Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - August 19, 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 (Late), Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz

Absent:	Paul Zisla

Also, Present:	Erny Mattila, City Planner

Tom Terry, Planning Assistant

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Patrick Culbert, Councilmember of the Month

Approval of Minutes

Because the minutes of the July 15, 1997, were omitted from the Planning Commission packet, no action was taken.

Report on Council Action

Larson reported Roger Williams has resigned from the City Council. The City has advertised in the New Brighton Bulletin for applicants interested in serving the remainder of Williams' term which ends December 31, 1997.

Larson introduced Pat Culbert, the Councilmember of the Month. Larson outlined Stockyard Days events.

Agenda Review

The Commission adopted the agenda as written.

Public Hearings

VN-314	Robert Kallestad

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning a request for a setback variance and a parking aisle width variance to construct four parking stalls in the front yard area of an industrial site. Mattila showed slides of the site.

O'Brien asked if the businesses used the 14 shared parking spaces at the same time of day and the same days of the week. Mattila responded the 1979 agreement was for shared parking. Bel Air Builders occupied the back building. Bel Air operated primarily during the day. Bob's Auto occupies that building now and is open until about 6:00 p.m. Mr. Kallestad's building does have uses that have evening hours making an opportunity for joint use of the spaces.

O'Brien asked why Mattila mentioned that the basement and first floor of the building can only be used for warehouse and manufacturing in the case report. Mattila said the significance of that comment was an important fact in the mediation process. According to the mediation agreement, the basement and first floor areas of the building cannot be divided into small offices that often uses more parking spaces than warehouse or manufacturing uses. Mattila said another significant fact in the mediation was that, if the City grants the variance for the four parallel parking stalls, the term of the variance would only be ten years. After ten years, the variance would be null and void and the applicant would have to restore the berm to its existing formation. The owner would have to remove the four parallel parking stalls and restore the berm.

Livingston asked if other businesses in the area have parking variances. Mattila answered the situation varies along Old Highway 8. Micom is setback 40 feet from Old Highway 8 and has no parking in front of the building and has 40 feet of greenspace in front. The Dairy Queen to the south has a 3-foot landscaped strip and Townhouse Maintenance south of Dairy Queen has a 40-foot setback. Next, the Gas and Splash has zero landscaping. Therefore, the situation varies along Old Highway 8.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this issue. There was no response.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to close the Public Hearing. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker commented that the Planning Commission's purpose is to deal with land use issues and this variance is not a good land use. Baker stated no unique circumstances exist and the proposal is illegal. Baker said he would vote against the variance. If the City Council wants to overrule the Planning Commission that is their prerogative.

O'Brien asked Mattila who was involved in the mediation. Mattila replied that the applicant sued the City, Bel Air Builders and Bob's Auto. Instead of a court proceeding, the parties participated in a day- long mediation. Several attorneys were involved representing the various parties. Bob's Auto agreed to provide shared parking on their site for Mr. Kallestad. Belair Builders agreed to pave and stripe any new parking areas. City staff agreed to recommend approval of a variance for four additional parking stalls in front of the subject building along Old Highway 8. The Planning Commission and the City Council are not bound by that agreement.

O'Brien asked if the four stalls were a critical part of the mediation. Mattila replied it was not a critical issue, but it was an issue that kept all four parties at the table for about five hours. O'Brien asked why the parking agreement was not recorded in 1979. Mattila said it should have been recorded with the County at the time the developer and the applicant signed the shared parking agreement. It did not come to the City's attention again until 1992.

Schmitz asked what other options are viable here. Mattila answered that in the past the applicant has approached the Dairy Queen to do a shared parking agreement. The Dairy Queen did not have enough parking on their site to allow that to happen. The applicant also approached the Micom Corporation and asked if they could lease parking spaces, but that was not an option because their employees were using the parking. The Highway 8 Corridor Study proposes that Ramsey County restore Old Highway 8 to two lanes to slow traffic to make it an arterial street versus a highway. That could create some on-street parking on Old Highway 8.

O'Brien asked if the City was requiring the four parking stalls. Mattila responded that the City is not requiring the four parking spaces. The applicant is requesting the variance to construct the four parking stalls because they feel they are under-parked. The City is not requiring the stalls.

Livingston asked what precedent would be set if the City granted the variance. Mattila said the subject property was somewhat unique because it has been enclosed by development. Also, the site has been placed in a situation where the building is of a certain size and requires a certain number of parking stalls, but does not have enough site area to provide those parking stalls.

Schmitz asked if the parking situation affects the retail businesses or is the parking used by employees. Mattila stated that, according to the applicant, the parking in the front of the building is insufficient for clients. They need at least four more stalls in front of the building so clients do not have to go down behind the building.

Knuth commented the variance should be approved.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend denial of V-314 because unique circumstances that create a hardship do not exist, but are due to overbuilding of the site, and the Planning Commission is mindful of setting a precedent.

5 Ayes - 1 Nays (Knuth). Motion Carried.

LP-327/NC-108/VN-315/PL-236	Nutec Construction

Mattila outlined the case report concerning a request for site plan review, nonconforming use permit, setback variance, and a minor subdivision, to construct a two-story office building on an existing commercial site.

Baker pointed out discrepancies in the site plan and the landscape plans, which makes the plans meaningless.

Schiferl asked about the landscaping. Mattila responded the applicant proposed three evergreens for the north side of the pond, which is being elongated to provide more space between the property line and the pond area itself. Mattila stated the City Forester has looked at the site, has talked to the property owners to the north and does have some concern about the impact of a pond on the roots of the nearby trees. The City Forester felt that elongating the pond would solve that problem.

Schiferl asked if a 38-foot wide lot was buildable. Mattila stated first, he did not know if Ramsey County would allow a curb cut for a driveway on that lot. Mattila said second, the lot would have to be 75 feet wide to be a buildable lot.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this proposal.

Mary Lee Butcher, owner of the property to the north of the subject site, said she wanted to thank the applicants for their cooperation. Butcher stated she purchased her property because of the nearby trees. Butcher said she had expected a developer would build on the land at some point in the future. If the Planning Commission and the City Council approves the proposal, Butcher said she would be concerned about the value of her property. Butcher said she was concerned about the aesthetics of the pond. Butcher pointed out her concerns about the pond on both the original and the current site plans. The original pond fit nicely behind the four large trees on Butcher's property. Butcher stated her home would look directly over the end of the elongated pond. Butcher said she was concerned about the looks of the pond. Butcher said she did not understand if the pond would always have water in it, if it would be shallow, or if it would only have water during heavy rains. Butcher said the length of the pond was her greatest concern.

Baker asked about the invert coming out of the pond. Will the pond be dry? Ron Berneau, Nutec Construction, responded that they changed the pond because of Butcher's concerns about her trees. They extended the pond to get more space between her property and her trees and the pond. The pond was elongated to accommodate Butcher's concerns. Berneau stated the pond would be a dry pond and would provide drainage for the site. Berneau said they would use stone to beautify the pond. Berneau, said the proposed building covered about 15% of the lot. The NSP easement that runs through the property makes development of the lot difficult. Berneau stated he felt Nutec had come up with a plan that provides for the future of the Ken's Market property and a pleasing building on the site.

Baker stated he was also concerned about the pond. The code requires a buffer between a B-2 use and an R-1 use. Baker said a five-foot deep stone pond was not a landscape buffer and would create a hazard because of its depth. Baker stated there is no room on the site for snow storage. After the owner puts in the handicap parking, the parking will be inadequate.

Berneau said the site had room for three handicap parking stalls. The density of the building is less than allowed. The pond itself would not be unsightly and can be beautified. Knuth stated she felt the pond is effective and would be very attractive.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public Hearing. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Schiferl stated no hardship exists here that would warrant granting of the setback variance. The proposal may be workable if the R-1 lot were rezoned.

Baker said he questioned the attractiveness of the pond when it is full of the runoff from the parking lot. Baker stated such a pond does not belong next to a single family home. O'Brien commented left turns from County Road D could greatly influence the traffic flow on County Road D and said he was concerned about the curb cut being so close to the I-35W ramp. Mattila said he asked Dan Soler, Ramsey County Public Works, about the curb cut and Soler stated the curb cut was acceptable to Ramsey County.

Baker stated the site plan provided to the Planning Commission was inadequate. Baker said the Planning Commission should continue the hearing to next month so the applicant can provide a correct landscape and parking plan.

Berneau said they were not short parking stalls and the site had room for the handicap parking. Berneau stated they needed to make very little modification to the plans to justify denying the proposal. Baker pointed out the trees shown on the landscape plan would not fit on the site plan. Berneau responded that would be a minor adjustment that they could work out with the City Forester.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend denial of LP-327, NC-108, PL-236, and VN-315 because no hardship or unique circumstance exists for approval of the variance.

Livingston asked if the Commission could deny VN-315 and approve the other parts of the proposal. Baker responded negatively.

Baker said he did not have a problem with the variance, but the overuse of the site. Knuth commented, according to the applicant, the land use meets all existing codes and is not overused. Knuth asked Mattila if the proposal meets existing codes. Mattila responded affirmatively except for the setback variance request and the handicap parking issue. They could solve the parking issue relatively easily. The setback variance reduces the greenspace by 25 feet. Baker pointed out there is no landscape buffer to the R-1 area.

Livingston stated plans have enough parking spaces, but not enough handicap places. Could they widen a parking space to meet the handicap requirements? Mattila said they needed 55 parking spaces. The applicant would have to make two of the nine-foot wide spaces twelve feet wide. Livingston said he favored approving the variance.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 3 Ayes - 3 Nays. Motion Failed.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Knuth, to recommend approval of LP-327, NC-108, PL-236, and VN-315. 3 Ayes - 3 Nays. Motion Failed. The request will be sent to the City Council without a recommendation, but with a record of the motions.

Amendment to PRD Ordinance	City of New Brighton

Mattila reviewed the memo on the amendment to the Planned Residential Development Ordinance.

Baker stated he felt the developer was asking the City to take this action too quickly without giving the City time to consider the consequences. This "Band-Aid" was for the benefit of one developer and may cause unforeseen problems.

Mattila said the proposed amendment would be a minor one. The Hoisington Koegler Group will be studying creating a mixed use district in about two months. Baker asked what parking requirement would be enforced in such a district. Mattila responded any residential use is referred to the R-3 district standards for the housing type, such as elderly housing. Baker said then the parking is governed by each use.

Baker stated the code does not allow residential uses in a B-2 district. Considering a total ordinance is critical.

Knuth commented the City would probably see more development dealing with elderly housing. Therefore, the City needs a clear and concise ordinance to allow for senior housing. Knuth said she agreed with Baker that the Commission needs to be careful in providing services for the elderly. The Planning Commission should do everything it can to encourage development that addresses the needs of seniors.

Schmitz said there was no rush to do this and the Commission should wait for the consultant's recommendations.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this proposal. No one responded.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by O'Brien, to close the Public Hearing. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend denial of the amendment to the planned residential development ordinance pending a recommendation from the Hoisington Koegler Group. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

LP-328	Remmele Engineering

Mattila introduced Tom Terry who has been working with City Staff this summer. Mattila said Terry would do the next two presentations on the agenda. Terry reviewed the case report concerning a request for site plan review to construct two additions, a 21,740 square foot addition and a 32,610 square foot addition, to the existing Remmele Engineering building.

Chet Harrison of Clark Engineering stated that, when Remmele constructed its building, Remmele thought it had approval for these additions. This process adds 30 to 45 days before they can construct these additions. Remmele wants to meet all the requirements, but Remmele needs approval to finish this project within the next five years.

Mattila stated, when this project was first proposed in 1992, it was only a site plan proposal. Site plan proposals do not require public hearings. Mattila stated he walked 13th Avenue Friday evening and met with some neighbors to let them know what would be happening on the Remmele site. Mattila said this was a courtesy the City provided to the residents. If Remmele builds an addition in five years, Mattila said they should again bring it before the Planning Commission and the City Council so we can advise the neighbors of the development. In five years time, homes may be bought and sold, and the new residents may have no idea of what is happening.

Baker asked if an approval expires within a certain time if no building permit is issued. Mattila said the approval expired in six months. They labeled the area on the site plan "future expansion" and the Planning Commission or the City Council anticipated any plans for such expansion would come before them in the future.

Baker said he felt we should review the site before they construct any addition. Livingston agreed with Baker. If the applicant wanted to start this project, they should have allowed time for this review.

Schmitz asked if approval could be tied to the building being retained in Remmele's ownership. Remmele has been a good neighbor in New Brighton and Schmitz felt they should be given every consideration possible. Schiferl stated conditions can change over a five-year period. Mattila stated that is why it is a good idea to review any new additions.

Baker commented the addition would be a real asset to the City. Baker remarked this was not a public hearing since site plan review does not require a public hearing, but asked if anyone wished to speak on the application.

Craig Walker, 116 13th Avenue SW, asked Terry to interpret the site plan. Terry did so. Walker said the addition would be very close to other neighbors' homes. Remmele is a pleasing building, but they should consider the homeowners. Perhaps the Councilmembers should walk in their back yards and look. Something should be done to buffer the building from the homes.

Mattila stated that in 1992, when the building outlined in purple on the site plan came before the Planning Commission, a big issue was the buffering and screening. Remmele installed the trees and privacy fence. Mattila said he had worked with all the neighbors bordering the site and everyone who wanted a fence got one. The issue was addressed at that point.

Walker said the neighbors might want a better buffer.

Jim Schreyer, 13 13th Avenue SW, asked why Remmele is not expanding to the vacant area to the north or to the southwest where there are a holding pond and a railroad track.

Baker responded that the Proof of Parking covers the south area of the site. Mattila showed the Proof of Parking area on the site plan. Schreyer asked about the proposed road. Mattila said there is an existing road behind the building that would be located farther to the west. Schreyer asked if the light near they would move his property line closer to his lot.

Chet Harrison, representing Remmele Engineering, stated they would work with Mr. Schreyer on the lighting. The Police Department requires the light.

Schreyer stated Remmele is a good neighbor, but he was concerned about a wall. The original plan shows a berm, but that did not work out for some reason. Mattila responded there were several discussions with the neighbors and the agreement reached was to waive the berm for privacy fencing.

Mark Murlowski, 136 12th Avenue SW, stated that he had concerns when Remmele originally proposed the project. Murlowski said he was concerned about traffic and appearance of the project. The building is attractive and has generated no truck traffic. The Remmele building acts as a noise barrier from the railroad. Murlowski stated he just wanted to say that Remmele is a good neighbor.

Pete Morrell, 97 13th Avenue SW, asked what the use would be for the proposed addition. Harrison said the use would be the same as now. Morrell asked if there would be an increase in traffic or noise. Harrison responded the conditions would be the same as today.

Schmitz said, since he was not on the Commission when they originally approved the project, he would like a couple points clarified. Was the expansion not approved then but was understood there would be future expansion? Mattila responded that was correct. Schmitz asked, if this building changed ownership, would that affect the neighborhood. Mattila responded the I-3 District is the most restrictive industrial district since it borders on residential property and park land.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schmitz, to Recommend Approval of LP-328, subject to conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

LP-329	Belair Builders Inc.

Terry reviewed the case report concerning an application for site plan review to construct an addition onto an existing industrial building. Terry showed slides of the site and reviewed the site plan on the overhead projector.

Baker said the addition would be very good and will help upgrade the area. The applicant was present. Baker asked if anyone had a question for the applicant and there was no response.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend approval of LP-329. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates

Concept Review - buildings for boat and auto storage	Belair Builders

Mattila reviewed the memo and concept plan submitted by Belair Builders for storage buildings on the west side of the Belair Builders property on the northern border of New Brighton next to Long Lake Park.

Schiferl asked if the area were part of the Old Highway 8 Corridor plan in the new Comprehensive Plan. Mattila answered negatively.

Schmitz asked if the buildings would be visible from the proposed trail. Mark Murlowski of Belair Builders answered the buildings are about 1,900 feet from the neighbors. There is an extensive wet land between this property and Long Lake that will be undeveloped.

Murlowski explained the need for the buildings and the history of the site.

In answer to a question from Baker, Mattila said storage buildings were a special use in an I-1 District. Baker asked if metal buildings are a permitted use in an I-1 District. Mattila responded the Building Official said they were permitted if they comply with the Building Code. The only condition is that the buildings that face the public right-of-way have some decorative front. This would be a consideration if Mustang Drive were continued. Mattila said part of the site should be aggressively screened from the wetland area where a potential trail area could be and from the homes across the way.

Schiferl asked about the elevations. Murlowski answered the site drains to the north and to the west. The site is 32 acres and Belair is going to sell six or 7 acres to Ramsey County for park development. The concept is for water runoff to go to the north and west. To do that, Belair raised the elevation significantly. The buildings would be about the same height as the other buildings.

Livingston asked if cars and boats would be in there for winter storage. Murlowski answered Belair expects that they would store boats and automobiles there. There would be limited access, perhaps even seasonal access rather than daily access.

Murlowski asked what the Planning Commission would like to see on the proposed plan. Schiferl said he would like to see more detail especially in relation to the surrounding area.

Select a member of Highway 8 Task Force

Mattila stated that last year the Planning Commission nominated Mike Livingston, Paul Zisla, and Joann Knuth to serve on the Highway 8 Task Force and all three did so. The Highway 8 Task Force will convene again for 1997 and 1998 to review implementation of the Highway 8 Corridor Study. Commissioner Knuth has requested she not be included in the Task Force. The Planning Commission needs to nominate one member to fill out the three-member roster from the Planning Commission to serve on the Task Force.

Baker asked if anyone would like to volunteer. O'Brien responded he would like to serve.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to adjourn the meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

_______________________________________

Erny Mattila, City Planner