01-18-00 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Teague referred to a letter from a New Brighton resident, which was included in the packet, stating opposition to the request. Mr. Kraus’ letter states that New Brighton currently has an too many apartments. Teague stated that one-third of New Brighton residents reside in apartment buildings. Baker asked why the request was being addressed as a Nonconforming Use Permit. Teague stated the request is a Nonconforming Use because the existing facility contains nonconformities that must be brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The nonconformities include no enclosed parking, no perimeter curbing around the outdoor parking lot, and the individual parking stall are not striped. The applicant is proposing to address each of those items. Brian Houman of Houman Architects stated his office is across the street from the site. Houman stated his client, Mir Ali, was not in attendance this evening. Houman made a short presentation on the project. Schiferl asked why the curb cut was not included in the staff recommendation in the planning report. Teague responded it had been his intention to include one curb cut and will add such language to the Council Recommendation. Schopf asked about No. 9 of the staff recommendation, “The land owner shall be responsible for maintenance of all plant materials shown on the landscape plans dated 1-7-2000. Should any of the plant materials become diseased or die, they must be replaced.” Is there any time limit? Who enforces compliance? Teague responded the City Forester checks on landscape plans. The City has not put a time limit on landscape plans in the past. The City has enforced landscape plans when trees or shrubs have died. Schopf asked about the method of enforcement. What happens if an owner refuses to replace a dead tree or puts in another type of tree? Teague responded no one has refused to replace landscape elements. Part of the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan was to adopt an ordinance that addresses these questions. However, the City could say that, if an owner refuses to replace a tree, the owner is in violation of their Special Use or Nonconforming Use Permit. The City could require the owner to come back before the Planning Commission. Zisla asked Houman about the target market for the apartment units. Houman responded that the price range would be based on the cost of the project and other factors. Zisla stated that he would be interested in knowing the price range of the apartments. Schiferl asked about No. 2 in the staff recommendation, “Perimeter curbing be installed around all off-street parking area and drive-aisles (both lots).” Schiferl said he thought the property was technically one lot. Teague responded that Schiferl was correct. Baker stated he was not opposed to the height variance. Height is another topic that should be defined in the Ordinance. Underground parking seems to be a viable solution to meet the parking requirement. The Commission may want to consider the height requirement later in the year. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. No one responded. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING VN-326,NC-116&LP-360, Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schopf , TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF . 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. AMENDING THE CURB CUT LANGUAGE AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS General Business Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment regarding Floor Area Ratio City of New Brighton I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\2000\01-18-00.WPD 2