plan. Comm. Minutes — August 12, 2009 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 12, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Preliminary Plat and Rezone for Presbyterian Homes 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion & Comments a) Notice of Public Hearing b) Al Brixius' memo dated 9-3-09 with Accompanying Documents and Legal Description c) C-3 Health Care Facility District Ordinance Language . 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council b) Sign Permit Application 09-19S, 4700 Shoreline Drive, Certified Auto Repair 1 . Memo from Bob Kirmis/AI Brixius dated September 2, 2009 2. Draft Sign Ordinance w/samples i City of Spring Park Sign Ordinance c) Future Items - Revolving Capital Improvement Plan Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) October Calendar b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Council Meeting Minutes — August 17, 2009 d) Joint Meeting Minutes — August 24, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda — September 9, 2009 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Mason, Hoffman, Sippel, Hughes, Neve, Struck. Tyler is absent. Staff present is Council person Widmer, Clerk Lewin, Administrator Brimeyer, City Planner Brixius. In audience is Pam Belz and Jason McCarty as representatives of Presbyterian Homes and Mark Pleghaar, Certified Auto Repair. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Hoffman makes a motion and Sippel seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 12, 2009 Mason makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to approve the minutes of August 12, 2009. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Preliminary Plat and Rezone for Presbyterian Homes • 1. Open Public Hearing Hughes opens the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 2. Discussion & Comments a) Notice of Public Hearing b) Al Brixius' memo dated 9-3-09 with Accompanying Documents and Legal Description Brixius explained the redevelopment concept to the audience. Brixius said Presbyterian Homes is planning a rezoning from high density to General commercial. They are combining existing properties so they've been asked for plat drawings. He said there will be a construction staging plan review and there could also be application for conditional use because of building height. Brixius said the detailed site and building plan has not been prepared but, at this time, they want to pursue the rezone and replat. He said the change in zoning is from R3 to C3 but the range of uses are not going to change. Brixius said C3 allows elderly housing and will allow for non commercial uses not currently allowed in the R3 district. He said more detailed drawings will be provided in the future. Brixius went on to say parking is compliant, setbacks have been improved upon and they will likely reduce impervious surface on the site. The city's recent change to architectural standards have been shared with design staff and the change in zoning does not change the land use. Brixius said this redevelopment was anticipated and encouraged through the comprehensive plan. He said there is no significant impact on the peace and quiet of the surrounding area and the construction staging plan will give the city an opportunity to police the construction process. c) C-3 Health Care Facility District Ordinance Language Brixius continued by saying there is a two lot subdivision proposal and the final plat will clean up a few areas that are out of sync. Hoffman asked why two lots instead of one and Belz said the care center is kept separate because of state reimbursement rates. If it's included as one parcel it . becomes too difficult to satisfy the state requirements. Sippel asked if each lot conforms to the Planning Commission Minutes — September 9, 2009 1 impervious surface requirements. Hughes asked about curb cuts along Shoreline Drive and Jason McCarty, the surveyor, said there are four and they might reduce them to two. He said access to • County Road 15 has to be approved by the County. They might ask for additional right of way dedication. Hughes wondered about sidewalk reconstruction and Brimeyer said that gets addressed later but soon. Hughes thinks the curb cuts are not handicapped accessible. Neve asked about feedback from the individual homeowner in the middle of the campus. Belz said they will be meeting with him in the future in order to keep the access open and insure his ability to get in and out. Brixius said there are utility easements and they probably have to be re-routed or replaced. There probably will be some vacation of easements needed. He said rezoning is establishing land use that is more appropriate with the use. He said some conditions are outlined and should be added as part of the approval. He said there will be one addition and that is what looks like to be an old street vacation off Lafayette Road. Brixius said the park area exists because ownership is under contract for deed and they don't want to have to pay off the contracts. Mason asked how far out are the contracts and Belz said she's not sure. Mason asked for future vision of the park and Belz said nothing, at the moment. Hughes asked if the infrastructure has been located. Brimeyer said it's a mess but it's workable. He said it's because of the multiple buildings built at different times. Neve thinks the plat looks good but is concerned about the R-1 property in the middle. He wonders about the safety factor. Mason suggests a letter going to Doug Trask to invite him to future meetings. Neve asked about low income apartments being lost and Belz said they are market rate and Brixius said that means it's affordable. Struck asked about the process for relocation of residents. Belz said a letter was sent very preliminarily. Belz said she is working with 29 units. Sippel asked about Lot one and if there are changes. McCarty said the south line is different. Hughes asked when the sewer lines were put in and the thinking is in 11987. The question was raised about preliminary approval and whether the hearing is kept open or closed. Brixius said to close it with a recommendation to council but adding the condition to clean up the vacated platted road. Mason asked how many variances would be required and Brixius said there will be one for a party-wall agreements and impervious surface variance for the separate lot. Mason asked for a definition of a party wall and Brixius said it's a shared or common wall. Brimeyer wants to make sure the development agreement will state one lot cannot be sold independently of the other. Mason asked about the plat lines going into the lake. McCarty said it will with the highwater mark and be cleaned up with the final drawing. 3. Close Public Hearing Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to close the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. ■.......................................................0■■.............................■■ 4. Recommendation to Council Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to recommend a rezone from an R-3 High Density Residential to a C-3 Health Care Facility. Hughes asks if it's preliminary approval for the rezone and Brimeyer said yes, the motion was on rezone. All votes ayes, motion carries. Brimeyer said now they will be asking for a motion for the preliminary plat. Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to approve the preliminary plat removing item #1 from the list of • conditions (The preliminary plat should be expanded to 'RGlude the pFivate park as a lot OF outlet Planning Commission Minutes — September 9, 2009 2 within this subdiViSOGR Fequest) and add either a new number or substituting item #1 with the removal of the vacated road at the end of Lafayette Lane. Sippel asked about the party wall and the need for a variance and wondered if that was part of this or part of the development agreement. Sippel wants to make sure that language is in there about parcels not being sold separately. All votes in favor. motion carries. belz said there will be an open house torum on September 16, 2009 ana ine notice was sent to everyone in SP. b) Sign Permit Application 09-19S, 4700 Shoreline Drive, Certified Auto Repair 1. Memo from Bob Kirmis/AI Brixius dated September 2, 2009 2. Draft Sign Ordinance w/samples i City of Spring Park Sign Ordinance Hughes asked Brixius to explain the sign application. Brixius said application was received from Certified Auto to construct a monument sign located along CR 15. Landscaping will be included on the south side of the parking lot. Brixius said the applicant already has four wall signs and all signs were properly permitted and located. Brixius said in his review the free standing sign is allowed as long as it is located on the property, it's less than 30 feet in height and less than 200 feet. Brixius said the wall signs have exceeded the size. He said he thinks the request is reasonable and it will replace a lot of smaller signs. Brixius said the caution is there will then be five signs allowed. Brimeyer said this property has been an issue and while looking through the file everything is in compliance except for the landscaping. Brimeyer said there was a lot of disagreement about what the actual landscaping plan should be. Brimeyer said he has now received another landscaping plan and the walls signs all have been legally permitted. Brixius said the sign code can occupy up to 20% • of the gross silhouette. He suggests to grandfather the four wall signs because they are small and allow the requested sign along with the new landscaping. Hoffman asked about precedent setting. Brixius said the PC is revisiting the sign components and wall signs might need to be revisited. Hughes asked about the four signs. Hughes said one of the signs is on a separate lot. Sippel asked about the Marina Carwash. He wondered if they are treated as separate businesses. Sippel thinks this is no different than across the street in the mall where there are several businesses with different signage. Brimeyer said if someone else owned the carwash, everything would be legal. Brimeyer explained the concept for the landscaping plan. The plants will be hardy and have to be maintained. Mason asked about snow storage. Mason suggested some permanent type pine trees along the trail to block the view. Struck thinks it's a good addition. Struck thinks the building is unique because of the jutting part of the building. Brixius wondered if they should raise the monument from four feet to six feet to prevent snow wash. Hughes said the monument itself is separate and Brixius said it should be considered as one. Sippel said the PC should make the decision on the sign and let the applicant figure out the monument. Hughes asked for a motion to accept. Neve asked about the east sign and if it's being vacated. Pleghaar said the east sign is staying as is. Hoffman makes a motion and Struck seconds to approve the applicant's sign as submitted. Mason asked Brimeyer to do the follow up on the landscape plan and act as an advocate for this. Sippel asks for stipulation of the removal of the temporary sign and Pleghaar said it's being removed. All votes unanimous. Motion carries. c) Future Items - Revolving Capital Improvement Plan • Commercial Storage Fences Planning Commission Minutes — September 9, 2009 3 Expansion of Non-conforming Uses • Brixius said the discussion has already been for temporary signs and there has been some sample ordinances for campus signage. Brixius said the enclosed draft ordinance is totally changeable. He said they want to accommodate temporary signs to promote business. Brixius said for temporary signs that can sometimes be placed on private property, not visible from road right-of-way, a process for permitting needs to be established. Hughes thinks the 32 square feet being suggested for temporary banners is too small and should be increased to around 60 feet. Struck asked about the number of temporary signs allowed and Brixius asked if they are open to this or want to limit it. Struck thinks it should be limited. Brixius suggested one sign for one business. Brimeyer asked if the distinction could be made from portable signs and banner signs being temporary. Brixius suggests the PC look at the samples and digest and edit the draft ordinance he supplied. Brixius said it sounds as though there are diverse ideas among the PC. Sippel has a comment on the definition of the dynamic sign and he wants the definition to be specific. Sippel said a time and temperature sign would be dynamic and a scrolling LED is not as obtrusive as a flashing "dynamic" sign. Sippel is more concerned about the large dynamic signage and the impact upon close residential districts in our city. Brixius said different cities handle it differently. Some cities are only concerned with setbacks. Hughes asked if the sign moratorium has been adopted and Brimeyer confirmed. Brixius said to pull the draft ordinance apart and put it back together. Brimeyer said he wants it specific and enforceable. Neve wants to preserve the lake community feel and he doesn't want to promote a Las Vegas type strip through the city. Brimeyer said he has met with Mnspect about enforcing the sign ordinance and there has been some money added to the budget. Mason asked Spring Park Auto and if they've moved forward on the base for the sign. Brimeyer stated it's at a stand still. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) October Calendar b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Council Meeting Minutes —August 17, 2009 d) Joint Meeting Minutes —August 24, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Sippel made a motion and Neve seconded to adjourn at 9:03 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. We dy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator • Planning Commission Minutes — September 9, 2009 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 9, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Rezone for Presbyterian Homes 1 . Memo from City Planner dated September 3, 2009 b) Public Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit for on-site day care for Presbyterian Homes 1 . Memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 • c) Public Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit for a height of 60 feet from the allowed 40 feet 1 . Memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 d) Public Hearing Re: Variance for reduced side and rear setbacks for Presbyterian Homes 1. Memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 e) Building and Site Plan Review for Presbyterian Homes 1. See memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 2. See memo from City Engineer dated October 8, 2009 f) Sign Permit Applications — 4636 Shoreline Drive g) Future Items Sign Ordinance Capital Improvement Plan Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses • Plan. Comm. Agenda — October 14, 2009 1 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) November Calendar — Note meeting date change to Nov 12, 2009 b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Council Meeting Minutes — September 8, 2009 d) Council Meeting Minutes — September 21, 2009 e) Study Session Minutes — September 28, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • Plan. Comm. Agenda — October 14, 2009 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK U . SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES • PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7 pm Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Mason, Hoffman, Sippel, Neve, Struck, Administrator Brimeyer, Planner Brixius, Clerk Lewin, Ex-Officio Widmer, members of Presbyterian Homes, Jason McCarty, Wyzorik Wyzorik, Pam Belz, Rob Lahammer. Tyler absent. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Sippel makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 9, 2009 Hughes said on page two of the minutes, item number 4, Lewin was asked to insert appropriate language. Mason makes a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Struck seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION • a) Public Hearing Re: Rezone for Presbyterian Homes 1. Memo from City Planner dated September 3, 2009 Hughes explained this was the same public hearing as before but the surrounding property owners were not previously noticed. Hughes reads the public hearing notice and Lewin said nothing has been submitted or received in writing. Hughes opens the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and notes no one in attendance. Hoffman makes a motion and Sippel seconds to close the public hearing portion for the rezone at 7:06 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Hughes makes a motion and Sippel seconds to recommend to the city council to change the existing zoning from an R- 3 High Density district to a C-3 Health Care Facility district. All votes ayes, motion carries with a unanimous roll call. b) Public Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit for on-site day care for Presbyterian Homes 1. Memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 Hughes reads the public hearing notice and Lewin confirms no written comments were received regarding the day-care proposal. Hughes opens the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Mason asked if this is the day-care for the children or the adults and Belz says it currently exists on the site and Lahammer said it's infant to preschool. Hughes asked if state requirements are reflected in the plan and Belz said they've defined the space needs but they are working on the details of the needs of the day care. She said the new location will give them more square footage. She said 3800 square feet will be allotted for the day care and the maximum enrollment will be 52 children. Hughes said he questions this because he is familiar with day care requirements as he's working on a church project that is accommodating a day care facility. Sippel makes a motion and Mason seconds to close • the public hearing portion for the day care at 7:12 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Brixius Plan. Comm. Minutes — October 14, 2009 1 said in reviewing the day care he refers to his planning report. Brixius illustrated where the proposed day care will be located He said there is a single family home also located in the vicinity. He said they've asked PH for hours of operation because there were concerns about drop off and pick ups. Brixius said signage can be posted to deflect short-term parking. Mason thinks people will be driven • by convenience and not what they're told to do. Neve said if they use the most convenient place to park shouldn't it be changed to make it safer. Wyzorik, the architect from PH says because of the grade change there is a retaining wall and there is a couple foot drop off. Sippel asked about a railing and maybe extending it to prevent crossing. Hughes asked if the parking has a time limit on it and Wyzorik confirmed. Mason asked why a door couldn't be put in and Wyzorik said it's because of the grade change. Neve said when getting out of the vehicle and then walking down a grade it could be dangerous. Mason asked about the specific distance and Wyzorik says 75 foot to 80 foot range. Mason is concerned about snow, ice and cold. He wonders about a heated sidewalk. Neve asked Lahammer if they are okay with the parking location. Lahammer said they are so excited to have the new space. Wyzorik said it has a 1/20 slope. For every 20 feet it drops one foot so railings are not even required. Mason asked if the daycare is run by PH and Lahammer confirmed. Brixius went over his list of recommendations as mentioned in his accompanying memo. He said it must be state licensed, the driveway signed no parking and no drop off, hours of operation M-F, 6 to 6 with no overnight care. Hughes asked about hours of operation and Lahammer said 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Hughes is concerned about layover time and Lahammer said it's rare. Belz said she has met with the single family resident (Doug Trask) and he did not express any concerns. Neve asked about the eight spaces on the south part of the assisted living and he asked if they are designated parking for day care parking and Belz said no, it's employee parking. Mason asked how long a drop off actually takes. Lahammer said about five minutes. Mason wondered if there was adequate parking for congested drop off times. Lahammer said they exceed the required parking. • Brixius said they are looking for approval with the recommended conditions mentioned in his memo. Brimeyer said it's conditions in the Planner's memo with the signage that is being recommended by Brixius. Sippel asked about street signage, especially when the access is reduced to one entrance. Hoffman makes a motion to approve the CUP for the day care with the hours of operation being 6 to 6 M-F, to add no parking signs along south retaining wall and the facility be licensed by the State. Mason seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. c) Public Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit for a height of 60 feet from the allowed 40 feet 1. Memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 Hughes opens the public hearing at 7.41 p.m. Hughes asked Brixius to go through the details. Brixius said the new elevations represent town center, assisted living and areas of new construction. He said when looking at existing buildings, they are not moving and the new construction has extraordinary setbacks from existing properties. He said when looking at the south elevation it is four stories plus a walk out so from the lake it will look like five stories. He said it will be 60 feet to the peaked roof. He said it's a conditional use versus a variance because it's difficult to prove hardship. He said they are looking for adequate water pressure and fire protection access. He said there are letters affirming this in the packet. Brixius said its the visual impact of the building height and, when looking at it, it has a dominating effect but when looking at it as a whole, there are softening measures with landscaping and distances to other buildings. Brixius said this allows for greater separation. Brixius believes the building height has been satisfied and staff is recommending approval. He said the only condition is adequate water pressure. Sippel asked about the 50 feet to the flat part of the roof and wondered if that's from the lowest ground elevation. Brixius confirmed. • Sippel said the real heights are taking in the peaks. Mason asked if there is rooftop equipment and Brixius confirmed. Brixius said this will be addressed on the site and building plan as rooftop Plan. Comm. Minutes — October 14, 2009 2 equipment must be screened. Mason asked about the elevator stack and Wyzorik said it will be up slightly but the peaks will offer screening. Hughes asked about 4527 building from County Road 15 and how much higher that will be. Wyzorik said it's one story or ten feet higher. Mason asked if they are building up because it eliminates hardcover and adds more greenspace and Brixius confirmed. • Mason asked about roof runoff and Wyzorik said it is internal drainage from the flat roof. Hoffman said if they don't have the gables they almost wouldn't need the CUP so the gables add architectural interest and are a plus as far as he's concerned. Mason said he's concerned about complaints that might come in the future concerning noise from rooftop equipment and then modifications being made with substandard equipment thereby making the problem worse in some ways. Hoffman makes a motion and Struck seconds to close the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Mason asked how many elevators and Wyzorik said two. Hughes said he doesn't feel the recommendation language is strong enough. He said he proposes the word "should" needs to be changed to "will" be." Belz stated for clarification the building plans submitted with this submission are conceptual and the permitting plans submitted will be more specific. She said they aren't market rate developers and are not leaving town. Hughes said he has concerns about previous projects and asked for Widmer's thoughts. Widmer said she's comfortable with the fact that the rooftop equipment will be concealed and hidden. Widmer said they are experienced from The Mist project and the council will ask good questions. Brixius recommends approval for the height exception and asks that amended language of item #14 in his memo as a condition of the approval. Hughes asked where the height measurements were being taken from. Brixius said the height is taken from the average grade of the site location. Hughes said if that same formula is applied, he wonders if that would change. Hughes makes a motion to recommend to the council approval of the CUP for a height of 60 feet from the allowed 40 feet with the addition on page 14 of Brixius's 10-8-09 memo and with the following changes: page 14, number 14, the word "should" after satellite dishes changes • to "will" and the last sentence should say "...must be illustrated on building plans `and approved by city council"'. Sippel seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries by unanimous roll call. d) Public Hearing Re: Variance for reduced side and rear setbacks for Presbyterian Homes 1. Memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 Hughes opens the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Brixius said this was discussed with the preliminary plat last month. He said two lots are being created, lot one and lot two. He said this will result in a zero lot line arrangement. He said it's necessary to keep them separate due to the taxing implications. Sippel asked about the party wall construction and if it's going to be a side-by-side wall. Wyzorik said the construction type would ask for a double wall but because they're both non combustible. Hughes asked about the foundation tie-in. Wyzorik said it won't bear because there will be separate footings. Hughes is concerned about the legal filing of this document. Brixius said these will be deed recordings and will have to be filed. Shared parking is an easement and is a recorded document that will show up in the title. Hoffman makes a motion to close the public hearing and Sippel seconds at 8:22 p.m. Mason makes a motion to approve the side and year yard set backs for lots one or two with conditions that the deed be recorded and the four conditions listed on page 15 of Brixius's October 8th memo are included. Hoffman thinks condition number one could be challenged in court and he thinks if the maker of the motion would amend to eliminate condition one and go with condition number two instead. Brixius said there are two properties with two individual property • descriptions and would that hold up. Neve asked for a definition of party wall and Brixius said it's common property owned by two different parties. Mason accepts that friendly amendment. Plan. Comm. Minutes — October 14, 2009 3 Sippel seconds the motion but doesn't second the friendly amendment. He feels it's up to the lawyers to make the decision. Hughes said Hoffman has offered an amendment to the motion to eliminate condition number one. Hughes asks three times for a second on the friendly amendment. The original motion stands. Hughes said he expects the attorneys will look at this carefully. Roll • unanimous ayes, motion carries. e) Building and Site Plan Review for Presbyterian Homes 1. See memo from City Planner dated October 8, 2009 2. See memo from City Engineer dated October 8, 2009 Brimeyer said this isn't the last time they will see this. This is the time to get questions answered. Brixius explains the site plan and said they've discussed a lot of this already. Hughes asked about existing parking and Brixius said he'll get to it. Hughes asked how high the parking lights are and Brixius said they are 20 feet from the top of the pole to the top of the box, not the bottom of the box. Struck is concerned about adequate lighting especially around the day care area and winter darkness. Wyzorik said more lighting could be added such as a wall pack in that area. Struck asked if there are other areas that could benefit from added lighting. Hughes would like all the lighting fixtures illustrated in the future. He would also like to see the street lights on Shoreline Drive illustrated. Neve asks for an actual lighting plan and not just a photometric plan. Struck is concerned about the safe environment. Brixius said the next component is the landscape plan with plant selection and sizes. Green space must be irrigated and he feels the landscape plan along Shoreline Drive has been generous. He said the west property line has been vegetated and screened. He said Watershed approval is needed for the proposed rain garden. Brixius said they have a proof of parking plan. Hughes said whatever is planted on Shoreline Drive he would like to make sure they are salt hardy. Mason asked if there is a warranty on the landscape. McCarty said there usually is a one year warranty. Mason suggested • there be a landscaping escrow kept in place longer than one year. Lahammer said landscaping is a tremendous asset to their campus and they are very diligent about maintaining it. Hughes asked about the existing parking of 391 stalls and how often it is full. Lahammer said only during a special event. Wyzorik said to remember they are removing two apartment buildings. Brixius explained the construction staging plan. He said the demolition locations have been defined and areas will be fenced for security, access points and parking. Resident access is illustrated and construction parking. Brixius said traffic control and product delivery needs to be identified during peak hours. He said signage is needed for traffic control and there might be restricted hours for the private enjoyment of the neighborhood. Brixius understands a final draft will be forthcoming in November. He said as part of additional requirements, under lighting they can add additional lighting on the sidewalk to the daycare, the lighting plan should show existing lights, and on Shoreline Drive require the landscape plan to call out salt hardy plantings. Hughes thought this was a no action item. Brixius is asking for endorsement of items on pages 12, 13 and 14 and the additions so everyone has a list to work from. Hughes asked about the curb cuts on Shoreline Drive and said the elevation changes are difficult. He thinks it would be nice to get the sidewalk level. McCarty asked if it was due to settlement and Hughes confirmed. He said it's a safety issue. Belz said they will check it out. McCarty said there is one curb cut at the entrance to the care center and that is going away. He said they'll extend the sidewalk and they'll have to extend the retaining wall too. Struck asked about the sidewalk along Shoreline Drive and when the demo happens she wonders about safety regulations being exercised. Hughes asked about a construction fence and Brixius illustrated where the fences will be installed. Wyzorik said there are employee and resident meetings that are keeping everyone informed. Sippel asked about the parking lot layouts and asked if underground parking stays. Lahammer said the Court and Villa has underground parking. Sippel asked where the designated Plan. Comm. Minutes — October 14, 2009 4 parking is. Belz said there is one apartment building remaining and the parking area for them is outside the construction zone. Sippel asked about designated guest parking. Brixius said there will be adequate parking for all. Mason asked about the vacation of that part of Lafayette Road and Belz • explained it's a lengthy process and the city has the right to it as long as it is used for public purpose. Brimeyer said a motion could be made tonight to approve and forward this now. Hughes said he'd like to see it again. Brimeyer said they could review it on November 12tn with submission to the council on November 16tn. Belz said they've spent a lot of time going through this already last week. She felt most things have been addressed already. She said the final detail on the rain garden hasn't been finished yet and the trash enclosure hasn't been designated yet. She feels it's minor. Belz said PH has two vans and are looking for designated parking for those vehicles. Hughes asked about the additional things added tonight. Belz said those suggestions for additional lighting are acceptable and they will add these items. Belz said there isn't that much that will change. Hughes said his comfort zone is he'd like to see this again but he can come in independently to look at it. Brimeyer said PH wants to know nothing else big will come up so they can then move on to their final plan. They want to be assured there aren't any major changes forthcoming. Struck thinks it can go either way. She said if they really want to look at it again they should be able to look at it again. Neve is concerned about the daycare and the safety issues. He thinks this needs to be looked at carefully. Hughes is concerned as well. He thinks the play area and the proximity to the parking can be a problem. Neve thinks this could be a poor plan and a potential for future lawsuits. Belz said a more detailed plan could be submitted for the daycare area to satisfy concerns. Brimeyer thinks if these are the concerns, the plans should come back on November. Brimeyer said they will prepare a staff report and if the PC is satisfied on the 12tn of November it could go to the council on the 16cn Brixius said he wants an endorsement of the changes. Hughes makes a motion that the PC agrees and preliminarily approves the site and building plan with the items listed in Brixius's • report on pages 12, 13 and 14 and additional items of a more complete lighting plan, the comments on the salt hardy landscape plantings and concern over the safety of the child care center. Sippel seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. Hoffman recaps that the recommendations will be moved forward and the process will not be held up. Hoffman asked Belz if this will delay two more weeks to their plan and Belz said they were thinking it could have been reviewed as soon as November 2nd but it will have to go to the 16tn. She said it doesn't delay the overall plan however. Neve asked if the day care consultant could come to the next meeting and Lahammer said he would see if that's possible. Two minute break. f) Sign Permit Applications —4636 Shoreline Drive Hughes said there are a couple of memo's attached for these signs. Brimeyer said Tonka Auto and Marine needs to do a number of things and one is a sign permit. He said they made application for the sign and it was noticed there were other signs at the property and those signs needed to be resolved. As a result the other business came in for a sign application but the sign application got misplaced. It wasn't included in the packet but it was later located. Hughes asked what is going on the pylon wall sign and Gillispie said just the logo. Hughes asked if it's a lighted sign and Gillispie said it's interiorly lighted. Hughes said to take the Tonka Auto Marine first. Mason asked if they work out of the back. Gillispie said they are in the front on the right and there are a couple of other small businesses that operate out of the top. Brixius said there are no problems with the requested signs. He said there is a condition that the temporary dock service sign be removed and the zoning administrator report was Plan. Comm. Minutes — October 14, 2009 5 attached and they have to fulfill those obligations as well. Struck makes a motion to approve the Tonka Auto and Marine sign permits. Mason seconds. Sippel asked for the conditions. Brixius said with the dock service sign they have to remove a temporary sign permit currently up. All votes in favor all ayes, motion carries. Struck makes a motion to approve the dock service application with the condition that the current temporary signage is removed immediately. Sippel seconds. All votes in favor, motion carries. g) Future Items Sign Ordinance Brixius said there hasn't been anything done on the sign ordinance since the last time the PC met. Hughes said on the council September 21st minutes on page three, in the middle, there is a typo and it should read 350 "feet" not "property owners." Capital Improvement Plan Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) November Calendar — Note meeting date change to Nov 12, 2009 b) 2009 Building and Sign Permit to-date c) Council Meeting Minutes — September 8, 2009 d) Council Meeting Minutes — September 21, 2009 e) Study Session Minutes — September 28, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes thanks Doug Sippel for his time on the PC and wishes him luck on his new appointment to the council. He reminded Sippel he should submit his resignation for the PC. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adjourn at 9:47 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. r We Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator Plan. Comm. Minutes — October 14, 2009 6 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 14, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Variance to side yard setbacks — 4341 Channel Road b) Public Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales — Tonka Auto/Marine and • Rassett Enterprises — 4636 Shoreline Drive c) Application for Sign Permit — Certified Auto — 4700 Shoreline Drive d) Application for Sign Permit — ReMax — 4154 Shoreline /Drive e) Building and Site Plan Review for Presbyterian Homes f) Final Plat — Presbyterian Homes g) Finding of Compliance — Presbyterian Homes Development h) Thor Thompson Park - Update i) Future Items Sign Ordinance Capital Improvement Plan Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses • Plan. Comm. Agenda — November 12, 2009 1 6. COMMUNICATIONS • a) Council Meeting Minutes — October 5, 2009 b) Council Meeting Minutes — October 19, 2009 c) Study Session Minutes — October 26, 2009 d) DRAFT Council Meeting Minutes — November 2, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT 60 I * Plan. Comm. Agenda — November 12, 2009 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL Public Hearing 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chair Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Struck, Tyler, Hughes, Neve, Hoffman, Mason, Council member Widmer, Administrator Brimeyer, Clerk Lewin, Planner Brixius, representatives of Presbyterian Home and various people in the audience. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. Hughes makes a friendly amendment to add under miscellaneous to select an alternate chair. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 14, 2009 Mason makes a motion and Hoffman 0onds to approve the minutes. All votes in favor, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Hughes said the commissioners are appointed by the council to serve on the commission. He said they review evidence and formulate a recommendation and their decisions are advisory. He said it's important to review applications presented to the commission based upon the law within the codes. He said they can't change the codes as part of the review process. Hughes said they also conduct public hearings to insure opportunity to present testimony in support of a project. a) Public Hearing Re: Variance to side yard setbacks — 4341 Channel Road Mason makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to open the public hearing for Channel Road Variance. All votes ayes, motion carries. Hughes reads the public hearing notice and Lewin confirmed nothing was received in writing. Brixius outlined the request for construction of a new home at 4341 Channel Road. He described the existing home and where it is positioned on the lot. He said the applicant is proposing to build a new home after demolition of the existing home. He said all setbacks would be compliant except for the two foot variance being requested eight feet from the east property line. Brixius explained certain criteria must be met for variance. There must be an adequate supply of light and air and a proven hardship. Brixius said the degree of current non conformity will be reduced and he believes the air and light concern has been addressed. He said the home will be a single family home so will not contribute to street congestion. There will be no diminished values as the property will be improved. Brixius went on to say the comprehensive plan 0 ourages reinvestment in the current housing stock. Brixius said that special special umstances is another criteria. He said the property has a width of 50 feet and it's approximately 9,000 square feet. There are no topographical conditions. Brixius said there is not physical hardship Plan. Comm. Minutes — November 12, 2009 1 when looking at those criteria. Brixius said there are two opportunities, one to grant the variance or the other to narrow the proposed structure. Hughes asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on the variance request. Steve Vertnik, • 4333 Channel Road asked about the width of the lot without the monuments being located. Vertnik said both neighboring properties have surveys but he is concerned the fact that there is no survey done on the property. Property owner Keisatalo stated there was a partial survey done about six years ago and the corner markers were put in because he put up a fence. Keisatalo said the request is due to the increase in size of the entry and stairway and without a variance it makes for a narrow hallway and stairway. He stated this is going to be a retirement home and he is thinking about future access. He is looking for increased width to accommodate the hallway. Vertnik said the one property owner to the west is definitely gaining by relocating the new house. Russ Embertson, the builder working with the property owner, said a survey would make it official. He said if it's determined the lot is narrower than they think, the house would have to be narrowed. Embertson said 210 square feet of the existing home now is non conforming and they would be reducing the non conformity by two thirds to about 70 square feet. He said they are looking to improve the property. Vertnik asked how big the house is and Embertson said the main floor is just under 1500 square feet. Vertnik said once the house is taken down it becomes not a lot of record. Brixius said it remains a lot of record but when the house is taken down it must meet setbacks. Hughes said he heard about this variance application and he asked for the survey. He indicated to Lewin that a survey should accompany this or he can't support it. Hughes feels there are no accurate numbers to deal with. He said it meets city goals but without a survey there is no way to look at the facts. Hughes said they could close the public hearing and if they do, they must submit their recommendation to the city council and they must act within 30 days on their recommendation. He said an option would be a motion to continue the public hearing until a survey is presented. He said another option can be a motion to recommend approval of the two foot variance or a motion to recommend denial to the council. Hughes asked is there are questions of the commissioners. Tyler asked where the building is on the east side. Brixius said the home on the east side is legal non conforming also and closer to the side yard then allowed. Struck asked about the impervious surface calculation and Keisatalo thinks it would be about 33%. Tyler wondered why they are repositioning the new construction closer to the east when they can keep the nonconformity on the west side. Hoffman said the absence of the survey doesn't weigh into the variance. He said they are voting on whether they need to meet the eight foot or ten foot setback. He believes it's up to the building inspector to determine if the house fits according to a survey. Neve asked if they are required to have a survey for a variance application because he had to have one when he applied. Hughes stated they are required. Mason asked what the hardship is and wonders if it's the stairway. Hughes said when this goes to the council for their decision, it requires a majority vote. Brixius thinks the option to pursue is to table this and come back with a survey. Struck asked Vertnik if the issue is the lack of survey or the variance request. Vertnik said it's both. Mason thinks a variance could be allowed because of a hardship and he doesn't see the hardship. Neve asked if he's going to build the house either way and Keisatalo said yes, more than likely. Neve thinks he needs a survey. Hughes suggests they can move to continue the public hearing and they can come back. Brixius said they'll check on the application date and if it's close to the 60 days they'll extend it to 120 days. Brixius thinks they are looking for an opportunity to follow the variance request. Hoffman believes the job of the commission is to decide if a variance is allowable or not regardless of� whether a survey is present or not. Hughes makes a motion and Mason seconds to continue the Plan. Comm. Minutes — November 12, 2009 2 public hearing until December's Planning Commission meeting at which time a survey will be presented for review. Rollcall: Struck, No; Tyler, yes; Neve, yes; Hughes, yes; Hoffman, no, I *n, yes. Motion carries. b) Public Hearing Re: Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales — Tonka Auto/Marine and Rassett Enterprises — 4636 Shoreline Drive No written comments received. Brixius stated a CUP has been received for outdoor sales. He said it's zoned C-1 therefore it requires a CUP permit. Brixius said currently there is a dock display and there wasn't a permit for this structure. They are now attempting to rectify that and relocate the display. Brixius explained that where the dock display sits now they propose some outdoor sales. He stated they are looking to display snowmobiles, ATVs, PWC's and small motorcraft. Brixius stated they have to maintain a ten foot right-of-way setback. Brixius said the monuments need to be established with posts to be able to see where the setbacks are. Brixius said they are looking for bollards or painting the perimeters to insure compliance. He said they are looking for 24 foot drive aisle for access to the back of the building for fire access. Brixius said there hasn't been any additional lighting but they have required 90 degree cutoff lights and displays. He said they are meeting conditions and they are asking for further conditions. Brixius said the city is asking for a list of materials being displayed; the ten foot setback from Shoreline Drive; painted lines or corner posts indicated; and a 24 foot drive aisle maintained, down lighting and grass or improved surface. Mason makes a motion and Hughes seconds to open the public hearing. Hughes asks if anyone in the audience has anything to say. Hoffman makes a motion to close the public hearing, Neve seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. Mason asked the property owner about the west side of the property where there is dirt on the hill and *ion. Marc Gillette, property owner, states there are some plans for improving the area. He stated th-re has been some discussion about a partial wall between the west property owner and the new lease holders. Gillette said at a minimum there might be some grass planted. Mason asked if something can be done about the dirt washing away. Gillette said he talks with Bennyhoff routinely and they've talked about paving that area. Tyler asked about the surface material being requested and Brixius explained it can be paved and grassed. Hughes said at the last meeting they approved a sign for Tonka Auto and Marine. Hughes asked about the square footage of the triangular display piece. Kelli Gillespie of Tonka Auto and Marine said it's not much but they can display two, three, maybe four snowmobiles. She said it's for visibility for what they have for sale. Mason verifies that before they are allowed the display they are going to have to mark the area and Brixius stated yes, that's what is being requested. Tyler asked what the improvement is. Brixius said the property owner has done a nice job about enhancing the building. He said as far as outdoor display, what's being proposed is a small area. Brixius said outdoor display shows there's a presence. But, he said it can get out of hand as well. He said they try and build in the protections so they operate within the perimeters. Gillespie said the items displayed for sale will be brought inside after hours. Hoffman makes a motion and Struck seconds to approve the CUP with the recommendations as referred to in the city planner's memo. All votes ayes, motion carries. c) Application for Sign Permit — Certified Auto — 4700 Shoreline Drive Brixius explained this is to replace an existing wall sign. He stated last month there were other signs Ibwere approved and this sign tonight is the west elevation sign. He said the total sign area is ut 61 square feet and it's an improvement over existing conditions. He said it represents less than 20% of the wall space. Tyler asked how it improves and enhances and Brixius said it's an improvement from what is presently there. Hughes asked Pleghaar about the construction of the Plan. Comm. Minutes — November 12, 2009 3 sign. Pleghaar said it's back lit with cans inside the sign. Struck thinks the recent signs also match what is being proposed tonight and they go well together. Struck makes a motion and Neve seconds to approve the signage for Certified Auto Repair as outlined in Brixius's memo. All votes ayes, motion carries. d) Application for Sign Permit — ReMax — 4154 Shoreline /Drive Brixius explained this is a sign application to replace temporary signage. He said the south elevation is proposing a 15 x 84 inch sign with a total of 8.75 square feet. He said the east elevation is similar and total combination is about 16.5 square feet. He said there is frontage on two city streets and they are well within the guidelines of the permanent signs. Hughes asked about the property owner's signature. Hughes makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to approve the requested signage to include the signature of the property owner. All votes ayes, motion carries. e) Building and Site Plan Review for Presbyterian Homes Hughes said the PC and council have had several meetings with preliminary approvals and this is the wrap up of questions and to reaffirm the suggestions have been addressed. Brixius explained to the commissioners that the report is what is going to the city council. He said he will go through this briefly. He said previously approved was the zero lot line variance for the town center with the conditions of establishing a binding recordable easement or establishment of a party wall for long- term maintenance. Hughes asked about what was chosen. Brixius said they've received language for a party wall agreement. Brimeyer said this has been drafted and approved by the city attorney. Hughes said the party wall agreement was presented that there are two walls and he wonders about shared utilities between the two when it comes to sprinkler systems and plumbing. Pam Belz said the party wall agreement addresses the usage between the two buildings. They aren't aware of any shared utilities between the two. The major mechanicals are separate. Brixius said the next approved resolution was the building height. He said recommendations by the • fire chief are to be incorporated, rooftop equipment be screened from the lake and rooftop equipment will be identified. If any equipment is visible from the street they need approval. Brixius said a CUP is necessary for the child care. He said the conditions include hours of operation are from 6 am to 6 pm, no overnights, fire lanes will be signed, additional lighting will be added to the SW corner and the day care shall be subject to state standards and shall be licensed. Brixius said the site and building plan had a number of issues raised at the last meeting. He said the PC requested a revised photometric plan and the elements missing on the buildings are now illustrated and are sufficient for along the sidewalks and passageways. Brixius said additional lighting has been provided for the approach to the day care. He said street lights have been illustrated and light levels are called out. Brixius said the conditions for stormwater management shall be approved by staff and the MCWD, street lighting shall be illustrated, additional day care lighting, the landscape plan and final details of rain garden and grading plan were discussed. He said missing elements are the rain garden in the sw corner of the site and they are asking for more detail. He said there will be grading north of the swimming pool so they are looking for tree preservation. Brixius said new language in the code states trash enclosures require a mandatory masonry construction but their other enclosures are wood construction and they are looking for uniformity. The applicant is looking for a different location for trash enclosure. Brixius said proof of parking remains a condition in case of necessity. They must comply with all fire dimensions, turnarounds and fire lanes. There are signs at the entrances and they want to allow the free standing sign to continue to exist to show the day care entrance. He said Plan. Comm. Minutes — November 12, 2009 4 the plat review is subject to Hennepin County. Hughes asked about the size of the sign and wondered about if they are replacing a sign versus adding a new sign. Brixius said the current sign is � match. Brixius said they are looking for continuity. Belz said they aren't increasing the number gns, they're just replacing the sign to look uniform. Dawn Wyzorek, Architect, shows an illustration for the day care showing more detail. She said signs for day care drop off would be provided for the ten drop off parking spots. She said the soft play area will be fenced and it's inside the retaining wall and there are two gates that will be locked. Neve asked about the private residence. Wyzorek illustrated where the residence is and mentioned there is a cross easement for the private residence. Neve asked about safety factors for the sidewalk including some sort of surface treatment. Wyzork thinks it's a brushed finish like on the Stillwater example. She said they could consider that option. Hughes said he is looking for a motion to recommend approval of the site and building plan for Presbyterian Homes adding to item 4f a cross easement and in item 8 that this is a replacement sign and item 7b changing the word from "shall to will". Hughes makes the motion. Hoffman seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries unanimously. f) Final Plat — Presbyterian Homes Brixius said the final plat was received and it is consistent with preliminary plat. A ten foot utility easement on the periphery was requested. He said they've asked for drainage and utility easements over wetlands and Brixius asked for anything over the lake. They are recommending approval of the final plat. Hughes makes a motion to recommend to city council the approval of the final plat with the conditions illustrated. Neve seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries unanimously. g) Finding of Compliance — Presbyterian Homes Development of TIF consistent with the Comp Plan. Brixius said the Planning Commission is directed to make an evaluation for consistency. He said a letter is attached from Pam Belz that outlines the comp plan goals and how it is consistent. Brixius stated in areas of multiple family housing this area has been identified for redevelopment and Rob Lahammer indicated during the comp plan review period this was probably years out. Brixius said they want to encourage this as it's a provider of affordable housing and an employment source. Brimeyer provided a brief explanation of TIF. Brimeyer said it's a development tool to assist a project. He said using the example of a piece of ground worth $100,000 and development makes it worth $150,000, you've gained $50,000 in improvements. He said as the tax money comes is received and the 90-95% of the increment is reimbursed to the developer to pay for improvements. He said blight findings have to be determined. Brimeyer explained there are new taxes generated as a result of the increased valuation. Brimeyer said they have to adopt the resolution and it goes forward to the council. Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to approve the resolution establishing the TIF district 1-3 and authorizing Hughes to sign it. All votes ayes, motion carries. h) Thor Thompson Park — Update Brimeyer said there should have been a memo but there were some staffing issues so there were some omissions to the packet. Brimeyer said this should be reviewed by PC because they are the Park Board. Brimeyer explained there was money levied for the Target field for libraries and parks. There is about 4 million available. Brimeyer said he became aware of this and investigated the Ibability of submitting for a grant. Because lift station two was being re-evaluated, it was a fairly y request to have Thor Thompson Park evaluated in terms of what would be required. Brimeyer said the wish list snowballed and the costs grew. This was submitted for approval and they made the deadline. Brimeyer said because the Planning Commission acts as the Park Board, it was necessary Plan. Comm. Minutes — November 12, 2009 5 to explain this proposal. Hughes asked about the total figure and Brimeyer said it's about $215,000 and he is asking for 80%. Hoffman asked about dedicated funds in the budget. Brimeyer said there is a little bit. He is suggesting using the Public Improvement Revolving fund. He said there are excess TIF funds available to assist this project if need be. . i) Future Items Sign Ordinance Hughes said the past months' agendas have been overwhelming but he is hoping after the first of the year to get back on track. Capital Improvement Plan Commercial Storage Fences Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — October 5, 2009 b) Council Meeting Minutes — October 19, 2009 c) Study Session Minutes — October 26, 2009 d) DRAFT Council Meeting Minutes — November 2, 2009 7. MISCELLANEOUS - Select an alternate chair. Hughes is asking if there is an interest among commissioners as he won't always be available. Hughes said the responsibility is to cover for the chair in their absence and possibly minute taking. Struck said she's not interested. Hoffman stated he has done it before and if no one else is interested he would serve. Struck makes a motion and Neve seconds for Jeff Hoffman to serve as alternate chair. All votes ayes, motion carries. • Brimeyer said the earlier public hearing held for 4341 Channel Road without a survey shouldn't have happened. He stated the city was trying to be accommodating to the property owner and learned a lesson that in the future it won't be allowed. Hughes suggested Brixius mention to the property owner that soil borings should be explored. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hoffman makes a motion and Neve seconds to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator • Plan. Comm. Minutes — November 12, 2009 6 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 12, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit — Snap Fitness — 4671 Shoreline Drive • b) Amended Sign Permit for Certified Auto — Discussion only c) Variance to side yard setbacks — 4341 Channel Road — Continued from 10/14/09 meeting. 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 — November 16, 2009 b) Study Session Minutes —,November 23, 2009 c) Calendar d) Plan Commission appointments 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • Plan. Comm. Agenda — December 9, 2009 1 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 2009 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chair Hughes call the meeting to order at 7:OOPM Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Struck, Hughes, Neve, Hoffman, Mason, Council member Widmer, Administrator Brimeyer, Office Assistant, Sharon Farniok, Planner Brixus, 4341 Channel Road property owner, Robert Keskitalo, 4333 Channel Road property owner, Steve Vertnik.and his contractor Russ Embertson. 3. ADOPT AGENDA— Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. OAPPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 12, 2009 — Neve makes a motion and Hoffman ,econds to approve the minutes. All votes in favor, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit — Snap Fitness —4671 Shoreline Drive Gary Hughes requests that Planner, Al Brixius, present the sign application, background and zoning information that Brite Image Sign Company has requested on behalf of Snap Fitness, a business located within the Marina Shopping Center in Spring Park. Brixius asks Planning commission to refer to memorandum dated December 3, 2009 for size and details of the sign requested. The sign permit appears to meet the Spring Park sign regulation. Staff recommends approval of the sign permit at the Marina Shopping Center. No discussion by Planning Commission — Hoffman makes a motion and Struck seconds to approve the sign permit. All votes in favor, motion carries. b) Amended Sign Permit for Certified Auto — Discussion only Brimeyer wants to get direction from Planning Commission to amend the current sign permit for Certified Auto. Certified Auto is requesting to amend their current sign permit to accommodate their AAA certification status. Certified Auto proudly would like to display the AAA sign after a long application process which involved AAA surveying 200 of their customers and receiving a 98% approval rating. Exhibit A is showing the sign that was previously approved by the Planning Commission and Exhibit B is a hand sketched drawing showing the AAA sign and the location of ,placement below the current approved Certified Auto sign. The city has given Certified Auto a temporary sign permit to hang the AAA sign which is within the square footage and structure allowed. Direction is needed from the Planning commission as to whether or not a new sign permit Plan. Comm. Minutes — December 9, 2009 1 • is needed or the original sign permit for this structure can be amended. Hughes asked the question if the physical sign will stay the same and will the brick work need to be modified to accommodate the AAA hanging sign? Neve asked the question if the AAA sign will be visible from both sides and the answer was yes. Hoffman asked the question if the city is allowed to amend Certified Auto's sign permit and Administrator's answer was yes. It is recommended by the Planning Commission to amend Certified Auto's current sign permit and have a professional drawing showing the modifications to Certified Auto's current monument sign to be placed on file at city hall. c) Variance to side yard setbacks —4341 Channel Road — Continued from 10/14/09 meeting. Hughes declares that we are going to resume the public hearing from the last meeting and note that the neighbor ,Steve Vertnik at 4333 Channel Road is in attendance. Brixius spoke at the continued public hearing requesting consideration of a side yard variance after a formal survey was prepared for Robert Keskitalo showing a revised proposal. Evidence of this survey shows that the lot width is 48' not 50' and an added adjustment to a 10' side yard setback. Keskitalo is now asking for an adjusted setback on the West property line and the Northwest corner of the property line to be 8.3' and at the southwest corner of the property line would be 9'. This is an improvement from the current 4' setback along the west property line. The survey shows a lot coverage of 34%, which is in excess of the 30% allowed by ordinance. The applicant would need to comply with ordinance with additional stormwater management options. Neighbor expressed some concern about the peak of the roof and the impact on light and air movement. Planner advised that the building would need to conform to city building code. It was also noted by the isneighbor that the property stakes were removed during the reconstruction of Channel Rd and the city is aware of the situation. (Note: property stakes will be replaced in the spring if they were there prior to construction). Hughes inquired about the demonstration of the hardship as required by code. Planner responded that the lot width is 48' vs the standard 50' in R-1 districts. Planner also advised that this would allow an expansion on a non-conforming lot. Hoffman moved, Neve seconded to close the public hearing Hughes commented that he would support the variance if the hardcover were reduced to 30%, or not to exceed 3,000 sq ft and gutters to be installed directing drainage to the lake side of the property. Neve moved and Hoffman seconded Recommend to City Council the granting of a variance for a side yard setback of less than 10' on the west property line, per the dimensions on the survey dated 11/18/09, with the condition that hardcover not exceed 30% or 3000 sq ft and that gutters be installed to direct drainage to the lake side of the lot. The hardship noted is a non-conforming lot of 48' vs 50' and the setback will increase to 8.7' vs the current 4'. Roll call — All ayes; Hoffman - No 0 Plan. Comm. Minutes — December 9, 2009 2 • d) Amend Sign Ordinance — Discussion Brixius explained the language of a dynamic sign. He also said that this technology is coming into cities and that the city needs to establish standard regulations regarding computerized message boards. Brixius invited the City of Spring Park Planning Commission to a presentation with DAKTRONICS at City of Delano, Monday, December 14th, 2009 to become more familiar with dynamic signs differences between animation, motion and brightness of these signs. Struck is not in favor of dynamic signs for our community. She feels our city is too small and they won't provide the right look for our city. Brimeyer would like some teeth in regulating dynamic signs and also the number and frequency of temporary signs. Planning Commission agreed to discuss further at January, 2010 meeting. Brixius will prepare an ordinance after seeing the DAKTRONICS presentation. e) Amend Fence Ordinance — Discussion Continued to Planning Commission meeting 2010 to discuss fence height and fence set backs. f) Future Items Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 16COMMUNICATIONS - a) Council Meeting Minutes — November 16, 2009 b) Study Session Minutes — November 23, 2009 c) Calendar d) Plan Commission appointments Non-resident appointments to planning commission discussion took place between Planning Commission members. Struck's comment was that residents and business owners have different agendas for being on the Planning Commission. 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT — Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adjourn at 8:35PM. All votes ayes, motion, carries. Sharon Farniok Jim Brimeyer Plan. Comm. Minutes — December 9, 2009 3