Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - November 19, 1996

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

Larry Baker, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Present:	Larry Baker, Roger Blomquist, Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Joann Knuth

Also Present:	Erny Mattila, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to approve the minutes of the October 15, 1996, meeting. Schiferl outlined minor errors in the minutes. Baker amended the motion to approve the October 15, 1996 minutes with corrections. Livingston seconded the amendment. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

Larson reported the Highway 8 Corridor Task Force has held two public meetings, which were well attended. The Task Force held a bus tour of the Corridor Saturday, November 16. The next Task Force meeting will be December 18.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings - None

General Business

SP-196	Minneapolis Water Works

Mattila reviewed the staff report concerning a special use permit to construct an underground water reservoir on property owned by the City of Minneapolis. In response to the Floor Area Ratio requirement of the R-1 District, the applicant has scaled back the size of the proposed reservoir from a 45 million- gallon facility to a 40 million-gallon facility. Mattila stated the proposed smaller facility would still not meet the floor-area ratio required in the Zoning Code. In the opinion of the City Attorney, two options would allow the proposal to proceed. One option would be to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow such public service structures to have up to a 40% floor-area ratio. The other option would be to amend the Zoning Ordinance to exempt public service structures from floor-area ratio requirements.

Mattila said the City Council sent the proposal back to the Planning Commission for review and comments. The Council wants the Planning Commission to review the proposed changes in structure size, the drainage plan, and noise control plan. The City Council on November 26 will consider the proposal. They have not approved the special use permit to date.

Zisla asked if any action would be required. Mattila responded no action is required. Since the City Council will meet next week, the Planning Commission may want to simply pass on its comments to the Council. Zisla asked what action the Council can take at their next meeting if the floor-area ratio does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance.

Mattila responded the Council could deny the project or approve the project contingent on amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the floor-area ratio for public service structures to be increased from 30% to 40% in the R-1 district. The rationale for the change is that public service structures tend to be similar to industrial uses that have a 40% floor-area ratio for buildings that do not generate much traffic. Single family homes are restricted to 30% floor-area ratio because they are so close to each other and require yards for their occupants' enjoyment. Here, the reservoir is located in an R-1 district but does not need yard area for recreation.

Zisla asked if the City Attorney had given an opinion about the possibility of having a condition in the special use permit that allows deviation from zoning requirements. Are special use permits subject to all other Zoning Ordinance requirements? For example in a Planned Unit Development, the City can disregard certain zoning requirements.

Mattila responded special use permits cannot bypass the zoning requirements.

Baker stated the record should show the Planning Commission had received a letter from the City of Columbia Heights requesting we reconsider routing all the truck traffic through the City of Columbia Heights.

Zisla asked if the Minneapolis Water Works proposed that the traffic go through Columbia Heights. Was that in the transportation plan that the City Council reviewed?

Larson responded the City Council looked at that. Larson stated he would not vote for the project unless the traffic is routed through Columbia Heights. An additional 2,000 trucks that will be involved in the process. The figure of truck trips has gone from 12,750 to 14,745 trips.

Zisla asked why the City of New Brighton would say our streets are not available for use by the general public. Does New Brighton have rules that say only New Brighton businesses can use New Brighton streets?

Larson answered that the people of this community have been subjected to road construction on Silver Lake Road. Silver Lake Road is finally a good, new road. Running 14,745 trips or 29,000 two-way trips on the new street will wear it out in a hurry. Larson said his only option is to stick up for the people in this community. Larson said he would be willing to consider the project if the City of Minneapolis told their haulers to route their trips through Columbia Heights. Without that assurance, Larson said he would not vote for the project. Larson stated he knows New Brighton cannot legally restrict the use of Silver Lake Road, but unless that happens he would vote against the project.

Zisla said he was bothered by the last paragraph in the October 22nd Council Minutes where it says, "New Brighton is not in a position to gain from the additional reservoir capacity." Zisla said he was surprised this was the reason New Brighton would not allow the traffic through New Brighton. Zisla stated he did not know that was the reason. Larson responded that was not the reason. The wear and tear on Silver Lake Road is the reason.

Schiferl said he was looking at the minutes of the last Planning Commission meeting where he asked about the hauling routes. "Kramer said the most desirable routes for the Minneapolis Water Works are the ones that use County roads, Options two or five." My understanding was clearly that those were the two options that went through Columbia Heights. It was my understanding that was the recommendation of the City of Minneapolis. There was no discussion after that except a minor discussion of using 5th Street during the construction. The recommendation to use Columbia Heights roads was the Minneapolis Water Works, not the Planning Commission's.

O'Brien asked about the issue of the reservoir leaking which was mentioned at the last meeting. Mattila responded the sumps at some homes in Wexford were tested and no chlorine or chemical was found in the water samples.

O'Brien asked if consideration had been given to the fact that this building will largely be below-grade in computing the floor-area ratio. Mattila said the City Attorney stated that, in his legal opinion, the proposed reservoir is still a structure and should be treated as such.

Schiferl asked whether an environmental assessment worksheet would be required. Adam Kramer, Director of the Minneapolis Water Works, responded an environmental assessment is not required.

Baker asked if someone in the audience had a question. James Ingvaldson, 4762 Stinson Boulevard, Columbia Heights, asked if there was a diagram of what you are building here besides the one shown tonight. Is there a blueprint? Ingvaldson said he had a document taken from your blueprint which states "At the northwest corner of the proposed reservoir, the difference in the elevation between the top of the reservoir and the adjacent Stinson Boulevard is 41 feet." Now, this was calculated from the contour map on page 3 of their plan, which is yours. Their section 8A on page 4 of the plan shows the elevation difference of only 30 feet to 41 feet over a distance of 180 feet along Stinson Boulevard. At the corner, the actual slope would result, from the following plan, would be 30.41 or an angle of 54° from horizontal.

Baker asked what Ingvaldson's question was. Ingvaldson responded he was just saying he asked him (pointing at Mattila) about this. He is your planner, is he not? Baker responded Mattila is the New Brighton City Planner. Ingvaldson said he asked Mattila if that thing was going to be 41 feet. Ingvaldson said Mattila told him no. Ingvaldson said it was going to be 41 feet. Do you know how high 41 feet is?

Baker stated Ingvaldson should ask his questions and the Planning Commission would answer them. Ingvaldson asked if Baker knew how high 41 feet is? Is it going to be 41 feet high?

Kramer said, with the modifications, it will be 37 feet high at the highest point. Ingvaldson asked how many thousands or millions of gallons will this thing hold. Kramer responded 40 million gallons. Ingvaldson asked if he could have a chance to speak for just one second. Ingvaldson invited an engineer called "Doc" from the audience to come up and said he was an engineer from Ingvaldson's work.

Baker said Ingvaldson could ask his questions and then the other person could ask his. Ingvaldson argued that he just wants "Doc" to tell you something. Baker said he would have a chance when you are finished. Baker asked if Ingvaldson was finished speaking. Ingvaldson said he was done.

Dr. Lee Endervold from Mission House Lane in New Brighton asked if the reservoir height would be the same as the existing one? Kramer responded it would be. Endervold asked if the calculations for pounds per square foot have been done for the proposed reservoir versus the original reservoir. What can the ground support?

Kramer responded a soils engineer has worked with the Water Works and a geo-technical engineer will work on the project during filling and compaction. Endervold asked about the side pressure. Kramer said the side pressure would be monitored. Endervold asked if the reservoir would go down to the water table. Kramer responded negatively.

Endervold asked about the calculations for pressure on the water table. Kramer said the water table was not encountered during soil borings. Endervold said then there would not be any added pressure to the water table. Kramer answered that was correct. Endervold said he asked that because his sump pump operates even during a drought. Kramer said that, as for the slope, the Water Works will use a geo- technical material to stabilize the slope.

Endervold asked what is the safety factor as far as pounds per square foot is concerned. Izraelev responded almost 2 pounds. Kramer said the geo-technical engineer was recommending the compaction to be 96% to 100%. The soil and the preparation are critical so a geo-technical engineer will work on the design. The Water Works will also hire another consultant to work on the design of the reservoir in concert with the geo-technical engineer.

Baker asked if there were any more questions. Ingvaldson asked if the complete reservoir would be encased in concrete. Kramer responded the whole reservoir is concrete, poured-in-place. Ingvaldson asked how thick the concrete will be. Kramer said the walls would be 2 feet thick.

Baker asked if anyone else would like to speak.

Ingvaldson asked what the allowance will be from Stinson Boulevard from the street to where the reservoir is going to start. Mattila responded 37 feet from the property line and another 10 feet from that point to the curb, making it 47 feet.

Ingvaldson asked if some trees could be saved. Mattila said the trees along Stinson would not be saved along Stinson Boulevard, but would be saved up to a point about 110 feet from 5th Street. Ingvaldson asked why the trees could not be saved. Mattila said he had been working with the New Brighton Forester to find a way to save as many trees as possible. The trees along 5th Street NW will be saved. Ingvaldson said he did not want to know about the trees on 5th because he lives on Stinson.

Zisla asked for a point of order. Zisla said he was troubled with the audience arguing with staff. Zisla asked for some order to the discussion so he could follow it.

Ingvaldson said he did not know why Zisla could not follow the discussion. Baker asked if Ingvaldson's question was, did the trees along Stinson have to be removed. Ingvaldson answered affirmatively. Baker responded the trees must be removed. Ingvaldson said okay, but he had another question and he needed the other map up on the screen.

Mattila projected the map Ingvaldson requested. Ingvaldson looked at the map and asked what street would be used during construction. Ingvaldson pointed out his home on the map. Whitaker of the Minneapolis Water Works showed the proposed route on the map.

Zisla said the staff report talked about the problems that would be created by conforming to a 30% floor- area ratio. Why is the project not feasible if the floor-area ratio is 30% instead of 33%?

Kramer answered the Water Works needs that capacity to realize the greatest cost benefit. Thirty percent is only 28 or 29 million, which falls short of the goal to meet the goal of two-days' supply of water. The Water Works has one other site that would be building on in the future. Both sites need to have a 40 million-gallon capacity.

Zisla stated that means if the Minneapolis Water Works does not build a 40 million-gallon capacity reservoir, the goal of two-days' supply of water would not be met. That does not mean the project is not feasible; it just means it is not large enough for some objective the City of Minneapolis might have. In what sense is the project no doable?

Kramer answered that the project may be doable, but the issue is the goal of a 40 million-gallon capacity reservoir. A 28 million-gallon reservoir is small for that site, considering the cost to build a reservoir and the capacity to be gained. The City of Minneapolis uses 70 to 75 million gallons of water daily.

Zisla stated the argument is that the site the City of Minneapolis owns is subject to a Zoning Ordinance that says that 30% of the area can be covered. Essentially, the City of Minneapolis is saying that it wants more than the Zoning Code allows.

Kramer said the reservoir structure was mostly underground and the City of Minneapolis feels there are other mitigating circumstances. The 30% floor-area ratio is for residential construction.

Zisla stated he had a problem with that thinking because the Zoning Code does not allow for such an exception. We need a reason to change the code other than the City of Minneapolis wants a bigger reservoir. It is not an industrial site. The City Attorney should review the ramifications of a request to make an exception to the floor-area ratio in a residential district.

Mattila said the City Attorney was reviewing that request and we will bring that information forward to the City Council.

Baker asked if a variance would not be the alternative to changing the Zoning Code. Mattila responded that, in the opinion of the City Attorney, the basis for a variance does not exist because no unique circumstance or hardship is involved. Baker said he thought a variance would be appropriate because there would be no parking or personnel on the site. There is usually parking involved in addition to the building.

Mattila said he presented these facts and the fact the reservoir will be covered by earth. The City Attorney responded that the reservoir is still a structure and should be treated as such.

Zisla commented that, during discussion on the height limitation on the US West building, the hardship was determined to be the change in conditions for operating that type of building and that technology outstripped the Ordinance. The argument may be appropriate for a water reservoir covered with earth. Changing a zoning provision is difficult because of one project.

Baker said he agreed with Zisla's opinion on changing the ordinance. Baker said a change might be appropriate in relation to this reservoir, but we cannot know the repercussions could be years from now. Baker said he would rather consider this proposal as a variance.

Blomquist said he agreed with Zisla and Baker that an ordinance should not be changed to fit a particular use. The variance approach makes sense.

Zisla said it was unlikely New Brighton would be the site of other reservoirs as opposed to generalized public institutions.

Mattila said he had presented these arguments to the City Attorney. Mattila suggested the Planning Commission put their thoughts in a motion to the City Council for next Tuesday's meeting.

Zisla commented the 40% floor-area ratio was only a 10% variation.

Lowell Johnson, 135 Stinson Boulevard, said he was puzzled by the percentages. Do they include both the old reservoir and the new reservoir? Baker answered the old and the new combined would come up to the 33%.

Baker said he would like to go back to the traffic issue. It was the Planning Commission's recommendation that we use Options 1, 2, and 3 of the five proposed traffic options.

Kramer responded the proposal was made after the discussion by the Planning Commission of not routing traffic through New Brighton. Kramer said, when he was asked earlier, his comments were taken out of context from the minutes. Kramer stated that the route through New Brighton was not an option.

Baker asked for a recommendation to the City Council. Zisla said the Planning Commission submitted a resolution from its October meeting. Baker asked if the Planning Commission should make a recommendation about the floor-area ratio. Zisla said he was not sure a resolution was appropriate before the City Attorney finishes his opinion on the floor-area ratio problem.

Motion by Blomquist, seconded by Baker, that instead of changing the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council consider the proposal by the Minneapolis Water Works as a variance.

Zisla suggested adding the language, or consider the refining the floor-area ratio for type of structure in the current Zoning Ordinance. Baker said he would rather not modify the language of the motion. Blomquist agreed with Baker.

Ingvaldson asked if any consideration has been given to the property owners on Stinson Boulevard in Columbia Heights as far as their property values is concerned. There are some nice woods on the site now. After this project is done, there will be a big thing facing Columbia Heights.

Baker said the New Brighton Planning Commission did not consider any property values. The Planning Commission considers land uses not property values. Ingvaldson stated New Brighton does not care about the neighbors of the Water Works. Baker responded said the Planning Commission cannot prohibit a landowner from using their property. Baker said over the years the Planning Commission has heard opposition to proposals for vacant property because the neighbors want trees on the vacant property, not structures. The Planning Commission cannot tell a property owner that he must preserve his property for the enjoyment of the neighbors. A property owner has the right to develop his property within the limits of the Zoning Ordinance.

Kramer said he would like to comment on the hauling routes. Route 2 is Columbia Heights. Route 5 went through New Brighton. Routes 1, 2, and 3 have been mentioned this evening and are all in Columbia Heights. Routes 2 and 5 are preferred by the Water Works, one route being in Columbia Heights and one route in New Brighton.

O'Brien asked if the City Forester could work with the Water Works to reuse some smaller trees on the site for use on a public site. After a brief discussion, Mattila said he would make a note to pass the suggestion onto the City Forester.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. (Livingston abstained.)

Zisla said he would like to clarify for the record the answer about Ingvaldson's property values. The effect on the general community is considered in a variance request under the language in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the impact on public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare.

LP-321	SBA, Inc.

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning an application for site plan review to construct a 100-foot cellular antenna on an existing site industrial site.

Schiferl asked what assurances are there that the structure will be properly maintained.

Anna Marie Solberg, of SBA, responded the maintenance issue is a part of the lease contract with Sprint. Non-performance of maintenance could jeopardize the lease. A person will check on the maintenance about once a month. There will be a contact at Sprint who can be notified anytime if there is any difficulty at the site.

O'Brien asked if 20 years from now when the technology is obsolete, the tower would be taken down. Solberg responded affirmatively that is part of the lease agreement.

Blomquist asked about the specific language that would trigger such an event. Solberg answered the lease is for four five-year terms. At the end of the lease, there is language in the lease that would trigger the tower being taken down and the property restored to its original state. Solberg said she could not recite the specific language.

Blomquist asked what is the difference between personal communications systems and cellular phones.

Solberg said the personal communications systems use digital technology and cellular phones use an analog technology. PSC uses a digital technology that affords the user with many more options with your portable phone. The digital technology affords the user more privacy, can be used for paging, faxing and many more things. The PSC uses a specific phone, not a regular cellular phone, and the technologies are not interchangeable. Solberg said she could use her PSC phone to call a cellular phone. Technology is moving toward the digital system and away from the analog system. Sprint is using digital systems throughout the country.

Blomquist commented the City recently approved an analog system on a water tower. Mattila said this was the second monopole, the first one is on the Darling Rendering Plant site. Blomquist asked why this antenna would not be located on a water tower.

Solberg responded Sprint can locate the antenna on a water tower and does have them on other water tower sites throughout the metro area. However, based on Sprint's radio frequency plan, New Brighton's water towers are too far away from where Sprint needs a site for the system to operate at its optimal level.

Blomquist asked how large an area is identified as an optimal location. Solberg responded a half mile radius within the point chosen for an antenna. Coverage gaps result when the antennas are outside the optimal area. If you are talking on your cell phone and there is some crackling and you are having difficulty hearing, that means you are driving where the signal is dim.

Zisla asked how many more sites Sprint needs in New Brighton. Solberg responded Sprint needs only the subject New Brighton site. The next closest ones are in Shoreview and Arden Hills. The towers operate by sight transmission. Sprint has no plans for another site in New Brighton.

Blomquist asked how many digital companies will be serving this area. Solberg says AT & T offers digital service. There will be a total of six companies offering digital service. Blomquist said, in that case, New Brighton could expect requests from other companies for PCS antennas.

Schiferl asked why all the providers cannot get together and pool resources. Solberg responded they have cooperated with AT & T in some areas to construct poles to hold another carrier. All the poles built by Sprint are designed to hold another carrier. The proposed pole can hold another carrier.

Blomquist asked why Sprint does not locate their antenna on the existing AT & T pole at the Darling site. Solberg said Sprint had explored that possibility, but there are two sets of antennas there already. The structure cannot support another set of antennas. There is a certain amount of spacing required between carriers to keep interference down and the Darling site does not meet such requirements.

Zisla said there is a possibility of placing another set of antennas on the proposed pole. What would happen if US West came to the City of New Brighton and we told them to use Sprint's? Would they be able to get on that pole? Solberg responded Sprint would negotiate with US West, but other factors may be involved, such as height requirements.

Blomquist asked about clustering poles like the Shoreview TV towers. Solberg answered the digital towers cannot be located near an AM transmitting tower and NSP power lines. We need separation from another carrier's antennas. Solberg asked if Blomquist's question were about creating some a tower farm. Solberg said some cities were exploring that option. For instance, Golden Valley has radio and television zoning. Solberg showed a photo simulation of the proposed site.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien to recommend approval of LP-321, subject to conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Blomquist, to adjourn the meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

_______________________________________

Erny Mattila, City Planner