Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - July 15, 1997

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

Roll Call

Present:	Larry Baker, Joann Knuth, Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz

Also Present:	Erny Mattila, City Planner

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, to approve the minutes of the June 17, 1997, meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

No report.

Agenda Review

The agenda was approved as written.

Public Hearings

VN-314	Robert Kallestad

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Livingston, to continue the Public hearing until the August 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting.

Zisla asked if a letter had been sent out confirming the applicant required the continuance. Mattila responded that the City Attorney sent out notification to the other parties involved in the mediation and the law suit and to the attorneys representing those parties.

Zisla asked Mattila to clarify his remark, as he was unaware of the legal situation. Mattila stated the purpose of this proposed variance was a result of a day-long mediation with Mr. Kallestad, who owns the old Print Craft building on Old Highway 8. Many resolutions were passed in the late '70's that were not recorded with the property for variances granted to allow Bel Air Builders to build a building down the hill behind the old Print Craft building. These actions caused some confusion about parking. The City, Bel Air Builders, and the Petersons, who own Bob's Auto and occupy the old Bel Air Builders building, were then sued by Mr. Kallestad. That suit went to a day-long mediation. Because of the mediation, Bel Air Builders agreed to pave the fenced in area at the bottom of the lot for Mr. Kallestad to park his cars. Mr. Peterson agreed to let Mr. Kallestad use that area for parking. Mr. Kallestad requested City Staff to bring forward to the Planning Commission and City Council a proposal for a 6-foot variance in the front

of the old Print Craft building for four additional parking stalls because of this mediation. Since this is a public hearing, property owners within 350 feet were notified.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Livingston, to continue the Public hearing until the August 19 Planning Commission meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business - None

Announcements and Updates

Concept Review	NuTec Corporation

Mattila briefly outlined the concept for a 12,000 square foot office building proposed for Cleveland Avenue SE and County Road D. Mattila said the proposal would involve a minor subdivision to separate the proposed building site from the Ken's Market site. Access to the office building would be from Cleveland Avenue and also from County Road D. Mattila stated the applicant was looking for comments from the Planning Commission and is anticipating applying in August.

Zisla said the 33 existing parking places for Ken's Market and the 56 proposed spaces for Tec Pro makes 89 parking spaces. Is that the minimum required by the ordinance? Mattila responded the number of spaces only exceeded the ordinance by one or two spaces. Zisla asked if the City requires 33 parking spaces for Ken's Market. Mattila said he believed so. Mattila said the parking requirement reflected the coffee shop next door to Ken's Market and Ken's Market.

Livingston asked about the setback requirement. Mattila answered the side yard setback requirement of 25 feet and 30 feet is for parking and the building respectively.

Zisla asked about the City Attorney's comments on the minor subdivision mentioned in Mattila's memo. The City Attorney said that if the lot were divided, there would be no opportunity to move the parking from the front of Ken's Market to the back.

Mattila responded the City Attorney feels that, if the property were subdivided as proposed, any opportunity to bring the nonconforming parking area in front of Ken's Market into compliance would be eliminated. Zisla asked if there were any reason to think that parking would ever be moved to the back of the building unless the entire site is redeveloped.

Mattila answered that the applicant has raised this issue. Economically speaking, it would put a hardship on Ken's Market if the parking were moved behind the building. Zisla asked if the proposed plan would create a problem for future redevelopment on the site. Mattila stated that, if the area on the plan in yellow were developed by taking the existing building down, the buildable area on that site would be constricted. The 30-foot setback line on County Road D and Cleveland, would not leave much area for a building.

Baker asked about the setback requirements for the Ken's Market site. Mattila answered 30 feet is the required setback. The rear parking setback is 5 feet from the property line. Baker commented that, if Ken's Market were no longer on the site, the site would be practically unbuildable.

Livingston asked if the outlot were part of the freeway entrance. Mattila stated the outlot was a long strip of land that is 38 feet wide and is owned by the apartment buildings further down on Cleveland Avenue. The applicant has contacted the owner of that strip several times in an attempt to purchase that property, but the price has been too high. The applicant is proposing the arrangement on the plan instead of including that property. Zisla asked what use could this 38-foot strip of land be put. Mattila responded the strip is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. It is an unbuildable parcel.

Baker asked if the strip connects to the apartment property. Mattila responded affirmatively. A driveway would be the strip's only use. Mattila stated the single family homes to the north of the proposed office building and Ken's Market line up in order. This strip runs behind those homes and hooks up with the apartment building on the north side of the single family homes.

Livingston said the plan showed the parking to be 25 feet from the west lot line. Could that line be pulled up closer? Mattila responded that since the strip is zoned R-1 and the orange and yellow areas on the plan are zoned B-2, there is a 25-foot setback requirement from that 38 feet wide strip. The intent is that if there were a single family home on the strip it should not abut a B-2 parking lot. Since this is a vacant piece of land and abuts the entrance at I-35W, the applicant had proposed to locate the building and the parking lot 5 feet from the west property line and then ask for a variance to locate the building further from the Ken's Market building. To avoid a variance request, they have abandoned that option.

Baker said he agreed with the City Attorney that the subdivision would restrict future development of the corner lot. The existing parking should be green area. By allowing the back property line to change, the Ken's Market site becomes unbuildable. Baker commented there should be no lot split.

Mattila asked Baker if he were suggesting keeping the parcels as one lot and to move the parking for Ken's Market so the parking lot could serve both buildings. Baker answered that the site should be developed so the Ken's Market site becomes a buildable site.

Zisla stated there is the nonconforming use problem and the 25-foot setback from the outlot, which makes no sense here. Baker commented that, whether or not there is a variance, the building would have access problems.

Zisla said he had a problem with the building facing backward and inward. Zisla asked what would be the difficulty with a variance. Mattila responded the variance could be justified because the intent of the 30 and 25-foot setback is to avoid encroachment on single family homes. The strip of land that is zoned R-1 will never be used for single family homes. Zisla said that attaching that strip to this parcel would be more desirable.

Baker said a variance would not change the lot lines and the existing nonconforming parking. Knuth asked if there is a legal procedure for the City to acquire the outlot for this development. Mattila said the City would probably not get involved in acquiring property for this type of development because the proposal would not qualify as a City redevelopment project.

Rob Bernu of NuTec Development and Construction stated moving Ken's Market parking to behind the building would be a hardship for the owner of Ken's. If we were granted a variance allowing us to build 5 feet from the residential strip, we can probably modify this plan to give Ken's Market more room behind their building. The market would then have room to modify its parking. Bernu stated that the residential strip probably cannot get a curb cut for a driveway. Bernu gave a brief presentation of the plan.

The owner of Ken's Market, stated he is a small businessman. Last year, the road construction forced him to take out a $50,000 loan to survive. He stated NuTec's proposal offers a wonderful opportunity to sell the land to NuTec.

Baker said he was not proposing to move the parking for Ken's Market to the back, but that the site plan does not allow any opportunity to put parking in back. If someone wanted to buy the Ken's Market building in the future, the lot would be unbuildable after the nonconformity was cleared. Baker said he would not like to see a lot split that would continue the nonconforming parking forever.

Bernu pointed out the City Centre Office complex is right on the sidewalk. Ken's Market site could be developed in the same manner. It is difficult to determine now that the site could be developed in the future. There may be options we have not considered.

Baker repeated that he could not go along with the lot split because of the nonconforming parking on Ken's Market site.

O'Brien asked if the property could be divided differently. Berneau said there is a 40-foot NSP easement that restricts the building location. Berneau pointed out the easement on the site plan. O'Brien showed a possible lot split. Berneau said they needed access onto both Cleveland and County Road D.

Livingston said he would be comfortable with moving the building closer to the residential strip. He was uncomfortable with the parking in front of Ken's Market. Livingston said center parking like the development next to City Hall is becoming more common and should be considered in this plan. The owner of Ken's market said most of his business came from the eight parking stalls right in front of the market. Livingston stated the proposed building looks like it would be an asset for the City.

Knuth asked for clarification on the existing parking, which is grandfathered. Baker responded that, if the building were destroyed, the nonconforming parking would no longer be grand fathered. The owner of Ken's Market said that if the building were destroyed, he would put up a smaller building and clear up the parking situation. Knuth commented that 16 or 20 years from now the City may have more choices for development. The owner of Ken's Market said he was trying to survive the blow from the street reconstruction and needs to sell part of the property and the proposal would generate property taxes for the City.

Zisla said he felt it was not a good idea to approve something now that could cause difficulties in the future. It would be best if the subdivision could be configured in such a way to eliminate the potential problem. The variance on the west side is one idea, but finding other solutions is the reason to do a concept review. Zisla said Knuth's idea to explore the idea of the City acquiring the outlot should be considered. There should be a way to reconfigure the lot to eliminate a likely future problem.

Livingston said another possibility was that Ken's Market and the new proposal could share parking.

Baker stated the conclusions reached tonight are mixed. The consensus seems to be that a variance would be looked at favorably. There seems to be a split decision on the lot lines. Mattila said the Planning Commission seemed to be saying that the original lot needs to be bigger.

Zisla stated he would like to see plans on other ideas with an explanation of why they would or would not work. It may be this plan is the best one after all. Bernu said it sounded like the Commission favors moving the building closer to the outlot making more room at the back of Ken's Market. Baker affirmed that is his opinion. Baker suggested looking at shared driveways. Bernu asked if getting the plan approved with a cross parking easement would be harder. Baker said it would not.

Concept Review	G & P Properties

Mattila reviewed the site plan for a Planned Residential Development for senior housing in the Rice Creek Shopping center and an addition onto Brightondale for an Alzheimer's facility.

Mattila said Staff discovered a couple of difficulties with the existing Zoning Ordinance. The PRD ordinance only overlays residential districts and does not allow for commercial development. The PUD ordinance only overlays commercial and industrial districts and will not allow for residential construction. The PRD and the PUD ordinances do not allow for a mixed use development, which is becoming more common for senior housing facilities. An amendment to the PUD or PRD ordinance could be a solution. Creating a mixed use ordinance could be another solution.

Baker stated an amendment to the PRD or PUD ordinances may create serious repercussions. We have to be careful to create an ordinance that will not create problems. Mattila said one idea would be to do a minor amendment to the PRD or PUD ordinance to allow this proposal to move forward and then work with the Hoisington Group on a mixed use ordinance. There were several areas in the Highway 8 Corridor identified as mixed use. There will be a need for a mixed use ordinance to overlay these districts within the Corridor. When that ordinance is developed, it could overlay this B-3 district.

Mattila introduced Mike Gould of G & P Properties. Gould gave a brief presentation of the proposal.

Baker asked if the lots were contiguous at any point. Mattila responded they touch at the corners. Livingston asked what a "co-op" means here. Gould outlined the ownership shares for the building. Baker asked about the density. Mattila said by using the R-3A district standards to Brightondale, the Alzheimer's facility, and co-op facility and the four acres in the Rice Creek Shopping Center area would be below the density limits. Mattila said Maurie Anderson, the Parks and Rec Director, and he would meet with Mr. Gould Thursday to discuss the impact of the proposal on the park.

Baker said he was concerned that the park becomes a private facility. The proposal limits access to the park. Gould said they would include the suggestions from the Park & Rec Director in their final proposal.

Livingston stated that, because the building is so massive, building up another story may be better and cut back on the land use. Baker asked if the extended living people had cars. Gould responded there would be underground parking.

Zisla asked if the Snyder's building would be upgraded. Gould stated the Snyder's people would probably upgrade its building when the area is cleaned up. Baker asked if Gould owned any of the shopping center. Gould showed the area owned by G & P.

Zisla commented the PRD ordinance needed to be reviewed. There should be more flexibility in the ordinance. The City needs an ordinance that works, not just for this project, but for future projects. There should be a mixed use ordinance to make such projects feasible.

Baker stated senior housing needs to be dealt within an ordinance specifically and before we do any bandage amendment for this project.

Mattila said he spoke with the City Attorney and the earliest an amendment could be ready would be August. A separate mixed use ordinance would take even longer. The minor amendment approach to the PRD ordinance may be the only choice. Mr. Gould could come in with a proposal would be September.

Mattila said there are proposals by other nursing home or senior facilities that may come forward in the future. The current R-3A and R-3B ordinances do not accommodate their wishes. Zisla said an ordinance must be flexible to honor creative ideas.

Baker thanked Gould for his presentation.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to adjourn the meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned.

_______________________________________

Erny Mattila, City Planner