Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - October 21, 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, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien

Also Present:	Erny Mattila, City Planner

Tom Terry, Planning Assistant

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the September 16, 1997, Planning Commission meeting were adopted unanimously.

Report on Council Action - None

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

LP-331, PRD-59 & PL-258	G & P Properties

Baker stated this is a public hearing and the audience can to speak on the proposal after the Planning Commission asks any question it may have. The Commission asks that anyone who has comments on the issue to speak into the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning an application for site plan review, PRD, and minor subdivision to construct a 20-unit Alzheimer addition onto the Brightondale senior housing facility and replace a portion of the Rice Creek Shopping Center with a 97-unit senior independent living facility. Mattila showed slides of the site.

Roger Johnson, Johnson, Sheldon & Sorensen Architects, stated his firm was involved in the coop portion of the project. Johnson described some of his firm's current projects that are similar to the proposed facility.

Zisla asked about the price range for the proposed coop units. Johnson responded that, if G & P Properties uses the uninsured loan approach, the share values for a 750 square foot unit would be $19,000 with a $600 monthly charge. The share cost for largest of the units, which are 1,400 square feet, would be about $30,000 with a monthly charge of $1,000. These costs include garbage removal, management, principal, interest, taxes and insurance.

Zisla asked how a coop unit differs from a condominium unit. Johnson answered that there is no difference physically. The difference is the form of ownership. The coop form of ownership has the same income tax and homestead tax advantage to the individual owner as in any home ownership. The share values are equivalent to home prices of $90,000 to $140,000.

Schiferl asked where snow removed from the parking lot would be stored. Johnson showed the area on the site plan.

Mike Gould, president of G & P Properties, the applicant and current owner of Brightondale, gave a short overview of the proposal. Gould stated G & P held neighborhood meetings and the meetings had been somewhat confrontational, but he had learned a great deal from the meetings. G & P has addressed the issues brought up in the meetings in the revised plans, especially concerning the drainage and stormwater plan. G & P wishes to improve the existing drainage problem. Gould said a representative of Barr Engineering would talk about the solutions Barr recommends.

Gould stated landscaping and screening was mentioned at the neighborhood meetings. Gould said the landscaping was not addressed landscaping very well in G & P's original plan. G & P's landscape engineers have designed a much more dense landscape plan. The new landscape plan shows a circular wandering path. The neighbors stated the wandering path in the old landscape plan was too close to the neighbors on the west. Therefore, G & P eliminated the wandering path and is trying to find a way to put the path on the courtyard side. G & P also revisited the parking plan and the new plan will address the neighbors' concerns about the parking shortage at Brightondale.

Gould introduced Barb Knight, the housing director at Brightondale, who has worked extensively with Alzheimer's and dementia. Gould said Knight would speak about the need for the proposed facility.

Knight outlined the purpose of the assisted living and Alzheimer's facilities. Knight stated that Brightondale has at least ten residents living in Brightondale's assisted living facility who would use the Alzheimer's/dementia unit. The proposed unit would make it possible for the residents to stay at Brightondale and to make the move to the Alzheimer's/dementia unit less stressful. Many diseases are classified as dementia-related diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, Stroke, Huntington's Disease and many others. Dementia-related diseases all deal with loss of memory. This unit would be an alternative to nursing home care. The unit would also be an ideal situation for married couples. One spouse could be living at the assisted living section and the other spouse could be in the dementia wing. The couples could still see each other and the family would only have to visit one location and would be dealing with the same staff. Knight said she hoped the community will be as excited about the proposed project because the area needs an Alzheimer's/dementia unit.

Gould stated G & P worked hard to design the Alzheimer's wing to integrate into the neighborhood by making it a single story structure. G & P also redesigned the landscaping to make it a good fit in the neighborhood. Gould introduced Mark Longworth of SKD Architects.

Longworth outlined the plans for the Alzheimer's/dementia unit and showed the elevations. Since the proposed unit is a one-story unit, the unit would look more residential than the existing Brightondale building. Longworth reviewed the new landscape plan. Longworth introduced Chet Harrison from Clark Engineering, the civil engineering firm on the project.

Harrison said he had been working with Karen Chandler of Barr Engineering, the City's engineering consultants, on an overall stormwater plan for this development. Harrison stated G & P proposes to construct a large pond for stormwater storage. The pond would improve the water quality by having water in it. As stormwater runs into the pond, it picks up particulates that settle out in the ponding area. Therefore, when the stormwater goes downstream it is purer and better water. The pond would allow plant growth that removes nutrients from the stormwater. The water would be released to a storm sewer that runs to northeast toward Rice Creek. The standard for this type of national urban pond is being developed to enhance water quality. First, G & P would develop a water pond that would have water in it most of the time, except in very dry periods. G & P may put a bridge across the pond at some point in time to enhance the aesthetics and to connect to the park better. The pond would be on the northwest corner of the existing building. The existing storm sewer seems adequate to handle a ten-year storm event. That is about an inch and a half of rain over a 24-hour period. The storm sewer is not designed for a big storm such as we had this year. Now, during a large storm, a dam forms outside the storm sewer pipe at the corner of the proposed building. When the pipe cannot carry the flow of the water, the water builds up behind it. The pond would be designed to hold such water. The existing pond is not large enough to hold large amounts of water. Therefore, temporary flooding occurs around the neighboring homes. G & P wants to eliminate that situation. The plans have taken the existing storm sewer system and opened up the embankment between the ponding area and the park. During a large storm, the water would begin to build up in the ponding area and would run across the park and into the new ponding area. Clark is designing the pond to handle stormwater for a hundred-year event.

Harrison stated the constructing the new pond would entail significant changes. The stormwater needs to be captured by additional piping and taken over to the new ponding area. Areas on the adjacent properties are too low to pipe all the stormwater away from those properties. G & P needs to get permission from the corner property owner to allow them to build a manhole, fill the area and let water from the larger storm run across the park and into the ponding area. If G & P is unable to get this permission, some ponding would occur on that property because of the open pipe dumping into that corner. A pipe outlets the water to a bigger pond, but there would be more localized ponding if we do not get this permission. G & P hopes they can work with the neighbors to eliminate all the low area next to the proposed Alzheimer's wing.

Karen Chandler of Barr Engineering showed aerial photos of the site showing the drainage in the area. Chandler pointed out the present drainage features. Chandler said that, besides the pond becoming too full, the present grading is causing the water to drain through the adjacent properties. Chandler explained the drainage way would be well-defined by the new plan. The well-defined feature would be critical to the adjacent homes. Chandler stated that the proposed stormwater management plan would be a benefit to the community because it improves water quality. Rice Creek would benefit from the improved water.

Schiferl asked Chandler to explain the issue on the corner lot. Chandler showed the present ponding area on the overhead photo and the low spots on the adjacent properties. Chandler said the property owners would not be losing any property, but would be having their lot regraded.

Harrison said, if G & P does not receive permission to regrade the neighbor's property, a large storm would put from two to three and a half feet of water on the property. G & P wants to fill that area, which would amount to giving the property owner a backyard. Currently, the property drops two and a half to three feet away from the home's deck. The backyard would be level if the lot is regraded. A manhole would be on the property. When there is a storm heavier than a ten-year event, which is what the storm sewer is designed for, water would raise one foot before it runs across the park. When the rain subsides, the water would go into the manholes and run out of there. More than one foot of water would flow across the park.

Longworth showed the proposed modified berm.

Baker referenced Chandler's comments on a more defined area. Baker asked if Chandler were talking about surface water. Chandler responded affirmatively. Chandler said the water flowed in two directions. Some water goes overland and some of it is captured in pipes. Catch basins carry the water into a pipe and some water flows overland in a drainage way. That drainage way is not well defined now.

Baker asked why Clark and Barr were not recommending a larger pipe. Harrison responded a larger pipe would not solve the problem. The storm sewers have been properly designed, but the grading between the existing Brightondale building and the houses does not carry the water away. The water meanders because the drainage way is poorly defined. The proposed plan shows a defined swale where the water would accumulate going through the corner and across the park. Baker asked if all the water from the front parking lot at Brightondale goes into a pipe. Harrison responded the water goes into the pipe in a ten-year event. Most cities use the ten-year standard when designing storm sewers, although some cities use a five-year standard. The existing pipe is sized properly, but the current grading does not allow the water to flow into the storm sewer.

Baker stated, under the proposed plan, all the water would still not go into the pipe. Baker asked Harrison if the problem with the existing pond its size or its maintenance. Harrison stated the storm sewer is not perfectly clean. Sediment in the pipe reduces its capacity. The sediment needs to be cleaned out. Harrison said that the problem with the existing pond is the berm on the downstream side. The berm is high and the water cannot flow.

Baker asked Chandler if it were her opinion that the problem with the pond is not a maintenance problem. Chandler said that, when she did the modeling for the ponding area, the flood levels did not seem too high. However, there were extreme rains in July, and the pond would have to fill up to quite a depth before it would overflow. Chandler said it could be a maintenance issue if the pipe is clogged. The modeling would not reflect the clogged pipe. Chandler said, before Harrison talked about the clogged pipe, she thought the issue was the runoff from the Brightondale property going to the neighbors' property.

Gould said he would like to talk about the runoff on the western side of Brightondale. Gould asked Harrison if the primary cause of water problems on the neighbors' property has been the runoff from the Brightondale building and the parking lot off Rice Creek Road. Harrison responded affirmatively. Gould stated Harrison is proposing regrading the Brightondale property and creating a swale to carry the water back to the manhole that would carry the water to the park. Harrison said that was correct. Gould said the cause of the current drainage problem is the grading of Brightondale. Gould said regrading the Brightondale property and creating the swale on the Brightondale property would carry off most of the stormwater. Gould said G & P would continue to work on any problems caused by water draining onto the property of the two homes to the west. Gould said he was committed to seeing the stormwater stays on the Brightondale property.

Gould said the underground connection between the two buildings is very important for the quality of life of the residents. The number of people more than sixty-five years of age would double by 2000. By 2020, over 25% of the population will be over sixty-five. Therefore, senior housing will be in great demand and we hope Brightondale will be able to meet this demand.

Zisla stated he understood the function of the Alzheimer's wing and the assisted living housing, but how does coop housing fit a particular niche in the community. Gould stated the resident would own the senior coop units. The assisted living portion of Brightondale is rental units. The coop would have congregate facilities such as congregate dining and activity spaces. Zisla asked if coop housing is not just a transition from single family homes. Gould responded it was a transition from single family living, but with health care and other services. However, the coop residents would be paying less than they would at an independent congregate facility and for much the same service. Zisla asked if the proposal has components that make it distinctly a senior housing facility as opposed to housing that would fit the needs of the general population. Gould responded this is a product for seniors, not just a coop housing project. Gould said the coop was unique because it is more affordable than rental congregate facility and would provide much the same services. Gould said the monthly costs of an independent facility would be $1,000 to $1,100 per month. The monthly costs of the coop would be $600 or $700.

Johnson commented that the general population in the facilities like Brightondale has gotten younger in the past few years. People in their early 60's want freedom from single family living. Zisla said he was confused and that he was hearing two different messages about the coop units. Mr. Johnson is talking about a different ownership form for people who want a certain lifestyle. Mr. Gould is talking about a transition through an aging process for the need for congregate services and care. Zisla stated he is trying to get a feel for which kind of project is proposed.

Gould said the coop units would be appeal to seniors who want freedom from home ownership and seniors looking for congregate services. Therefore, the answer may be a little bit of both. The coop residents can age in place and move to the assisted living units or the Alzheimer's unit. Lifestyles between and independent congregate facility and a senior coop would be similar.

Schiferl asked about Harrison's remarks about the possible pedestrian bridge over the pond. Who would pay for this bridge? Gould said the bridge had not been discussed it, but Gould assumed G & P would pay for the bridge. Schiferl asked, if the pond would be five or six feet deep, what precautions would be taken to protect young children. Gould said the question had been posed in the neighborhood meeting. Gould said G & P would put in fencing or find another solution to address that problem. Any solution to the safety issue would have to be amenable to the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Mattila said that, in his conversations with the Fire Department on ponding areas, the New Brighton Fire Department is against fencing around ponding areas. For example, there is an open ponding area here at City Hall next to a park and playground. The Fire Department has found fenced in pond areas still attract children. The fencing only adds more labor time to the rescue effort. The Fire Department preferred to see ponding areas kept open and built more safely, such as the pond Chandler described.

Schiferl asked whether the City or the developer would pay for cleaning out the storm sewers that serve Brightondale, both initially and for ongoing maintenance. Mattila responded it may be the City's responsibility, but a definite answer could only come from the City Engineer.

Baker stated he was the only present Planning Commissioner who was on the Commission when Brightondale was originally approved. Baker commented the Brightondale facility was not the result of the first proposal. The homes on 28th Avenue were a part of a PRD so the lots are undersized. The undersized lots were a big concern when Brightondale was proposed. Because of the visual considerations caused by the lots, a compromise was reached and Brightondale was located on the east portion of their site and was approved as a PRD. Baker said he was very concerned that, if the Commission recommends approval of the proposed Alzheimer's wing, it would be violating that agreement.

Baker said the Brightondale PRD was proposed, approved, and built. Any PRD on that existing site only has 2.2 acres. Only 2.2 acres can be used for density calculations and that comes to far less than the existing units. To add 29 units to the existing units, you have to include this unit with the 2.2 acres and the R-2 density calls for 32 units. Baker said that, under the R-2 zoning, taking the 2.3 acres of the Brightondale site comes to 32. Brightondale currently has 72 units.

Mattila said he was not the City Planner when Brightondale was approved. Mattila said his comments are based on reading the reports and the minutes of that period. When the PRD-27 was considered, the applicant was allowed to use the 5 acres of Meadowwood Park in addition to the 2.3 acres of the Brightondale site, making 7.3 acres, for density calculations for Brightondale. Those density calculations came out to 101 units to be allowed on the site. The applicant then built only 72 units of the possible 101 units.

Baker agreed with Mattila's statement, but the original applicant proposed only 72 units with no additional phases. The PRD was based on 72 units and approved for 72 units. Mattila said the City Attorney's first opinion was that, since the City indicated 101 units were appropriate for that site, the City would be hard pressed to stop the applicant from doing so. However, the City Attorney pointed out there was no park dedication ordinance in place then. Therefore, City Attorney was unsure of the City's ability to hold development to 72 units or allow the 101 units.

Schmitz asked if the primary parking would have direct access to Meadowwood Park. Mattila answered park access would be from the northwest parking lot of the proposed coop facility, either around or over the proposed ponding area. Also, there is a proposed emergency vehicle access easement over the proposed underground tunnel area. The easement can be used for access to the park as well. The emergency vehicle easement would be from Erickson's New Market parking lot.

Schmitz asked if the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Commission had a problem with the access. Schmitz commented that this summer there were four or five hundred kids participating in soccer programs at Meadowwood being dropped off and there was no parking available.

Mattila said Maurie Anderson, the Parks and Recreation Director, met with the Parks Commission. Anderson said they would want to have a shared parking agreement if this proposal were approved. The shared parking agreement would be for the stalls in that northwest corner because there would be soccer programs in the evenings. Anderson felt the parking lot would be adequate to accommodate these programs.

Zisla asked if any City-owned park parking would be eliminated by this proposed project. Mattila responded there is no publicly owned parking, except the public right-of-way that is 27th Avenue and 21st Street. Brightondale has a parking easement on the Rice Creek Shopping Center site, but there is no City-owned parking involved.

Baker stated the City owns parking rights on the existing shopping center through a shared agreement given by the original developer. Mattila said he was not aware of that agreement. Baker said he shared Schmitz's concern about the parking for Meadowwood Park. The proposal makes Meadowwood Park a private park and that is not acceptable.

Schiferl asked Baker how many parking spaces are there under the existing agreement with Rice Creek Center versus the proposed parking for the coop on the northeast side. Baker responded he did not recall.

Zisla said Baker's comment puzzled him. Zisla stated he understood it is a privately owned property with a driveway that goes with the shopping center. Baker answered affirmatively. Zisla asked how taking away a private driveway and converting the shopping center to housing is interfering with the use of the park. Zisla said he did not understand the public aspect of that. Baker answered the existing parking is adjacent to the park and the developer gave the City the right to use that parking for the park. The City owns the right to use that parking lot. Baker said the area behind the existing shopping center building by that roadway is shared parking with Brightondale and shared parking for the park and is part of the development agreement. Zisla asked if these were the parking stalls behind the vacant Rice Creek Shopping Center. Baker answered affirmatively.

Mattila asked if the area dedicated for the overflow is the area dedicated for parking for Meadowwood Park. Baker responded affirmatively.

Knuth asked if the City had done any analysis of the parking density and the parking in areas around the proposed development. Is there sufficient parking now to meet the needs of the youth, for shopping, and for visiting at Brightondale? Mattila said the City did a parking analysis of the coop, New Market, the remaining 18,000 square feet for Snyder's and the Pizza Factory/Spectacle Shoppe area. When the owners constructed the Pizza Factory/Spectacle Shoppe building, the parking was construed to be adequate. The remaining stalls that would be outside the coop facility would serve the remaining Snyder's adequately. Additional stalls would be located to the south of the Snyder's building. Parking on-site for the coop would be adequate and there would be underground parking in the coop building. New Market has adequate parking and the peripheral commercial uses have adequate parking.

Zisla pointed out the case report states the ordinance requires 129 stalls and G & P proposes 177 stalls. How does that fit with the shared parking agreement? Mattila responded of the 177 stalls, 90 would be underground. The 26 parking stalls shared between the City and the coop would be in the northwest portion of the surface parking. Zisla asked if the Parks Director had a recommendation. Mattila responded the Parks and Recreation Commission felt that there would be an adequate number of stalls and recommended approval of the plan.

Baker stated he was concerned about the proposed senior housing using the R-3A classification being limited to two and a half stories. Baker said Brightondale should be R-3B because it is three stories and has different parking requirements.

Mattila stated the proposed senior building is using the R-3A District because the R-3A District deals more appropriately with buildings such as condominiums and apartment buildings. R-3B deals with the number of bedroom units such as townhouse developments. Staff is using the City's parking standards for residential developments restricted to the elderly. It does not distinguish between R-3B and R-3A. Baker said the number of parking stalls was based on number of bedrooms units in the R-3B, rather than the number of units. Mattila said staff used the parking standards for residential developments restricted to the elderly. G & P is proposing 97 dwelling units. Those 97 stalls would be underground. For visitor parking, the standard is one space for the first ten units, and .25 spaces of visitor parking for each unit over 10 units. This comes to 129 stalls.

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

Ron Olson, 2026 28th Avenue, stated he was representing the neighbors on 28th Avenue. Olson asked the people he was representing to stand. Olson asked for the overhead showing the Alzheimer's unit. Olson said the people on 28th Avenue got together as a group and also had some meetings with the developer. Olson distributed copies of the list of concerns developed by the residents at these meetings. Olson pointed out that the homes on 28th Avenue would abut the proposed Alzheimer's unit. The developer who originally determined the lot sizes got approval from the City Council to have reduced lot sizes. Some lots are 25 to 35 feet wide. The setbacks are 5 feet from the lot line on the back. Therefore, the diagrams shown tonight were out of proportion. Our homes are much closer to the Alzheimer's unit than any of the plans indicate. The reason the lot sizes are so small is there was an agreement made where the builder would donate the park to the City. That is how the park came to exist. The other reason the developer wanted smaller lot sizes is so the property that is now Brightondale could be developed and would have more frontage on Rice Creek Road. In retrospect, allowing these small lots was a mistake. Fourteen years ago, the City Council decided to let the developer put in the park in exchange for the small lots.

Olson said he would talk about the items on the concerns list. First, the residents on 28th Avenue are very concerned about the proximity of this proposed building. Twenty-feet from the property line is not very much when the setback from the back of the residential lots is five feet. When the residents go out to their patios and look up there is going to be a building right there in their face. Olson pointed out that the existing building is very close and people stand in the windows of the building and look right down into the windows of the homes on 28th Avenue. The homeowners have to have privacy curtains on their windows twenty-four hours a day. Olson pointed out that measuring 30 feet in this room would give an idea how close the homes are to Brightondale. Now the developer wants to add a building that would come even closer to the homes on 28th. The developer talks about the proposed building being a one- story building. However, the elevation is higher on the Brightondale property. That is the cause of the drainage problem. The building would be 78 feet wide; imagine what the pitch on the roof would be. The building would actually be the height of a two-story building. The building would be the same height as the two-story homes. Therefore, the residents of the two-story homes would look out their second-story windows and see the roof of a building that is twenty-five feet away. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the lot sizes. We are opposed to the portion of the proposal closest to the homes. We are not opposed to an Alzheimer's unit. The homes on 28th Avenue were there before Brightondale was built.

Olson stated the discussion about evergreen screening is a side issue. It would be important should the building be built. A six-foot spruce tree only grows about six inches per year. Therefore, in about twenty years the trees would provide screening. We would lose the natural area in that portion of the Brightondale site.

Olson stated the proposal would have an impact on the property values. A property that backs up to Brightondale was sold about six months ago. It was on the market for eight months and sold for a reduced price. The houses on the other side of the street sell very quickly. Olson said that if the proposed building is approved, the homes on 28th Avenue could become rental property. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have some appraisals done to determine what would happen to property values. Perhaps G & P Properties would be willing to reimburse the ten property owners for loss of value to their property. Olson said the twenty-five feet between the property line and the proposed building may not be enough for a buffer. Twenty-five feet is less than the width of this room and does not provide much room for planting trees. Also, a swale would be cut in there that would gather the water and rush it down through the back yards. The back yards are a virtual river when it rains. Part of the problem may be the holding pond. The developer is talking about knocking a hole in the berm so they can flood the park. Olson said he was concerned about the pipe the developer is suggesting. The developer is planning for a ten-year storm. That is two inches in twenty-four hours. We have had that much rain in half an hour often. The proposed storm sewer system is not large enough. Who is going to guarantee that these homes would not be flooded? The pipe size is a problem.

Olson said the window air conditioners at Brightondale make a lot of noise. The proposed building would have a roof system. If the system is lower than the buildings around it, the noise would bounce off the taller building. Therefore, the proposed building would increase the noise level. Olson stated Brightondale has a serious parking problem. Vehicles for Brightondale park on 28th and 27th. If the 22 proposed parking stalls are going to be used for the proposed building, where will the parking go for the existing building? On-street parking on 28th and on Rice Creek Road needs to be banned. Vehicles cannot get in and out of New Market safely because the sight line is impaired by parked cars. The proposed addition would make these situations worse.

Olson stated that, looking at the City Council minutes, it was not the builder who decided to reduce the number of units in Brightondale to 72 units. The City Council decided on the 72 units. The Council decided the congestion and parking problems in the area could not handle more than 72 units. Olson said he had copies of the minutes of those City Council meetings and could provide copies. Olson said Brightondale was originally planned for the site of the proposed Alzheimer's unit. The residents on 28th and the developer reached an agreement where Brightondale would be moved to the other side of the site. Brightondale was originally going to be four stories high, but it was decided to reduce the height because of the impact on the neighborhood. Later the residents and the City Council agreed on the tuck- under garage at Brightondale. The garage did raise the building height, but the residents tried to compromise with the developer. The last thing the residents agreed to was the berm that was to be screened with trees. The original PRD called for a privacy fence. The original developer asked the residents to agree to a berm instead of a fence.

Olson said someone asked the why we do not have the stipulations the resident agreed to in writing. The answer is that the original developer was easy to work with and was anxious to satisfy the residents. Mr. Gould has also attempted to compromise with the residents also. However, the residents have one major disagreement with Mr. Gould. That is the location of the proposed Alzheimer's unit. We do not disagree with the plans for the shopping center property. The other reason we did not have a written agreement is that they built the original building so another story could not be added. Another reason we did not have a written agreement is that they had reached the density limit. The City Council decided that only 72 units would be built instead of 101 units. The residents were reassured by members of the City Council that the residents did not need a written contract because the density had been reached and no more building could be done on the site. Therefore, the residents did not feel that pursuing a written agreement was necessary. In fact, a Planning Commission member said he did not think be any good anyway. There was no reason to do it. The problem now is that this proposal is trying to circumvent the density. If the park land is not given to G & P Properties, G & P cannot build this unit. G & P's properties do not touch each other. The only way to join the properties is by giving them park land. The reason the City got the park is that the residents got smaller lots.

Olson stated that two years ago he was interested in putting an addition on his house. Olson said he wanted to put a bedroom above the garage. Olson said he was informed the density limit for his lot had been reached and he could not build the addition. What will the City Council do if a resident abutting the park wants to build an addition? Will they give that resident some park land so they will have a large enough lot to build an addition? If the City is going to do it for G & P, they should do it for the residents. G & P's property is two separate pieces of property and should be treated as such. The shopping center was a going concern twelve years ago and we did not foresee that someone would buy it and try to join the two pieces of property. Using park land is circumventing the density limits decided by the Planning Commission and the City Council. We feel the proposal should be denied on that basis if not because the proposed building is too close to the homes. Mr. Gould is in this for a profit, but these are our homes. Olson said the proposal for the shopping center may be a pleasing idea but the shopping center property would make a pleasant addition to the park. Olson said the residents thought an Alzheimer's unit was important, but feel their quality of life is being threatened.

Olson directed the Commission's attention to the "More Concerns" list. The residents suggest taking an existing floor of Brightondale and remodel it for an Alzheimer's unit. Take the units that would be lost and tack them onto the coop units. Olson asked the Commissioners to come to their homes and stand on their decks and see the lay of the land. There is room for an addition in the front of the Brightondale building toward Rice Creek Road. G & P could make a court yard between the existing building and a new building. The City Council could grant a variance to let G & P build closer to the street. That would solve the parking and congestion problems. The entrance could be changed and the buildings could be joined. Olson said he did not believe G & P had considered any alternatives. The residents made the agreement with the original developer and they believed G & P Properties bought the agreement when they bought the property. That is usually the way it works. If there is an agreement on a piece of property, the agreement does not have to be written to be legal. Verbal agreements can be verified to be legal. Please do not be pressured into doing the wrong thing just to develop the shopping center. We would like the City to separate the two properties into two separate ideas. The Planning Commission could grant the approval on the shopping center and deny approval for the Brightondale building. The residents would like more study to be done. We feel very strongly about this. Please look at the drainage when you visit the site and see if you think a swale would work. Remember the proposed holding pond may seem like a good idea but the pond would take a big chunk out of the park. The existing pond is about 20 feet by 30 feet. The proposed pond would be at least 100 feet by 200 feet. Please come to our homes and have a cup of coffee. Thank you for listening to us.

Grace Dedrick, 2023 28th Avenue NW, stated that half her property is behind the existing Brightondale building. This proposal would affect the other half. Dedrick said her main concern was the drainage and said her property was the most affected by the drainage. The rain on July 1 measured four inches. Dedrick said her backyard was flooded on the southeast corner. Dedrick said the landscape rock in that area was washed away and 3 inches of mud accumulated. Dedrick said she had to remove the remaining rock and clean up the area. A river was running directly behind the fence that was approximately 3 feet wide, which caused washouts on neighboring property. There was also water standing on the south side of Dedrick's property. Dedrick said her sump pump ran steadily for two months. After hearing about a homeowner in Minneapolis whose basement wall caved in, the drainage became even a bigger concern. The manholes need to be cleaned out. The drainage problem must be solved. A 24-inch pipe would be insufficient to handle the stormwater.

Dedrick said her second concern was that the foundation of the proposed building would be 25 feet from the lot line. Despite the landscaping, Dedrick would look out her windows and see a big building. Currently the landscaping at Brightondale is very attractive. If the proposed building is approved, Dedrick said she would have to have her drapes closed at all times because of privacy. The area between the lot line and the proposed building would be about the width of an alley. Dedrick said it would be 47 feet from the foundation of her home to the foundation of the proposed building. Dedrick stated that was unacceptable. Dedrick said Ron Olson spoke about the small lots in regard to the park. The Rice Creek Shopping area and the proposed Alzheimer's unit need to be treated as separate units. Dedrick said she had nothing against an Alzheimer's unit, but she did not believe they should put it on the Brightondale site. Dedrick said she was concerned about her property value. Dedrick said she believed she would have to sell her home at a loss. Dedrick asked the Planning Commission to give serious consideration to all these concerns. Dedrick invited the Commissioners to look at the Brightondale building from her bedroom windows.

Joan Swanson, 2059 28th Avenue, said she was concerned about removing the trees on the Brightondale property. Swanson also said she saw the need for an Alzheimer's unit, but that it would not fit on the proposed site. Swanson was also concerned about increased traffic. Swanson said she was very concerned about the future of Meadowwood Park.

Terry Dehn, the owner of property on the corner of 27th Avenue and 21st Street, pointed out the current holding pond. Dehn showed where the water backed up from a summer storm on the site plan. Dehn said she paid for a storm sewer on her property. Dehn said the water was higher than the windows on her homes. Dehn said she lived in a house where stormwater comes into her yard because of a residential development put in after her home was built. Dehn expressed concern about the drainage plan for the proposed building. Dehn said the drainage plan would not work. Dehn said she was concerned about the traffic in the area. People who do not belong there still use the dead end street. Dehn said the drainage plan would not work.

Alma Stepanchak, 2180 27th Ave NW, stated she lives adjacent to the property described by Dehn. The resident of that property had a flooded basement. Stepanchak said she was surprised the water did not come in through her window. Stepanchak said the driveway coming out of Brightondale is a problem. If Brightondale has an access onto 27th Avenue to add to the existing traffic, it will be a problem. Stepanchak said she begged to differ with the developer's statement that seniors do not come and go much. Stepanchak said she was a senior and does not just stay home. Seniors are very active. The traffic is a big concern. At the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Gould promised that he would look into seeing if they could divert the garage exit coming off 27th to Rice Creek Road or Mississippi Street. Gould also proposed a 20-foot setback so the people could not turn. Stepanchak said these concerns should be addressed. Stepanchak said her property value would go down if the proposed building is approved. How would the Commissioners like it if this were happening to their property?

Eileen Brama, 2703 Mississippi Street, on the corner of Mississippi Street and 27th. Brama stated she was concerned about the increased traffic on 27th. If half the people using the 98 underground parking spaces use the driveway per day, there will be a big increase in traffic on 27th. Brama said the value of the homes would decrease.

Baker asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no response.

Baker said he was concerned that, since this is a division of an existing lot, and the proposal talks about putting in additional right-of-ways on the Erickson site, the Planning Commission should have a site plan for the surrounding properties. Mattila said the fire lane access easement would be in the existing aisle that runs along Erickson's north property line. Baker said, since a change is proposed, the Planning Commission should have site plans. Gould said he had a site plan of the shopping center. Baker said he would have liked the plan in the packet for tonight.

Baker asked if 27th Avenue was constructed as a narrower road because of its limited use. Mattila said he thought 27th was a standard width. Stepanchak said it was a narrow road.

Baker stated enough concerns were brought forward this evening to continue the hearing. Baker asked for a discussion on continuing the hearing. Knuth said she favored continuing the hearing to have more time to consider the proposal. Knuth said Olson and the other residents raised good points about the impact of the proposal on their lives. Knuth said the developer should pay attention to these concerns.

Zisla asked Mr. Olson to delete Item #1 from his list. Zisla said he was confused whether Olson's objection was to the number of units or the location of the proposed building. Olson said his objection was to the location. Zisla commented that was the stronger argument. Zisla said the building location, not the landscaping or the drainage, may be the main concern of the residents. Some of Olson's objections dealt with location and he proposed alternative locations. Then, Olson had objections to things like traffic counts and vehicular trips. For Mr. Gould and staff to try to address those concerns, it needs to be clear. Zisla said the document Olson said were minutes of past City Council meetings are not minutes but refer to the minutes. The City Attorney should look at the actual minutes. Zisla stated he had questions on the density issue. Baker made the motion that the density does not exceed 72 units when the existing Brightondale building was approved. The record provided by Olson makes it difficult to tell if the 72 units are actually part of the PRD. The action was taken in 1985 so there should be some record of the agreement between the developer and the residents on 28th Avenue. The discussion cannot be advanced if we continue this item unless the City Attorney can give us some insight into what happened when the existing Brightondale building was approved. We have to know what the applicant's rights are. We have to have something to study besides Baker's excellent memory. There is nothing in the document provided by Olson that talks about location of the building. We should know if there was a restriction as to the location of the building to which we may want to hold Mr. Gould.

Baker said, from his memory, Mr. Olson's statements about the agreement with the original developer were correct. Olson said he was willing to contact the former owner and get some type of affidavit on what he agreed to. Mattila said Staff would work with the City Attorney to go through the records. Schiferl said he could not tell a great deal by the records he examined. Zisla said, according to Baker, the density was limited to 72 units. However, we need something that supports that. Mattila said he only saw the staff report that stated 101 units were possible.

Baker said it appeared there was a site plan that was part of they approved the PRD. The location was part of that site plan. Zisla said those things needed to be straightened out. These issues are unclear. Zisla said staff and Mr. Gould need to get together. The redevelopment of the Rice Creek Shopping Center should happen. The proposed housing mix makes sense. Zisla said he agreed with Mrs. Stepanchak's statements about seniors driving. Zisla said his parents had two cars and are gone all the time. Zisla said he favored Mr. Gould's proposal. Staff and Mr. Gould should look for some solutions.

Schiferl asked about the 1985 action having the park included in the density calculations. Would the City staff and the City Attorney look at that issue as well? Mattila responded they would. There was some hesitancy in the comments by some of the experts about the drainage plan. Therefore, we need more reassurance about the drainage plan. We should be assured the storm sewers would be cleaned out and that there would be a system for maintaining them. The parking issues relating to the traffic going onto 27th Avenue need more thought.

Knuth said the bottom line came to finding a way to make the Alzheimer's facility happen. Schiferl said it all came down to alternatives. Maybe the Alzheimer's wing could be part of the coop building. Schiferl said he would like information on what alternatives have been considered, which ones have been scrapped and why.

Zisla said he had lived in Minnesota for ten years and during that time there have been four hundred-year events. Therefore, he had some question about designing storm sewers for a ten-year event. The parking at the Rice Creek project seems adequate according to the Parks Department.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schmitz , to continue the Public Hearing to the November 18, 1997, Planning Commission meeting.

Zisla asked if this were a majority vote. Mattila responded it takes a majority vote of those present to continue the public hearing.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 4 Ayes - 1 Nays (Zisla). Motion Carried.

Baker said the proposal would be on the Planning Commission agenda in November and he encouraged the audience to attend.

LP-330 & SP-200	New Apostolic Church

Terry reviewed the case report concerning an application for site plan review and a special use permit to construct a church on a residential parcel. Terry showed slides of the site.

Bill Diem, a representative of the New Apostolic Church, stated the New Apostolic Church considered the neighboring residents in the design of the church. The church that presently owns the property gave the New Apostolic Church their design, which the City previously approved. The New Apostolic Church found that design did not fit the neighborhood. The design the New Apostolic Church has submitted meets all the City's criteria. The traffic flow and lighting would not impact the neighbors. Diem said the property could be split into two sections. There is no intended use for the westerly portion of the site. Expansion of the church could happen without using that portion of the site. The church investigated splitting the lot when the church bought the property. Diem gave a short presentation of the plans.

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

Robert Garner, 981 2nd Street NW, said his was concerned about expansion of the church making the dead end street a through street. Garner pointed out Diem said the property may be split in the future and developed on the western portion. Diem said that if that portion were split and sold it would revert to the R-2 zoning. Garner said he never heard of this church before but the church seems small. What happens in five years if the congregation cannot support the church and they have to sell it? Garner said he was concerned about the traffic speed on Old Highway 8. Garner asked how close the parking lot would be to his property line. Diem responded 75 feet.

Zisla asked if expansion of the church had to come before the Planning Commission. Mattila responded any expansion would have to go through the site plan and special use permit review process. A public hearing would be held.

Diem said he would comment on Garner's concern the congregation could not support the church. All the buildings built by the New Apostolic Church are financed with cash. There are no mortgages on any of their buildings in the world.

Nancy Kessler, 1001 2nd Street NW, said she was concerned about the parking lot. Kessler said she understood there were 100 families in the congregation. Now it seems there are 125 families. Diem responded there were 125 people and the average attendance is forty people. Kessler said she was concerned 40 people could support a church. Baker said that question was not part of the land use issue. Kessler said her biggest concern was the parking.

Diem showed Kessler the 10th Avenue NW area on the plan. Diem said that there was a sanitary sewer line on the property with an easement. The easement says nothing can be built over the easement. That limits the size of the building that could build on that lot. The Rice Creek Watershed District requires the 100-foot flood plain be dealt with. The plain is measured from the center of the creek. The amount of usable property is small. Therefore, even if the lot were split and sold, there would be no more traffic than there is now.

Kessler said she was concerned that the dead end not be opened and that no traffic could come in through 2nd Street. What happens if the church lot overflows? There is no place to park on 2nd Street. Would they walk down the dead end into the property? Kessler stated it is an area of small, single family homes and there are many children. Kessler stated increased traffic would be a concern.

Baker pointed out that the proposed parking is adequate and exceeds the requirements.

Kessler asked if the congregation lived in New Brighton. Diem responded the congregation lives in New Brighton and adjoining areas. Garner said they were really concerned about the parking and traffic. Off- street parking is a real concern.

Baker stated that, if someone developed this site using an R-2 zoning, there would be more parking and traffic than a church would generate. This is zoned R-2, so that would be a real possibility. A developer could develop the lot under the R-2 zoning without holding a public hearing.

Bruce Bates, 961 2nd Street NW, said he had three concerns. Parking is number one. Bates said he had heard some guest congregations would be coming to the area. Bates said he worked for the City of White Bear Lake where he manages the Sports Center and is familiar with parking lots. However, parking always exceeds what is expected. Bates said he was concerned about waking up Sunday morning and finding people parking in front of his house. Bates said his neighborhood was extremely quiet except for the Bell Pole Company. We have to listen to the truck noise until 10:00 p.m. Bates said he was concerned about noise, weddings, bells tolling, and people being outside the church. He was also concerned about lighting. Bates said he had a large oak tree in his backyard that has to be taken down. Therefore, the entire backyard would be opened up to the church. Bates stated he was concerned about the landscaping. Bates said he hoped the City Forester would be contacted. Bates said those were his concerns. He hopes they are addressed so the neighbors do not have to come back to the City and complain about noise and light. A luminosity test is extremely important.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker stated, concerning the parking, this site has adequate parking. The parking must meet the requirement of the Code and this site meets those requirements.

Kessler said she was more concerned about the people coming to the church. Where are they going to come from? Old Hwy 8? There is a four-way stop there and it is really busy.

Baker asked if Kessler had another suggestion where the vehicles could get out. The City has to let them develop their property. Kessler said she had an accident there. Baker said he understood Kessler's concern, but most of the traffic from the church would be off-peak.

Zisla said he understood the concern about lighting. Mattila said New Brighton's ordinance states that any lighting cannot reflect over the property line of the property on which it is located. It cannot be directed into the backyard of the single family home. Where the City has had problems with lighting in the past, we have contacted the property owners and they have put on blinders to direct the lights.

Zisla asked if we can restrict the hours of operation of the church. If the church operates around the clock, it can become an issue. The church lists their hours to two nights per week and Sundays. Zisla asked if amending the special use permit is possible should the church operate twenty-four hours per day. Mattila responded that would be a question for the City Attorney. Anything may be possible if the applicant were to agree.

Diem said that requirement would be prejudicial to say that the church can only use its facility at a set time. There may be funerals and weddings. Diem said he would object very strongly to such a requirement. Zisla said the neighbors had a legitimate concern.

Schmitz said perhaps a conditional use permit should be attached to the property. If they sold this church to another church, that church might have different needs and different hours. Schmitz said he did not know how to have control over those hours without running into First Amendment issues. Baker said there is a nuisance ordinance in the residential areas.

Schiferl asked if excessive noise would be handled under the Nuisance Ordinance. Mattila responded yes.

Bates asked if there were someone in the City they could contact about speed limits on Highway 8. Mattila responded Highway 8 is a Ramsey County road and they should contact Dan Soler at Ramsey County.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schmitz, to recommend approval of LP-330 and SP-200, subject to conditions. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

PL-327	City of New Brighton

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning a proposed Simple Plat for the former MacGillis and Gibbs site.

Zisla asked about the jog at the north-south line on the west side of the site. Mattila pointed out the Soo Line right-of-way that creates that jog.

Schiferl asked if the road extension can be called the County Road E extension though it is not a County Road. Mattila said the plat had to go through approval at Ramsey County and also through the New Brighton City Council.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Knuth, to recommend approval of LP-237. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

LP-332	Wisconsin Central Railroad

Terry briefly reviewed the case report concerning an amended application for site plan review to construct a railroad office/workman's quarters on the Soo Line railroad property.

Terry said he would like to add a condition to the staff recommendation, "The securing of a lease agreement for the subject site by the applicant." The proposed site for the proposed building is outside the area currently leased from the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Frank Wagamon of Wagamon Builders introduced himself and Marty Carlson of the Wisconsin Central Railroad. Wagamon reviewed the plan.

There was a brief discussion of the landscape plan. Baker asked about Wagamon's statement that he was concerned about the requirement for concrete curbing. Wagamon said curbing would cause a drainage problem.

Terry said he talked to the City Engineer about Wagamon's concern. The City Engineer stated that they could put in a curb cut that would not affect drainage in any way. Baker pointed out that not having curbing would require a variance since the ordinance requires it. Wagamon said he could accept the criteria for needing a variance, but the drainage is still a concern. Wagamon showed the area of concern about drainage on the plan.

Zisla said the drainage situation was between the City Engineer, staff and the applicant. Mattila said those issues were worked out before the City issues the building permit.

Baker asked if sod in the front yard of the proposed building is a requirement. Mattila responded affirmatively. The City typically requires all developments to be sodded. There have been exceptions where we have allowed a backyard area to be seeded. Baker said we would not require the sodding be done this year. Mattila explained the City's requirements for landscaping and sodding.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schiferl , to recommend approval of the amended Staff Recommendation for approval of LP-332. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

Motion by Knuth, seconded by Zisla, to adjourn the meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

_______________________________________

Erny Mattila, City Planner