Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - March 18, 1997

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, Joann Knuth, Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Paul Zisla

Also Present:	Erny Mattila, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of January 21, 1997, and February 18, 1997 were approved with corrections.

Report on Council Action

Larson announced the Town Hall Meeting will be Saturday, March 22, 1997, from 8:30 a.m. to noon, at the Family Service Center.

Agenda Review

Livingston asked that the meeting between the City Council and representatives from the advisory commissions he attended be added to the agenda.

Public Hearings

PL-232-VN-310	Wilhelm Property

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning an application for a lot split and lot width variance for an existing single family lot. Mattila showed slides of the lot.

Commissioner Schiferl asked for staff to clarify the grounds for the variance request.

Mattila responded that, when considering a variance request, we look for a unique circumstance which creates a hardship through strict enforcement of the ordinance. In this case, the unique circumstance is that the neighborhood does have existing lots that are less than 75 feet wide and developed with single family homes. It is not a neighborhood comprised of typical lots. The lots in the neighborhood were originally small lake cabin lots, the cabins were removed, and homes built on them. It is a unique situation. Most of these lots do have additional depth, so they do exceed the lot area requirements.

Commissioner Zizla questioned the 27 foot frontyard setback for the existing house on the subject site.

Mattila said he did not know where the 27-foot measurement came from, but there is a 30' setback requirement. Mattila said he did not know how it came up to be 27 feet. It seems that, if it is 27 feet, there may have been an error by the contractor.

Livingston commented that some years back the Planning Commission granted a setback variance because they wanted the houses to line up. That may be how the 27-foot setback came about.

Mattila said this house was not brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the house was built with a 27-foot setback, there was probably an error by the contractor.

Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak at this public hearing.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by O'Brien, to close the Public Hearing. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Schiferl said he felt the variance was unnecessary. Schiferl suggested that the City consider making a new district for such undersized lots.

Schiferl asked how many more potential situations exist.

Mattila said there have been four lot width variances adopted in the eleven years he had been the City Planner. There really is no need for a new zoning district. The Long Lake area is mostly built up and New Brighton is almost totally developed. There may be and occasional situation where a property owner would ask for a lot split and variance. However, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to look at each request to determine if the request would warrant a variance.

Zisla asked if lot 9 and lot 10 are owned by the current owner. Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot. Mattila pointed out the current lot area. Zisla said he was looking for the unique circumstance. Zisla said that circumstance is that lot 10 is undersized because the Zoning Ordinance has changed the lot width requirements since that lot was laid out. That would be the unique circumstance.

Baker said that a variance request must prove a hardship. In this case, strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant an undue hardship and deny the applicant a reasonable use of the property.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of VN-310 and pl-232, with the addition of language requiring a $750 park dedication fee. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

R-141/LP-315	Silver Oak Development

Mattila outlined the case report concerning a request for a rezoning of certain property from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-3B, Multiple Family Residential, and consider a site plan for 32 townhouse units. Mattila showed slides of the site.

O'Brien asked if Mattila and the applicant discussed the slope of the driveways and the amount of fill needed on site. A good part of the site needs from four to seven feet of fill. Some driveways, from an access standpoint, appear rather steep. Mattila responded he had not discussed this with the applicant. Typically, the City Engineer reviews the grading plan. The Rice Creek Watershed District also looks at the drainage.

Baker asked how many units would be allowed here under the R-2 PRD. Mattila responded that under an R-1 PRD there would be 22 units, in an R-2 District PRD there would be 37 units.

Baker stated that the density is far too high for the site. Going to an R-1 with 22 units would be a more acceptable density. Baker said an R-3 zoning would be even worse than an R-2, which is unacceptable. The use of a PRD seems good, but the zoning class is the issue.

Knuth commented that the subject proposal is for two units less per acre than the Rottlund development. Mattila said the Rottlund development is in the B-4 District, which is more flexible than other districts, but the Rottlund development does adhere to the R-3B District standards.

Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak.

Paul Vik, 980 3rd Street NW, stated there are hundred-year-old oaks on the site. It's a beautiful wild area. Vik said he was concerned about the elevation of the lot. Vik said he was concerned about the drainage from the lot onto his lot.

Norm Peterson, 1101 3rd Street NW, said he was concerned about increased traffic from the 32 townhouse units. To get onto Old Highway 8, these cars will go through 3rd Terrace or the neighborhoods with young children. Has a traffic study been done?

Mike Gustafson, 960 3rd Street NW, stated the Silver Oak people invited the neighbors to a meeting. The units were good units. The traffic is the number one concern. There are children who play in the street in the area. The county would have to install a stop light Old Highway 8. The elevation is another concern. Gustafson said he does get water in his backyard in the spring and does not want any more water. Gustafson commented he would miss the woods.

Jake Cadwallader, of Silver Oak, stated he would like to answer the concerns about the density and use of the property. In answer to the question about whether the R-2 zoning with the PRD overlay might be a better option, there would be approximately 37 units on the site. Using the R-3B District or the standard townhouse zoning, this site would hold between 42 and 44 units. Cadwallader said he was proposing 32 units. At this point, then, the density is lower than what we've seen in other projects. Compared with the last PUD developed in New Brighton, our project would have a lower density. The Harstad development included 41 single family homes, 14 doubles and 72 townhouse units. The density of that development is 7.3. Our density would be 7.1 units per acre.

Cadwallader stated the problem the Planning Commission seems to feel that the site looks too confined. The problem is that our units are one-story units with a full basement and a two-car attached garage. The footprint of our units is larger than other townhouse developments. Where we will have four units, a development like the Rottlund townhouses has eight units. Therefore, the question is not density as much as the number of units. Rottlund and Harstad have mostly one car garages. Silver Oak is looking for a different market segment. We invited the neighbors within 300 feet of the site to look at what we're building. At that meeting, the neighbors expressed concern about two story townhomes. We have looked at moving the buildings farther to the west to leave as many trees as possible. The City Engineer says the problem is a city sewer line that runs right through the project. It may not be possible to move this sewer line.

Cadwallader said, in answer to the question about the driveway elevations, we will maintain the perimeter of the project at the current elevation. We would raise the driveway side of the unit making a split entry type appearance on one side.

O'Brien said his question was about the actual slope of the driveway. Cadwallader answered the slope of the driveways will be minimal. They will be almost flat. Cadwallader pointed out the problem with the sewer line on the site plan and explained the planning difficulties.

Zisla asked how far they moved the driveway on the west side. Cadwallader said we moved that driveway about 30 feet. Zisla stated the plan shows the driveway is 30 feet from the property line.

Mattila asked Cadwallader for clarification of the setbacks. Cadwallader showed the setbacks on the plan.

Schmitz asked about the density. Cadwallader said the Planning Commission seems to want Silver Oak to build two story units, but he did not think there would be a market for more two-story units in New Brighton. Schmitz suggested Silver Oak build the one-story units, but fewer of them and maintain more trees. Cadwallader responded, in that case, he would have to renegotiate the land purchase with the property owner.

Knuth asked if any neighbors living next to the proposed project would like to comment on the aesthetics of this proposed development. Knuth asked if they would prefer most of the trees be left to the east along the west or a development which disperses trees throughout the site.

Cadwallader responded that the concerns expressed at the neighborhood meeting were that the people did not want a two-story development. The neighbors want one-story units. The neighbors were concerned with the loss of trees, but we intend to save as many as we can.

Knuth said it seemed the people who benefit most from saving mature trees on the east side are the people who are driving along Old Highway 8. Knuth stated she felt the neighbor's would benefit from visual impact of the mature trees on the west side rather than preserving the trees on the east side which benefit only the passing traffic.

Mattila said that, in discussing the trees with the City Forester, the Forester said the most valuable trees are the oak trees. The oak trees are on the Old Highway 8 side or east side of the site. The trees farther back on the west side of the site are elm trees and scrub growth.

Cadwallader pointed out there is a trucking firm, a truck repair shop and the pole yard near the site.

Zisla asked if the property valuation is based on development potential of the land. Then, the value of the land is less if it is zoned R-1 than if it were zoned R-3. Zisla said a price for the land based on 32 units is highly speculative because you may not get 32 units approved for this site.

Cadwallader responded that the property owner loses money. The property has been held by the property owner's family since 1942. The value of land is based on the number of units Silver Oak can put on the site. The Planning Commission seems to be saying that the value of the trees is such that the property owner's property is worth much less than she had thought it was. There is nothing to stop the property owner from cutting down these trees and then selling her land. Cadwallader said if he did a two-story development a third of the trees would be lost anyway.

Zisla said had other concerns about the proposal other than the trees. Zisla said wished to make the point that the City has no part in negotiating a purchase agreement between the seller and the developer. The City has no accountability in this matter. Zisla stated he agreed with O'Brien that the issue is not so much the number of units of per acre but that there is little greenspace. Zisla said he was also concerned about the design of the units. The elevations of the units seem to feature garage doors and asphalt. Zisla said he was curious about alternatives to that "look" and alternatives to the treatment of the site. It appears the site is buildings and driveways on a grid pattern.

Cadwallader answered Zisla is correct, but Silver Oak is trying to take the site to its highest and best use. We considered the Old Highway 8 consultant's recommendation. The Old Highway 8 Corridor is not an attractive area. Nor is 3rd Street. We have tried to use the site with the focal point going outward. We have tried to answer the public's demand for one-story townhouses. Once we eliminated the possibility of building two-story units, designed 1,096 square foot units with two-car attached garages. The fact the units are so large creates the problem. The Planning Commission seems to be saying smaller, two-story units with more greenspace would be a more attractive development. It would, however, be less marketable. If we cut back to 22 units, the price would be $175,000. We are trying to build one-story units with a base price of $115,000, which become affordable housing for the City of New Brighton. In our present development, we have 4 New Brighton residents selling their two-story homes and buying our townhouses.

Baker said Cadwallader made a statement that the consultant recommended this project. The consultant recommended multi-family residential, not that the property be rezoned. Baker said he wanted to make that point clear.

Cadwallader said that, if the Planning Commission wants to go to an R-2 zoning with a PUD overlay, our density is under those requirements.

Baker said he meant an R-1 PUD. Cadwallader talked about the neighbors wanting a one-story development. However, the only choice Cadwallader gave them was a 32-unit development. If the neighbors were to choose between a 32-unit and a 22-unit development, they would choose the 22 units. It is not meaningful to give the neighbors the choice between 32 two-story units and 32 one-story units. There are other options.

Allan Potter, a resident of East Innsbruck, said he would like to comment on the tree situation. Potter said he owned the property next to Mike's at 281 9th Avenue NW. Potter said he moved into the East Innsbruck area in 1978. I'm sure the developer will do his best to save the oak trees. The fact is all the oaks in East Innsbruck are gone. Oak trees are very sensitive to construction and oak wilt. There's little chance of saving the oaks on the proposed site. Potter commented it must be difficult for a developer to solve the problems of a site. However, Potter said the site should remain zoned R-1.

Lawrence Rice, 103638 Brookview Road in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, said he bought a home on 2nd Street NW in New Brighton in 1948. He said he is familiar with the problems of living near Old Highway 8, such as noise, dust, and safety. The buffer zone is needed. The speed on Old Highway 8 should be reduced also. Forty years ago, my house had a redwood fence, a row of trees, and a boulevard. Along came the Highway Department and moved the curb of Old Highway 8 within two feet of the property line, 35 feet from the door to my house. They threw salt and snow way into my yard. My son and grandson still live in that house. There should be a buffer zone for the sake of the environment. Rice said he was a licensed architect and had construction experience. Fire access is also an important consideration. Rice said sympathized with Cadwallader's problem, but a buffer is important.

Livingston said he feels trees are very valuable. They add value to the land and provide a buffer between the project and the pole yards. The buffer is not for the people driving by but for the people living in the project. Livingston stated Cadwallader mentioned a couple of other developments that had higher density. One of the projects was off I-694, which is an area with more traffic. Part of the reason it was allowed to develop that way was to create a buffer between the single family homes and I-694. The traffic near the proposed project does not compare to the traffic on I-694. Livingston pointed out that it is not the job of the Planning Commission to see that the developer makes a profit. Livingston said Cadwallader should consider building fewer units and adding more trees in case some oaks die.

Baker stated that, if Cadwallader rezones the property to R-3B, Multiple Family Residential, the Planning Commission is not rezoning the property based on this development. The rezoning would be based on R-3B, which would allow 43 units. There is no guarantee this layout if approved, will be built.

John Rice, 840 2nd Street, said he has had to contend with the noise level from the pole yard. Rice expressed concern about the noise level from such a dense development. The wildlife on the site in question is a pleasure. Where are the children going to play? It would be pleasant to have a little park in the neighborhood. If half the proposed units have children in them, where will those children play?

Pat Rother, 490 9th Avenue NW, stated that the proposed development is not compatible with the existing development, which is mostly R-1. The trees are 100 years old on the site. It will take another 100 years to grow trees of that size.

Rice asked, if this parcel is rezoned to R-3 and this project falls through, it is open to townhouses, apartment buildings or anything. Baker responded anything acceptable in an R-3 district would be acceptable. Rice said, in that case, it should be kept R-1.

Eugene Connelly, 241 9th Avenue NW, said he felt the development would change the whole neighborhood. We like it the way it is. The zoning should remain R-1.

A resident on 12th Avenue NW said he liked to walk his dog and noticed children trying to cross Old Highway 8. The traffic is a big concern in that area. Another concern is the greenway effect and the density.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, to close the Public Hearing. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Zisla commented rezoning the property to R-3B allows a range of development in the event Cadwallader's development does not go forward. Is there any way to prevent the R-3B zoning in the event the project does not happen?

Mattila said if the property were rezoned to R-3B, the site would be open to any higher density development permitted in that district.

Zisla said he felt it is appropriate to open the use to something more than single family homes, but the R-3B zoning seems too broad. Is there any other alternative?

Mattila said this proposal could be accommodated under an R-2 zoning which cuts down the density to 37 units. Zisla asked what the PRD would do in terms of flexibility, setbacks and density.

Mattila responded this proposal is not a PRD, but the PRD would allow for an increase in density in the R-2 District. If this site were rezoned to R-2, the density would be increased to 5,000 square feet per unit, from 6,250 square feet per unit. However, the PRD Ordinance does require that the total foot print of all buildings proposed for the site cannot exceed 25 percent of the total site area. This proposal does exceed the 25 percent limitation and that was one reason it was not pursued as a PRD by the applicant.

Zisla stated, in that case, you would have the same number of units if you used a PRD. Mattila responded, you would be limited to the 25% clause which limits the applicant to 29 units if the site were rezoned to R-2 and overlayed with the PRD Ordinance. Livingston asked about an R-1 PRD. Mattila stated an R-1 PRD would have a maximum density of 22 units.

Zisla said he would like to disagree with the people who spoke about keeping the trees on the site. Zisla said a property owner should not be required to keep his land for the benefit for the neighbors. The Planning Commission cannot say no to an appropriate use of the land because we want to save the trees.

Baker said he felt an R-1 PRD would be appropriate for this site. The property is unique because of the woodland. The PRD would allow flexibility in setbacks and density. The proposal is a rectangular, cookie-cutter type development.

Livingston commented the units next to the street in this proposal would be more valuable if they were set back farther. The outside units in this proposal are almost sitting on Old Highway 8. The trees would then provide a buffer zone. Fewer units would make the development more acceptable to the neighbors and the people that will live there.

Knuth said she would like to raise the issue of affordable housing. Knuth said New Brighton has had a number of developments in recent years like Wexford Heights. Wexford Heights had natural amenities such as trees. As they developed that area, the trees disappeared. The price of the homes in Wexford Heights is out of the range of many residents. New Brighton needs affordable housing for New Brighton residents who might be looking for smaller, more affordable housing so they can remain in New Brighton. This proposal could provide affordable housing and we should consider that.

Mattila said the Wexford Heights site was not occuppied with stands of oaks. Instead, the site was occuppied with cottonwoods, boxelders, and elms, much of which was diseased.

Schiferl asked Cadwallader about the market for the proposed development. Cadwallader responded that eight of the ten units in Silver Oaks' current project are sold. Only one unit has a child; a single parent with a 17-year old child owns the unit. A single person bought one unit and we sold the rest to retired people.

Zisla stated the Planning Commission had a similar discussion on trees during consideration of the Minneapolis reservoir project. The neighbors were very concerned about preservation of the trees. The City of Minneapolis owned the trees and tried to accommodate the residents' concerns. The Planning Commission did not have the authority to say the City of Minneapolis must preserve all the trees. Does the City have a means for preserving the trees on this location?

Mattila commented the Minneapolis reservoir project required a special use permit, so the City of Minneapolis worked with the City of New Brighton to protect the trees on site.

Livingston stated he would like to comment on Knuth's remarks about affordable housing. The Metropolitan Council did a study recently on affordable housing. According to the study, the City of New Brighton is one of the most affordable areas in the Metro area. Livingston said that, in response to Zisla's remarks, it is not the Planning Commission's job to see that the trees are preserved. The Planning Commission should ask the developer to take another look at his plan and develop a project with buffers on Old Highway 8. Livingston said he likes the townhomes Silver Oak has developed and agreed that the project would appeal to empty nesters. The one-story townhomes would be a good use of the site, but Livingston said he had a problem with the density. Livingston said he would like the developer to come back with another plan.

Steve Larson, Council Liaison, commented the applicant stated he needed to build 32 units to justify purchasing the property. Larson said 32 units at $115,000 comes to $3,680,000. If the developer removed three units and increased the unit cost only $5,000 per unit, it would come to $3,480,000. The cost to the builder for the three units would be about $60,000 so the numbers would be a "wash."

Baker stated that if the City rezoned the property to R-3B it could be construed as spot rezoning because it's surrounded by R-1.

Zisla asked Cadwallader if he had any comments and if the development is feasible if Cadwallader and the City could work together on this. Cadwallader said he would have to renegotiate the purchase price of the property with the owner. Cadwallader said he was not certain there would be a market for one level units at a higher price than the proposed development.

Zisla responded that the rezoning would not be specific to the proposed project. If Cadwallader's project fell though, it would open the site to other developments the City may not want on the site.

Cadwallader stated he would have no problem with an R-2 zoning with a PRD overlay. Because of the type of unit we need to build, we cannot go with a density of 22 units. With less density, the prices would be too high for the target market. Zisla said there should be some compromise possible.

Cadwallader said he asked the City for assistance with the project under a Tax Increment Financing project. Cadwallader said he has been creative in planning this project and has looked at other options, but this is the one that works for him.

Zisla stated that the fact that Cadwallader is locked into a purchase agreement makes it difficult to deal with from a public policy standpoint. The City had no part in the negotiations and the Planning Commission cannot consider that because the price of the property between Cadwallader and the property owner.

Baker asked Mattila about Option 3, Item 4, is that the landscape plan? Erny Mattila answered affirmatively.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to recommend denial of the request for a rezoning from R-1 to R-3B, based on:

1.	the rezoning request being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use designation of single family residential for the subject site;

2.	the rezoning of the subject site to R-3B allows for a more intensive development of the site than the R-1 district would afford.

3.	The R-3B zoning would be a spot zoning.

4.	An incomplete site plan submittal.

O'Brien said that if the financing would work out and the developer could build fewer units it would be a good development. O'Brien said he felt there should be a creative way to work out the rezoning and was concerned about the wording in Item No. 2 of the resolution.

Baker asked, if the property was rezoned to R-2 instead of R-3B, would the property have to be reposted. Mattila replied he wished he had legal counsel here but that he believed it would have to be reposted. Mattila said he would have to check with the City Attorney.

O'Brien said he wanted to leave the door open to an R-2 zoning. Baker answered the request can only be continued as an R-3B request.

Livingston asked, if the Planning Commission recommends denial of the request, can the developer come back with a more acceptable proposal?

Mattila responded affirmatively.

Zisla said he would like to approve the project, but he was disappointed that there are some issues here that prevent us from moving forward. Zisla stated he was not in favor of denying this request. This has been a long process for the applicant.

Knuth said she was uncomfortable with the micro managing the Planning Commission seems to be engaged in terms of what a developer can and cannot do. It seems we can very easily say put in 32 or 24 units or any arbitrary number. The Planning Commission is not in the business of developing, we are in the business of deciding if a development is an appropriate use of the land. We have spent a lot of time this evening discussing trees. It seems to me it comes down to what the final product would look like. Knuth said she thought the Planning Commission should look at the proposal from the standpoint of affordable housing. Knuth said she would support a motion to recommend approval.

Baker stated he would like to add that the Planning Commission is not supposed to discuss economics, however, density is part of the Planning Commission's task. O'Brien said he agreed that the discussion of land use is appropriate, but the discussion of aesthetics may not be. O'Brien stated they are not asking that the Planning Commission approve an appropriate use in an R-3B District. O'Brien said they are asking that we approve the request to rezone an R-1 site to R-3B and develop it at a higher density.

Schiferl said his major concern is the issue of the buffer, from both the traffic and noise standpoint. Schiferl stated the trees and the affordable housing issues are both important considerations.

Cadwallader stated the Planning Commission is asking for more than the Zoning Ordinance allows. Cadwallader said he had a difficult time with the Planning Commission's comments on a buffer. Cadwallader commented his personal preference would be to not have trees, but have a berm to separate Old Highway 8 and the townhouses. Cadwallader stated the City told him to try to save the trees. A berm would be the most effective buffer. Cadwallader said he was puzzled about the density issue. The project would be fine in an R-2 District with a PRD, in fact below the density. The question is what is density and what is land coverage? There is a difference. Ground coverage and density are not the same thing. We can certainly build smaller units. Under an R-2 zoning, we would not be asking for any variance. It would be covered under the requirements. The question here is not the density, but the footprint. The matter is that the Planning Commission does not like what I'm doing. That is not a density question. I apologize if I misunderstand the Planning Commission. If it is an appropriate use in an R-2 District, just tell me it should be an R-2 zoning with a PRD.

Baker responded, an R-2 zoning with a PRD would not allow you to build 37 units, it would allow the Planning Commission to grant you up to 37 units. There is a difference. Cadwallader said that's 37 units with a 5 or 10 percent bonus.

Mattila stated there is a 20% density bonus allotted in the PRD Ordinance, if the City feels the development is serving a community need.

Cadwallader said he was only two units off the density standard of 29 units per acre allowed by right in the R-2 district.

O'Brien said that is assuming we go along with the concept you come up with. Cadwallader said, if you make this an R-2 zoning and drop off two units and leave everything where it is, that is not a PRD. That is an R-2 zoning, and the proposal meets the requirements. Mattila said Cadwallader would have to drop three units because 29 units are allowed under an R-2 zoning.

Cadwallader said he was very close to an R-2 density. Cadwallader said he was very frustrated at the Planning Commission's objection to 32 units. We're below the Harstad development, which is a mixture of single family, twin homes and townhouses.

Baker commented that we are repeating ourselves and it is getting late so let's quit doing that.

Zisla stated we are not required to rezone the property. You are arguing as if you have the legal right to these things. Why not say R-2 sounds like a good option and go on?

Cadwallader responded if that is what the Planning Commission chooses to do, okay. Cadwallader said he felt he had a "chip on his shoulder" because seven months ago when he started this process this was not mentioned. You may say this is not your problem, but I think it is.

Zisla reminded Cadwallader said people have worked to try and get the project out of limbo. Cadwallader said he appreciated that, but Staff told him that he has been uncooperative. Zisla said he did not think that was what was said.

Cadwallader said he has been told he was uncooperative. Cadwallader said he has gone to meetings and done everything he could. Cadwallader stated he may have been argumentative at times, but he did not feel that he had been uncooperative. The Council has been much more cooperative than the staff.

Zisla said he did not think Cadwallader's comments were appropriate and Staff has been helpful in this meeting and the other meetings. Are we going to on and on over an R-2 versus an R-3 zoning? Zisla said there may not be much support for an R-3 zoning. There is support for having a project on the site.

Baker called for a vote on the motion.

5 Ayes - 2 Nays. Motion Carried. (Zisla and Knuth opposed.)

SP-199/VN-309	CB Commercial

Mattila stated we have a letter from the applicant requesting continuance. Mattila said he would like to point out that this item has been continued once already. The original application date was January 25, 1997. If we continue the request again, it will exceed the 60-day rule. Mattila stated, if the applicant wants to continue, they must waive in writing the statutory 60-day limitation rule.

Baker asked if the applicant were present. No one responded.

Zisla asked why they have requested continuance again. Mattila responded he did not know the reasons. Mattila said he received the letter by fax at the last minute.

Livingston asked, if the Planning Commission were to deny the request, could CB Commercial reapply? Mattila answered affirmatively.

Schmitz asked if there were a time limit between applications. Mattila answered he knew of no limit. Mattila said the only time limit he was aware of is that they would have six months to pull the building permit from the time of approval.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public Hearing. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Knuth, seconded by Schiferl, to waive the reading and adopt the resolutions recommending denial of VN-309 and SP-199. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

LP-322	Kraus-Anderson/Champps

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning a request to consider an application for site plan review to construct an addition onto the existing Champps restaurant.

Zisla asked if Mattila had talked to the owner of the liquor store. Mattila responded he met with Mr. Wagenheim, the owner of Champps restaurant. Mr. Wagenheim indicated he did have a conversation with the owner of the liquor store and they had no objection to the one-way traffic around the building.

Schmitz said he was concerned with the direction of traffic. Schmitz felt it might work better if the traffic were reversed.

Mattila said that was originally proposed, but the problem with that arrangement is the traffic entering the site from Silver Lake Road would be heading directly into a one-way aisle.

O'Brien asked if there was any chance of closing the one-way on Silver Lake Road. Mattila responded that would be the other option. Mattila pointed out the shared entrance. New Brighton Liquors would not want that closed.

Motion by Knuth, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend approval of LP-322 subject to conditions. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

LP-323	CB Commercial

Mattila outlined the case concerning an application for site plan review to construct a 75-foot high telecommunications monopole in a limited business district.

Baker said he had a problem with recommending approval based on the conditions of approval in the case report. Baker said the applicant should submit a detailed plan to the Planning Commission.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to continue the item until the April 15, 1997, meeting pending adequate submittal by the applicant. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker commented CB Commercial and US West have not done a professional job in submitting their applications compared to the other telecommunications applicants. CB Commercial did not even send a representative to the meeting.

Announcements and Updates

Livingston reported he represented the Planning Commission at a meeting with the City Council and other advisory commissions. The City Council was looking for ideas and suggestions from the advisory commissions. The consensus was that communication between the City Council and the commissions should go both ways. The City Council is also looking for ideas from the commissions on community betterment. The commissions can pass these ideas to their Council Liaison and they will bring the suggestions to the Council. In addition, the City Council asked if there was any training commissioners need. Staff can help with finding available training.

Baker thanked Livingston for representing the Planning Commission at that meeting. Baker said he would like to see the City replicate the lighting along Silver Lake Road throughout the City.

Larson said many people have recommended the lighting on Silver Lake Road be extended. However, it would cost millions of dollars. Larson said neighbors could form groups to ask for and pay for such lighting. The neighborhood watch groups could be instrumental in asking the City for help in obtaining the lighting they would like.

Baker said he thought there were many neighborhoods who would raise the money for lighting. Livingston suggested the City Council come up with cost of lighting and put an article in the city newsletter. The article could outline what the City could provide if a neighborhood is willing to pay their share.

Larson said we already know the costs based on the three-lamp assemblies and the one-lamp assemblies in front of City Hall and in the Rottlund development.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schmitz, to adjourn the meeting. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

_______________________________________

Erny Mattila, City Planner