Loading...
072109 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 21 JULY 2009 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Gagne, Hutchins, Ruoff and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: None. Also present: Park Commission Chair Norman APPROVAL OF MINUTES  16 June 2009 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 16 June 2009 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING SIGNS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a 27 July 2009 Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Nielsen explained during its May 11, 2009, meeting the City Council adopted a resolution denying a request by South Tonka Little League (STLL) for an amendment to the City Code that would allow advertising signs to be placed on some of the ball field fences in Freeman Park. The Planning Commission and the Park Commission had previously recommended against such an amendment. During that meeting Council directed Staff to explore allowing the signs through some sort of contract between the City and STLL. Nielsen then explained City Attorney Tietjen subsequently determined a contractual agreement could be drafted, but it still would require an amendment to the Code setting forth the authority to execute such a contract. Staff identified an alternative which is for STLL to apply for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to display commercial advertising signs. This makes it a public process. A C.U.P. request would require an applicant to come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing and before Council. Staff also recommends the Park Commission review any request as well. The most significant condition of the C.U.P. would be that STLL must enter into an annual license agreement with terms acceptable to Council. This alternative would require an amendment to the Code establishing a conditional use permit provision to display signs in City parks. During its May 26, 2009, meeting Council directed staff to draft a tightly CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 2 of 15 written amendment to the Code establishing such a C.U.P. provision and a license agreement between the City and STLL. Nielsen stated the meeting packet for this evening contains a draft text amendment to the Code that adds to the provisions that allow for temporary signs and a draft license agreement between the City and STLL for the Planning Commission to review. Nielsen reviewed the conditions added to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.c(4) of the Code. The proposed additions to the text are as follows and are italicized. “(4) Temporary Signs. (a) The temporary use of signs, searchlights, banners, pennants and similar devices shall require a permit. The permit shall be valid for ten consecutive days. The permit shall be prominently displayed during the period of validity. Only two temporary permits may be granted for any property within any 12-month period. Temporary signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. Any new business that has applied for its permanent business sign may, at the same time, apply for a temporary business sign to be displayed for no longer than 30 days, or until the permanent sign has been erected, whichever comes first. The temporary business sign shall be professionally prepared and shall be no larger than the approved permanent sign. (b) A conditional use permit may be granted to nonprofit athletic associations, contracted with the City pursuant to Section 902.06 of this Code, for the display of temporary business sponsorship signs to be placed on certain ball field fences on public property, provided that: (i) A nonprofit athletic association under contract with the City may display signs only on facilities that have been reserved for its use. (ii) Signs may be displayed only in a Community Park, as defined in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. (iii) Signs may be displayed only on outfield fences, facing into the ball field, and situated so as to minimize view of the signs from adjacent residential properties. (iv) All signs must be professionally made, using durable weather resistant material, painted or colored dark green on the back side of the sign. (v) Signs are limited in size to no larger than 42 inches in height and seven feet in length. (vi) There shall be a minimum spacing between signs of seven feet. (vii) The maximum number of signs per ball field is 15. (viii) The nonprofit athletic association is responsible for maintaining the signs in good repair. If a sign becomes detached, torn or vandalized, the association must repair or replace them immediately or the sign will be summarily removed by the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 3 of 15 (ix) The nonprofit athletic association is responsible for any damage to the fence on which it is displayed that is caused by installation or display of the sign. (x) The conditional use permit is subject to review and recommendation by the Shorewood Park Commission. (xi) The nonprofit athletic association must obtain an annual license from the City and enter into a license agreement setting forth the conditions of approval and the duration of the approval. The association shall pay an annual license fee as established by the City Council from time to time. The association shall have no vested right in obtaining fences from season to season. (xii) It shall be the responsibility of the nonprofit athletic association to obtain a temporary sign permit for each sign to be displayed on ball field fences, prior to erecting the sign.” Nielsen made the following comments or clarifications regarding the above text amendment. All of the nonprofit athletic associations already contract with the City to use the City’s facilities. STLL contracts for the use of two fields in Freemen Park. Freeman Park is the City’s largest park; it draws the largest crowds for sporting events and is generally located the furthest from residential neighborhoods. There is some rationale for limiting this to Freeman Park. He doesn’t anticipate much damage being caused to the fences from the signs. The condition about entering into a license agreement is the strongest part of the text amendment. The license agreement can be revoked quite readily. Council does not have to issue the license agreement. The C.U.P. provision and the license agreement provide the City both the opportunity to try allowing signs and still maintain strong control of what happens in the future. Nielsen stated the Park Commission reviewed this proposed text amendment and STLL’s request for a C.U.P., including a license agreement, to display signs during its July 14, 2009, meeting. The Commission expressed a number of concerns, and it made a number of suggestions. He related that the Commission expressed it was not in support of the text amendment. The Commission asked if the content of the sign could be regulated. He explained that normally when the City regulates signs the regulations have to be content neutral. The City Attorney has explained the City can regulate the content because it owns the property, and she recommended that provision be incorporated in the license agreement. Park Commission Chair Norman stated the Commission asked Staff to incorporate the provisions it recommended (e.g., content preview, financial accountability, indemnification for theft and vandalism, etc.) into the appropriate document for the Commission’s review during its August 11, 2009, meeting. With regard to the concern about content, Norman explained the Commission thought including a content provision in one of the documents would make it easier to enforce content restrictions. Director Nielsen explained the provision asking for financial accountability is to address the Park Commission’s concern that the money STLL would make from the advertising signage flows back into the City somehow. For example, it would help with paying the league fees for children, it would help pay for ball field maintenance and so forth. This provision, if added, would be included in the license agreement. The Commission wants the display of signs to be limited to the southerly three fields in Freeman Park. He explained he thought it may be possible to include that restriction, but noted the other fields in Freeman Park are even further from residences which makes it a little difficult to limit to those three fields. He stated Staff will look into whether or not that restriction can be included. He commented the issue of fairness has to be considered as part of that. He explained the Commission also wanted to include a height restriction off the ground; the suggested restriction would be five or six feet. Park CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 4 of 15 Commission Chair Norman explained the Commission wanted all requirements to be clearly specified in the agreement. Nielsen explained the Park Commission would prefer to have the money STLL would make from the signs flow through the Parks Foundation if possible. Park Commission Chair Norman explained the Commission thought having a third party involved with the disbursement of monies earned from the signs would help to insure that the funds are used to benefit the City. Nielsen stated he was not convinced involving the Parks Foundation was appropriate, but it could be possible to include a stipulation that the funds earned go into the City’s park system. Nielsen noted that Kyle Heitkamp, with STLL, had indicated the STLL was willing to let people review its financial information. Pat Eagan, with STLL, explained some of STLL’s money goes to Manitou Park which is located in the City of Tonka Bay; therefore, there can’t be total accountability to Shorewood only. Norman stated the Park Commission wanted to be assured that STLL’s contributions to things such as the Diamond Club were not increased because of funds raised through the display of signs. Mr. Eagan explained STLL uses two fields in Manitou Park and has games in Cathcart Park. Nielsen stated that prior to the Park Commission’s August 11, 2009, meeting Staff will have revised the license agreement to include indemnification language for theft and vandalism of the signs. Nielsen stated there are two items that must be considered when addressing STLL’s request. The first part is this text amendment to the Code. The second part is the C.U.P. for STLL, with the main component being the license agreement between the City and STLL. Commissioner Arnst asked if any changes to the C.U.P. or license agreement require action by the Council. Director Nielsen explained Council would have to rescind the license. Typically a licensee who is in violation of the terms of the agreement would have an opportunity to appeal to the Council to try and reach an agreement before the license is actually rescinded. Mr. Eagan stated he was in charge of sponsorship for STLL. He explained he lives in the City and he has three boys who participate in the STLL program. He stated STLL appreciates the relationship it has with the City; a relationship it has had for a long time. STLL wants to be a good partner with the City. STLL does not want to display inappropriate signs, such as those with tobacco or liquor content, on the fences. Allowing advertising signage would allow STLL to generate revenues that will benefit STLL program participants. Commissioner Gagne stated he is totally opposed to the text amendment and the C.U.P. He does not support having signs in Freeman Park or any other City-owned park. He explained he has lived in the City since 1961. During that time he has served on various commissions and the council, and was involved with trying to limit the amount of signage in the City. There were times when it took five or more years to have a billboard taken down because of a contract. He thought there were other ways for STLL to raise money. He expressed concern that if the City allowed signs for STLL in Freeman Park it would eventually allow signs for other organizations in other areas of Freemen Park or other City-owned parks. He noted he will vote against recommending approval of amendment and the C.U.P. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Eagan explained the sponsorship cost for one sign for one year is approximately $500, noting he was not entirely sure of that. There is also a one-time cost for the sign. STLL will ask for a three-year commitment from the advertiser. In response to a comment from Commissioner Vilett, Mr. Eagan explained STLL’s sponsors are aware the STLL had to apply for a license with the City annually. The sponsors would be local businesses. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 5 of 15 Mr. Eagan explained that STLL has talked with other sports organizations that use the City’s parks, and the organizations they have spoken with have no interest in generating sponsorship dollars through the display of signs. The signs would be temporary, seasonal signs. STLL respects the neighborhood. He stated the display of signs on ball field fences is part of baseball. STLL is trying to include as many children ages five through twelve as possible in its little league programs. The funds generated through the sponsorship signs will help provide scholarships to those children that can’t afford to participate in its programs. He clarified that STLL intended to display signs on the fences on Field 1 and Field 3 only; not on Field 2. He stated he does not understand the process that has occurred regarding STLL’s request when STLL’s program is about children playing baseball. Commissioner Arnst commented she was the other historian on the Planning Commission. She stated she started on the Park Commission in 1996 and was a member of that Commission for more than eight years. During her tenure the Park Commission brought about a great deal of change to the City’s parks. A lot of infrastructure was added. Policies were developed that were much more inclusive of all age groups. The Park Commission consistently strived to maintain the balance of the natural aesthetics of the City-owned parks. Since her tenure, the various Park Commissions have expanded the number of programs offered to draw more people, but they have not commercialized the parks. She stated she thought it would be difficult for the City to legally keep the girls’ softball program or any other sports program from trying to display signs in the fields they use. If signs were allowed on all ball field fences there could be 95 signs. She expressed that is a big problem. She questioned who subjectively decides what sign is appropriate and what is not. She stated as soon as the Council has to make decisions it will become political. She expressed her appreciation for all of the hard work the sports organizations do. She stated allowing signs in the parks would be a “poke in the eye” to all of the commissions that have done a lot of hard work over the last 12 – 13 years. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained the fee for the license has not been determined. Staff has discussed establishing the annual license fee somewhere between $100 and $150. The City’s fee for temporary signage is $20 per sign. In response to another question from Hutchins, Mr. Eagan explained the spring little league season is from late April to the end of June and the fall season is one month long and generally occurs from the beginning to the end of September. Mr. Eagan stated STLL could take the signs down during the break if that is what the City wanted. STLL would prefer not to because there are all star teams and other tournament teams that use the fields through early August. During August there are things such as batting practice that take place. STLL continues to do its maintenance to the fields during the little league break. Commissioner Hutchins stated when STLL first came before the Planning Commission with this request in March 2009 the basis for the request was to generate funds for scholarships through sponsorship signage. He asked if that is still the intent. Mr. Eagan stated he is not entirely sure what Mr. Heitkamp has told the City, noting Mr. Heitkamp was coaching in a tournament this evening and could not be present. STLL’s biggest goal is to use the funds generated from sponsorship signage for scholarships for children who otherwise could not afford to participate in the little league program. He commented the STLL program has grown from over 380 participants to more than 500 participants since he has been involved with STLL. Hutchins asked if STLL needed funds for things other than sponsorships. Mr. Eagan stated the sponsorship dollars would be used to help offset a need to increase the registration fees to maintain its programs. STLL doesn’t want to have children who want to play baseball not play because of something completely out of their control. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 6 of 15 Commissioner Vilett stated she respects Commissioners Arnst and Gagne’s point of view. But, there is an emotional part of her that wants to help those children who want to participate in the little league program and can’t because their families can’t pay the registration fee, noting she understands emotions should not influence her position. When she considers the children it’s difficult for her to say no to the request. When she considers what past Park Commissions have done it’s difficult to say yes. Mr. Eagan stated the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a one-season agreement. Vilett stated that no matter how restrictive the amendment and C.U.P. are, there will always be a way to try and expand the display of signs in City-owned parks. Mr. Eagan stated the Council has the authority to deny STLL’s request and any other sport associations’ requests in the future. He then stated STLL believes it will continue to be a great partner with the City, and this is something STLL thinks will work. If STLL lets the City down by not doing what it has committed to doing, then Council can rescind or deny the license agreement. Commissioner Hutchins stated from his vantage point his decision will be a strategic decision. The City has actively tried to minimize signage in the City for a very long time. He expressed concern about changing the City’s Code which would establish a long-term commitment and potentially allow for the expansion of signs into other ball fields. The other sports associations may say they are not interested in pursuing sponsorship signage now, but that could change in the future if their needs change. He commented the City is not trying this on a temporary basis the way it did with the Shorewood Yacht Club’s request for power boats. In response to a question from Mr. Eagan, Director Nielsen explained that before the City can enter into a license agreement as a condition of the C.U.P. the City Code must be amended to establish the C.U.P. process. Nielsen then explained the C.U.P. has a process where if conditions of the C.U.P. are violated the C.U.P. can be revoked. The license agreement can be rescinded much easier than the C.U.P. can be revoked because a public hearing would not have to be held to rescind the agreement; it would come before Council if there is a violation. Director Nielsen commented that if the sponsorship signage program is successful for STLL he did not know why another sports organization such as girls’ softball or hockey would not want to have a similar program. Mr. Eagan stated the City always has the right to stop STLL’s sponsorship program if the City starts to receive other requests. Nielsen stated the issue would be more about fairness than legal if, for example, girls’ softball wanted to do the same thing. If the City decided it no longer wanted to allow signs in City-owned parks it would be likely that the Code would be amended back. Mr. Eagan stated STLL would like to move forward with its proposed sponsorship signage program, and in the event other organizations approach the City about doing something similar then STLL would not argue with the City if it decided to terminate STLL’s license. Nielsen stated should residents express a lot of concern about the signs the City can react to that by rescinding the license agreement. Commissioner Ruoff asked Mr. Eagan what he thought the profits would be from such a program. Mr. Eagan explained the maximum revenues generated is $500 multiplied by 30 signs (15 at each of the two fields), or $15,000. The cost for the signs and the permits must be deducted from the revenues. Based on that, the profits could approximate $10,000. In response to another question from Ruoff, Mr. Eagan stated there are approximately 520 registered participants for STLL’s little league programs. Ruoff stated he originally supported STLL’s request. He thought STLL is a great organization and the profits generated would help support the little league program. Based on a great deal of discussion this has become something greater than STLL’s request. It has become one of selling public spaces. Although it would be nice to help STLL, changing the ordinance establishes a precedent for allowing other organizations to make similar requests. His current position is to recommend this be denied. He wants to support past efforts by Park Commissions to keep signs out of the City-owned parks. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 7 of 15 Chair Geng stated it appeared there is some confusion about what the Planning Commission is being asked to consider this evening. He recommended it come back to what is on the agenda. He explained the Commission had the opportunity to consider whether signs should be allowed in City-owned parks; it recommended against doing so. Council has since made a different policy decision. Council has decided to move forward on allowing signs in a very controlled and restricted way, and it would allow the City to stop allowing the display of signs at any time. Council asked Staff to draft a text amendment to the Code. He noted that in trying to clarify what the Commission is supposed to be considering this evening, he in no way intended to diminish the issue Commissioners have expressed over things such as aesthetics and values. He clarified the item before the Commission is the text amendment to the Code. The Commission has to determine if the draft amendment is adequate or is it so poorly drafted that the Commission recommends its approval be denied. Commissioner Arnst stated it was her understanding that Council directed Staff to explore the possibility of allowing signs, and that Council has not yet decided it would allow the signs. Director Nielsen clarified Council directed Staff to make it possible to allow STLL to display sponsorship signs. Council had hoped that could have been addressed through a contract, but that can’t be done. That is when Council directed Staff to prepare a text amendment. The direction from Council was very clear. Commissioner Arnst asked if the Planning Commission could state it was uncomfortable with amending the Code to allow signs because of its enforceability or allowances. Its discomfort is not about the actual wording of the amendment. Commissioner Vilett stated the Planning Commission is a recommending body. Chair Geng stated he thought the Commission could as part of its motion indicate its sentiment that it was not in support of allowing signs in the City-owned parks. th Park Commission Chair Norman stated the Park Commission continued this item to its August 11 meeting, noting it does not agree with the direction set by Council. This Commission wanted the opportunity to receive feedback from Staff about its concerns and suggestions. Chair Geng stated it’s his personal opinion that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the text amendment and strongly convey its serious misgivings about doing so. The Commission’s role this evening is to consider whether the amendment is well crafted. Council Liaison Turgeon stated Chair Geng is correct in summarizing what the Planning Commission is being asked to consider this evening. She commented that after being associated with the City for 14.5 years she has never seen two Commissions being put in this spot, but the Planning Commission is there. She stated on a 4/1, vote with her being the dissenting vote, Council directed Staff to draft the text amendment and to consider a C.U.P. request from STLL that would allow them to display advertising signs in Freemen Park. She thought it would be appropriate for the Commission to attach their comments about not agreeing with allowing the signs to a recommendation for approval of the amendment, noting it’s within the Commission’s authority and right to do so. She stated the majority of the Council wants to establish a process for considering such signage requests. Mr. Eagan stated Director Nielsen’s memo dated July 1, 2009, states “Unless the amendment is drastically revised, staff recommends approval of the CUP, subject to recommendations of the Park Commission.” He asked what was trying to be accomplished this evening. It appeared to him that the Planning Commission was discussing something different then the text amendment itself. In response to a comment from Chair Geng, Park Commission Chair Norman reiterated the Park Commission wanted to receive feedback from Staff about its recommendations and concerns relating CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 8 of 15 primarily to the stipulations in the license agreement. Although the Park Commission has not taken any formal action regarding the amendment or C.U.P., it’s not happy with the direction being set by Council based on the Commission’s previous discussions about allowing signs in the park. Chair Geng stated at this point there are no changes and modifications that are recommended by the Park Commission because that Commission has not voted on them. Director Nielsen explained the Park Commission made some suggestions and had a few questions that Staff can address. Geng expressed his discomfort with having the City become too involved with STLL’s finances. He stated STLL is a non-profit athletic organization for youth. STLL has indicated its financial records can be reviewed by people. If there is some reason to think the money earned from sponsorship signs is being misappropriated then Council can address that through the licensing procedure. He expressed his hesitancy to complicate the amendment by requiring some type of financial oversight. Director Nielsen explained if a provision of that nature were to be agreed to, it would become part of the license agreement. Mr. Eagan stated STLL would be receptive to review of its financial records. In response to a comment from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained the provision requiring an annual license agreement is included in the text amendment. The license agreement can be discussed as part of the C.U.P. Chair Geng recommended the Planning Commission first recommend action on the text amendment in order to move the agenda along. Hutchins moved, Vilett seconded, reporting to the City Council that the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft text amendment to the City Code Chapter 1200 regarding temporary signage and the Commission has no recommendation to provide. In response to a question from Chair Geng, Commissioner Hutchins explained the intent of the motion is to provide feedback to the City Council that the Planning Commission has no recommendation with respect to this ordinance amendment. Motion passed 5/1 with Geng dissenting. Commissioner Gagne wanted it to be clear that the Planning Commission is not recommending anything be changed. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. – ADVERTISING SIGNS IN FREEMAN PARK Applicant: South Tonka Little League Location: Freeman Park – 6000 Eureka Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M. There was confusion regarding what the Planning Commission should do about this agenda item being it made no recommendation about the text amendment which must be approved before a C.U.P. can be considered. Director Nielsen stated Council has directed this to be done. If Council should decide to adopt the text amendment there is the STLL C.U.P. request that must be considered. He asked if there is any thing the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 9 of 15 Planning Commission would want to comment on regarding the C.U.P. which includes the license agreement. In response to a comment, Nielsen explained the Park Commission has made suggestions for changes to the license agreement in the event that Council adopts the text amendment. He noted the Park Commission made it very clear it does not like the idea of allowing signs in the City-owned parks. Park Commission Chair Norman stated the Park Commission has voted against allowing signs in the parks a number of months ago, but it has not recommended any action on the text amendment or C.U.P. Should Council adopt the amendment, the Commission wants Staff to revise the license agreement. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission, if so inclined, could make a motion that includes some or all of the Park Commission’s suggestions. Mr. Eagan asked if the indemnification language the Park Commission suggests be added to the license agreement is different then what is in the current draft of the agreement. Director Nielsen stated the current language relates to someone getting hurt. The Commission wants to include indemnification relating to theft or vandalism of the signs. The City Attorney would draft the additional indemnification language for the agreement. Director Nielsen stated it’s clear the Planning Commission is in disagreement with Council. It’s also clear that the Council is the policy maker and it has directed this policy to be done. It’s up to the Planning Commission if it wants to weigh in on how it gets done. The Park Commission suggested a content provision and an indemnification provision about the signs be added to the license agreement, and it wants signs to be limited to the southerly three ball fields in Freeman Park. Hutchins moved, Gagne seconded, recommending the City Council not enact an ordinance amending Chapter 1200 of the City Code regarding temporary signage. Chair Geng stated he thought the motion was out of order because the Planning Commission has already passed a motion regarding the text amendment. The motion was to forward the text amendment to Council without any recommendation. The item being considered now is STLL’s C.U.P. request. Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission can recommend the C.U.P. request be approved, denied or approved with conditions. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the Planning Commission does not have authority to present a formal opinion to Council as to one of its actions. Director Nielsen stated it sounds as if Commissioner Hutchins would like to reconsider his motion about the text amendment, and rather then making no recommendation make one that recommends not adopting the text amendment. There was ensuing discussion about the motion passed during the public hearing for the text amendment, the motion just made during this public hearing for STLL’s C.U.P. request and how to proceed. The two motions are both about the text amendment yet say different things. Without objection from the seconder, the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. Hutchins moved, Gagne seconded, reconsidering the motion reporting to the City Council that the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft text amendment to the City Code Chapter 1200 regarding temporary signage and the Commission has no recommendation to provide. Motion passed 6/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 10 of 15 Hutchins moved, Gagne seconded, amending the motion to recommend the City Council not enact an ordinance amending Chapter 1200 of the City Code regarding temporary signage. Motion passed 5/1 with Geng dissenting. Chair Geng suggested the Planning Commission consider the C.U.P. He asked the Commission how it wants to proceed. Director Nielsen suggested the Planning Commission take action on the C.U.P. If Council does not approve an ordinance amending the Code the action on the C.U.P. is a mute point. If Council approves an amendment, he asked if the Planning Commission wants to have any input on the C.U.P. The Commission can recommend the C.U.P. request be approved, denied or approved with conditions. Commissioner Vilett stated if Council approves an amendment she thought it prudent for the Planning Commission to provide input on the C.U.P. and license agreement in the event it’s approved by Council. Park Commission Chair Norman stated that Commission was fairly confident Council would approve a text amendment and the C.U.P. Therefore, it wanted to have some input about the stipulations in the license agreement. He noted the Commission did not make a formal recommendation on either. Mr. Eagan stated he was confused and upset about where the request for advertising signs in Freeman Park is heading. He’s surprised by the amount of time and money spent on the discussion. STLL has demonstrated it is a good partner with the City. It values that relationship and doesn’t want to jeopardize it. He thought STLL clearly communicated what it needs and is looking for. He questioned why STLL didn’t deserve a chance to try having sponsorship signage. He stated the City can evaluate the situation and determine how STLL fulfilled its commitments. If STLL doesn’t perform well or if the residents are upset about the signs then the City can rescind the license agreement. Generating funds through sponsorships is about providing more 5 – 12 year old children with the opportunity to play baseball. As a Shorewood taxpayer he is upset about the time and money spent on discussing STLL’s request. He thought there were a lot of families that participate in the STLL programs that are questioning what is occurring. STLL is asking for a one-year trial so the City and STLL can evaluate the sponsorship program. He expressed his disappointment with the Park Commission which is supposed to ensure the use of the parks is inclusive. He thanked the Planning Commission for its time, and he reiterated how much STLL appreciates the relationship it has with the City. Chair Geng again clarified the Planning Commission is a recommending body; Council sets the policy. Commissioner Ruoff stated he was not against STLL; it’s about signs in the City-owned parks for him. The Planning Commission wants to convey to Council its position regarding signs in the parks. He expressed concern about other organizations wanting to have the same opportunity. Allowing STLL to display signs could set a precedent. Various commissions have fought for years to keep privatization out of the public systems. Mr. Eagan stated the license agreement is for one year. The impact of the signs could be re-evaluated if it becomes a problem. He questioned what the issue would have to be if the City had to enter into a one- year license agreement with another organization for a similar purpose. Chair Geng stated it was apparent that there are very strong feelings about this topic. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 11 of 15 Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:37 P.M. Hutchins moved, Gagne seconded, recommending denial of a conditional use permit for South Tonka Little League to display advertising signs on the fences in the ball fields in Freeman Park the League uses. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission has an opportunity to have input on the C.U.P. should Council decide to pass it. He recommended the Commission provide input if they have any. Commissioner Gagne suggested any recommendations going forward should come from the Park Commission. Commissioner Hutchins questioned how the Planning Commission could be in support of the C.U.P. when it recommended against approving the text amendment. Chair Geng stated Council may well approve the amendment to the City Code, and it may also approve the C.U.P for STLL which includes the license agreement between the City and STLL. If the Planning Commission thinks the C.U.P. and license agreement are okay then there is no need to make any recommendations in the event they are approved. He suggested the agreement be modified to include liability and indemnification language about the signs. Commissioner Arnst asked if the Planning Commission could have two different motions, noting Commission Vilett has some recommendations for consideration in the license agreement. Motion passed 5/1 with Geng dissenting. Vilett moved, Arnst seconded, recommending that if the Council approves the text amendment to the City Code regarding temporary signage and is going to approve the conditional use permit for South Tonka Little League including the license agreement, then the agreement be revised to include a provision indemnifying the City from any theft or vandalism to the signs and a provision restricting the content on the signs. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M. Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Chair Gen reconvened the meeting at 8:52 P.M. 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW – SUBWAY RESTAURANT PROPOSAL Applicant: Brian Carney (Carnco Properties LLC) Location: 5660 County Road 19 Director Nielsen stated Brian Carney, representing Carnco Properties, LLC, has expressed interest in the property at 5660 Manitou Road. Mr. Carney proposes dividing the existing building on the property. He’ll use one half of it for a Subway restaurant and the other half will be a future leasable area. The property has 35,920 square feet in area. It is occupied by a 3000 square foot building, and there is paved parking in front of the building. Because the property is zoned C-1, General Commercial, the project is subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 12 of 15 Nielsen reviewed the land use and zoning surrounding the site. To the east is County Road 19, then commercial in Tonka Bay which is zoned commercial. To the South is a vacant gas station, to the west is the American Legion, and to the north is the Gideon Glen preservation open space, noting all three are zoned C-1, General Commercial. Nielsen explained the applicant proposes adding additional parking on the north and west sides of the building to accommodate the proposed uses. The northwest corner of the property is devoted to handling site drainage. Other than new entry doors on the east side of the building and a new window on the north side, the outside of the building remains mostly unchanged. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed how the applicant’s request complies with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code: 1. Land Use – Restaurants without drive-up facilities are permitted uses in the C-1 zoning district. The future leasable space cannot be used for additional restaurant space due to lack of parking. 2. Building Setbacks – The existing building complies with the setback requirements of the C-1 District which are 30 feet on the front and rear and 15 feet on the sides. The existing building is 55 feet back from County Road 19, 17 feet from the south property line, 88 feet from the west property line and 97 feet from the north property line. 3. Building Height – The existing building is one story and is less than 15 feet in height. The C-1 District allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height. 4. Parking – The Zoning Code requires 51 parking spaces for the proposed use with 44 of them for the restaurant and seven for the future space, anticipating a retail operation. The original site plan included 54 spaces. The parking lot did not comply with the five-foot setback requirement on the south side. The revised plan eliminates the three southernmost spaces to resolve the setback issue, and another one is eliminated for use by an enclosed trashed area. The plans do not indicate how loading will be accomplished. It’s anticipated that loading and trash removal will involve trucks backing in. 5. Building Construction – The existing building is consistent with the standards set forth in Section 1201.03 Subd. 7.c. of the Zoning Code. 6. Landscaping – The landscape plan, for the most part, eliminates all of the trees on the site to accommodate parking and drainage improvements. Some trees on the back of the site will be saved. A number of the trees that will be lost are Cottonwood trees and they are not protected under the City’s Shorewood Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. The Cottonwood trees are the most noticeable because of their size. The original landscape plan was very sparse in terms of replacement. The ponding that is required for the amount of parking that is proposed is going to involve grading along the entire north edge of the property. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan which is drastically improved. Screening and buffering has been added on the north side of the site. Room was left to allow for access to the ponding facility. The County Road 19 Corridor Study calls for CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 13 of 15 decorative landscaping in front of business sites and a backdrop of evergreens at the rear of the sites. The revised plan shows landscaping in the front of the building. It also shows landscaping in the Hennepin Country easement area; if the Country allows that the plants should be salt tolerant. Staff recommends approval of the revised landscape plan. 7. Grading and Drainage – The City Engineer indicates there is an apartment building down stream from the site which has expressed concerns about drainage issues after storms. Therefore, the Engineer recommends that any of the new storm water created because of the additional hardcover associated with this request property be stored on site. The Engineer has stated the original site plan did not meet stormwater rate or volume control requirements. The most recent site plan proposes the stormwater drainage be conducted to the northwest corner. A small ponding area is proposed for that area. The water will be held back by something similar to a berm and work somewhat like a dam. A pipe would allow the overflow water to flow into a drainage system on the American Legion property which drains into Gideon Glen which in turn drains into Lake Minnetonka. The applicant proposes 2:1 slope on the back side of the “berm”. The Engineer has expressed discomfort with trying to hold back water with a feature that has a 2:1 slope. It’s a more common practice to have a 3:1 or even 4:1 slope. As of yet, the applicant has not addressed the rate control issue. There is a ponding area on the American Legion property. Staff suggests the applicant consider expanding that ponding area onto the applicant’s property and have a weir structure separate the applicant’s stormwater from the Legion’s stormwater, thereby eliminating the large barrel structure shown on the original site plan. By doing this the applicant would be able to get the 2:1 slope to occur at the back the parking lot and the water would not be held by the steep slope. Nielsen stated a new site plan had been submitted earlier in the day. Staff and the City Engineer recommend the concept be approved subject to the drainage concerns being addressed. Nielsen stated Mr. Carney was present this evening to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained the City’s parking requirements for a fast-food restaurant are based on the combined square footage of the dining area and kitchen area. In response to a comment from Hutchins, Nielsen explained the parking requirements are in line with what other cities have and with what other sources indicate they should be. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen explained the footprint of the structure will not change in size. In response to a comment from Ruoff, Nielsen explained the parking requirements for the Subway and some type of retail space are 51 spaces. The applicant’s most recent plan reflects 50 spaces. The applicant should be able to find a different solution for the enclosed trash area and thereby free up another parking space. Mr. Carney stated he was relying on the expertise of the engineer he hired to prepare the plan. It’s unfortunate that the City Engineer and the engineer he hired are not in agreement. He expressed his commitment to trying to make this work. He commented the parking requirements seemed high for such a small building, while noting a successful Subway can have 30 – 40 cars at it during the lunch hour. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 14 of 15 Director Nielsen explained the alternatives the Planning Commission has with regard to this site review. It can recommend it be approved, be denied, or approved with conditions. For example, the Commission can recommend approval subject to the applicant working with the City Engineer to resolve the Engineer’s drainage concerns. The Commission can also request to review the site plan once it has been revised to address the drainage concerns. He noted that the revised site plan does not comply with the five-foot setback requirement on the south side, noting bringing it into compliance should not drastically affect the layout. In response to a comment from Commissioner Gagne about the dirt between the building and the old gas station structure, Director Nielsen explained the City issued a permit to the American Legion to demolish the old gas station. The dirt is to fill in and level out the gas station site. The Legion has another pile of dirt on a vacant site it owns. Commissioner Gagne asked why the City has not chosen to take the initiative to redevelop the entire northwest corner of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection. Director Nielsen explained the City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates the City would prefer to have that area redeveloped as a cohesive planned development. The Plan also indicates the City may be willing to consider incentives such as tax increment financing to help a developer develop the entire area. There has been a reasonable amount of interest expressed in developing the area, but developers gave up on pursuing that when some of the land owners wanted to sell their properties for much more then the property was worth. Gagne commented there are cities that acquire such properties and demolish the structures on them. Nielsen stated he did not foresee the City doing that, in part because of budget constraints. Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending concept approval of the site plan for Brian Carney (Carnco Properties LLC), 5660 County Road 19, subject to the drainage concerns being resolved to the City Engineer’s satisfaction. Motion passed 6/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is consideration of a plat, which entails the rearrangement of lots, scheduled for the 4 August 2009 Planning Commission meeting. There may be also study session and that portion of the meeting will be devoted to a continued review of the Comprehensive Plan Planning District Area Plans. Director Nielsen stated he had sent out an e-mail to the Planning Commission regarding possibly scheduling a neighborhood meeting for 29 September 2009, noting he was waiting to hear back from all the Commissioners. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Turgeon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the 22 June 2009 Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21 July 2009 Page 15 of 15 • SLUC Commissioner Arnst and Director Nielsen stated they attended the June 24, 2009, Sensible Land Use Coalition program titled Bruce Malkerson and David Sellergren – Unplugged. They both thought the program was very informative and entertaining. • Other Commissioner Gagne stated he would serve as the Liaison to the Council for the July 27, 2009, City Council regular meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Vilett moved, Arnst seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 21 July 2009 at 9:23 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder