Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - January 20, 1998

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

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

Roll Call

Present:	Larry Baker, Joann Knuth, Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Paul Zisla

Absent:

Also Present:	Erny Mattila, City Planner

Tom Terry, Planning Intern

George Gregori, City Council Liaison

Adoption of 1998 Rules of Procedure

A .	Adopt 1998 Rules

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Baker, to adopt the 1998 Rules of Procedure as written. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

B .	Elect Vice Chair

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schiferl, to nominate Mike Livingston as Vice Chair.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to close the nominations and elect Mike Livingston by unanimous vote. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

C .	Welcome new Planning Commission, Jeff Schopf

Baker said the City Council appointed Jeff Schopf to the Planning Commission and will begin his term in February. Jeff was unable to attend tonight's meeting.

D .	Welcome Council Representative, George Gregori

Baker introduced the Council Representative for 1998, George Gregori.

Gregori said he was honored, as a newly elected council member, to be the Council Representative to the Planning Commission because it is one of the most important advisory commissions.

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to approve the minutes of the December 16, 1997, Planning Commission. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Agenda Review

The agenda was amended to include the I-35W Corridor Comprehensive Plan Update under Announcements and Updates.

Report on Council Action

Gregori said the Council asked the Planning Commission to think about ways New Brighton might follow the Metropolitan Council's request to integrate more high density housing into the Comp Plan when it considers the update of the Comprehensive Plan.

Public Hearings

LP-336 & VN-317	Donatelle Plastics

Terry reviewed the case report concerning an application for site plan review and a setback variance to construct a 82,448 square foot office/manufacturing building in an I-1 District.

Baker asked if the applicant would build the proposed building on top of two monitoring wells. Terry stated the monitoring wells would be removed before they construct the proposed building.

Norm Wells, the project architect, stated he has worked with the Chuck and Mike Donatelle for thirteen years on their building projects. Tonight's proposal represents a significant step in the growth of their company. Wells gave a brief history of Donatelle in New Brighton. Wells said, two years ago, Donatelle was planning a 40,000 square foot building on a different site. Donatelle Plastics's size requirements have doubled over these two years. Donatelle planned to use the old plan when it first started looking at the proposed site. The Old Highway 8 Visioning process made it apparent that the building that Donatelle had been planning would not be compatible with the streetscape proposed in the Old Highway 8 Vision. Wells said he and Donatelle redesigned the building and went from a square building to a rectangular building to fit on the proposed site.

Wells said it had been an experience trying to fit the proposed building on the site and work with the constraints of the site, most significant of which is the contamination of both the soil and groundwater. Wells described how the proposed building will integrate with the City's proposed streetscape. Donatelle Plastics would enhance the streetscape with its proposed landscape design. At this point, Wells said we did not know the details of the streetscape, but Donatelle will work with the landscape firm selected to do the streetscape. Donatelle projects that, within five years, it would build a mirror image of the proposed building. Wells described how the proposed building would integrate with the proposed extension of County Road E2. Wells showed the features of the proposed building on the site plan and compared it with the old buildings and uses on the site by MacGillis and Gibbs.

O'Brien asked if the monitoring wells would create a problem for construction of the proposed building. Wells responded the site has about a dozen monitoring wells and several are in the way of the earthwork needed to start the building. Donatelle projects a late March or early April building start, but the monitoring wells may not be removed until May. The monitoring wells have to be removed under strict guidelines of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Environmental Health Agency (EPA). Donatelle asked for more land, but the cleanup on the land to the south is incomplete and will not be complete until next year. Wells pointed out the site constraints and said they feel they have done a good job on siting the building.

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

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

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Knuth, to recommend approval of LP-336 and VN-317.

Baker stated he does not feel the contamination problem warrants the parking variance. Baker said, he would, however, allow the variance because the landscape design on the corner takes away from parking space on the site and the landscape will enhance the site. Baker said, therefore, what the City is giving up on one hand is more than compensated in the overall design of the site. Wells said the landscape would not only enhance the site, but will be very special when combined with the City's proposed streetscape.

Mattila said in addition to the contamination on site which is restricting the buildable area, the Soo Line Company owns 40 feet of railroad right-of-way that they could have vacated and added to the Donatelle site. However, the right-of-way could not be vacated because there is an underground pipeline in the right-of-way that cannot be relocated which further adds to the site constraints.

Zisla stated he would vote for the variance for the reasons stated in the resolution. Zisla commented the fact that the City was getting additional landscaping on the front corner does not meet the hardship criteria. The fact the railroad right-of-way cannot be vacated is significant. Zisla said he is making clear his reasons for recommending approval, because he does not want the Planning Commission to set a precedent in granting a variance based on landscape improvements. Zisla stated Super Fund sites are unique in terms of land development and provides adequate grounds on which to approve a variance.

Knuth said, for the record, she drives by the present Donatelle plant almost daily and it is an extraordinarily handsome sight. Donatelle has taken extra measures to present beautiful landscaping and a well-maintained site. Wells commented Donatelle cannot have a fountain as on their present site because the EPA will not allow a pond on the site. However, we will do something just as effective.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

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

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning an application for site plan review, PRD, a minor subdivision to construct a 20-unit Alzheimer's 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.

Mike Gould of G & P Properties stated that talking about changes we made since our proposal was last before the Planning Commission seems appropriate. Steve Larson of the City Council provided G & P Properties with a list of sixteen issues on which we needed to focus. We met with Mr. Larson, the Mayor and Ron Olson of the neighbors' group on 28th Avenue and covered the sixteen points. Gould said he would address some of the issues for the Planning Commission.

Gould referred to the item dealing with the use of the setback on the west side of the site to be used as a walk area. Gould said their new plan reflected that requirement. The item requiring a signed legal agreement that the Alzheimer's wing would never exceed one story is no problem and G & P will comply. Regarding the item dealing with installing underground parking under the Alzheimer's wing, we are going to have to go underground with the parking because we have moved the building as far east as possible. On the item about using all underground parking slots for guests, we have at least twenty-two slots that we will designate for guests. If we find, as time goes on, that we can add to that number, we will do so. We discussed the item referring with Maurie Anderson, the New Brighton Parks Director, and storing the snow on the current park would not be a problem. G & P is currently working with New Market on the issue of the fire lane.

Gould introduced Mark Longworth, the project architect. Longworth said G & P had looked at the sixteen concerns of the neighbors on 28th Avenue submitted by Councilmember Larson. Longworth said he would go through the list one by one.

1.	The setback increased to a 50-foot minimum from the west property line.

Longworth stated to do that we had to make several modifications to the main building. Longworth pointed out the modifications on the plan. Longworth said three homes were directly adjacent to Brightondale. Longworth stated the Alzheimer's wing would be 63 feet 8 inches from the twin home at 2023 and 2025 28th Avenue NW. 2041 and 2043 28th Avenue NW would be 54 feet from the Alzheimer's wing. 2059 and 2061 28th Avenue NW would be 84 feet 8 inches away from the Alzheimer's facility.

2.	All air conditioning units moved to the east side of the Alzheimer's wing.

Longworth said G & P had planned to have the air-conditioning units within the courtyard. Therefore, the sound would be contained between the two Brightondale buildings and might deflect to the neighboring properties. Longworth stated the air conditioners would be high-efficiency units, unlike the window units that are presently used at Brightondale. As a solution to the sound problem, we propose to locate the new air-conditioning units on the east side of the parapet wall on the roof. The units would be hidden from the neighbors. The open sides would face the existing facility and we would enclose that with sound walls. The new facility should block the sound from many existing air-conditioning units and should result in a net sound reduction.

3.	Triple glazed windows to restrict noise levels.

Since this is a residential building for senior citizens, the internal noise for the building is minimal. We do understand the neighbors' concern is noise coming from the Alzheimer's unit. Longworth said we would be providing one inch commercial double-glazed insulated glass. To get a marked decrease in sound transmission, we will specify a double-paned insulated glass of different thicknesses. Different thicknesses of glass resonate sound at different frequencies and filters out noise. A triple-paned window is a thermal design and not for sound deadening.

4.	No use of the setback on the west side to be used as a walk area.

Longworth said G & P would comply with this item completely. We will fully landscape the entire west yard.

5.	Sign legal agreement that Alzheimer's wing will never exceed one story.

Longworth said Gould had commented on the item previously.

6.	Construct Alzheimer's wing into ground at lowest elevation possible.

To increase the west setback, Longworth said we had to move some parking spaces downstairs. We are limited because we have a lower level below the building. Longworth pointed out the elevations on the plan. The disability codes dictate the slope we can use and we have ours at the maximum slope.

7.	Install underground parking beneath the Alzheimer's wing.

Longworth said that, due to the change in elevation to make the transition from the existing parking to our new lower level, a steep ramp would be required. Therefore, underground parking would not be viable.

8.	Install a security system to allow access to existing underground parking for guests.

Longworth commented we would install and implement the system when we make the existing parking spaces available to visitors.

9.	Eliminate on-street parking between the west exit to New Market and 28th.

Longworth said that item is the concern of the City of New Brighton and is out of the bounds of the slope of this development. Therefore, we cannot address this item.

10.	Utilize all underground parking slots for guests.

This item was addressed by Gould earlier.

11.	Look at possible connection to 24-inch pipe from Joan's backyard.

Longworth said the underground storm line traveled from a catch basin on 28th Avenue and empties at grade on that person's backyard. We have two concepts for grading this area. They differ in respect to the area concentrated on the NW corner of the proposed Alzheimer's facility. Longworth showed the grading options on the plan.

12.	Use a spade to plant large evergreen trees in a new 25-foot setback to screen Alzheimer's wing.

Longworth said that, with the new increased area, we are going to create a level plateau to the extent possible so we can use a tree spade. We have increased the number of trees and we will be using 15 foot high Black Hills Spruce to create an instant screen from the facility. We have also increased the density of the trees by staggering them 18 feet on center. Longworth showed an elevation of the proposed building with no plantings and a drawing illustrating the landscaping.

13.	Check the outlet diameter of the pond and see if a 15-inch outlet would work better than a 12-
inch outlet.

Longworth showed a cross section of a series of outlets for the new retention pond. The 12-inch outlet would function about 99 percent of the time. If the water exceeds its high water mark, the water would flow to the catch basin on the top of the berm and travel down to the low level. In dire circumstances, the water would simply travel over the top of the berm. Our intention with this design is to be able to hold a water from a 100-year storm in our new wet pond. The reason for the 12-inch line is to restrict the water flow to the existing pond in the park and retain more of that water on our site and release it at a lower rate.

14.	Windows on end of coop unit should be the type that is above eye level to assure privacy.

Longworth said that because the height of the windows is high already, we propose to add some deciduous trees on that portion of the site.

15.	Secure an agreement from New Market for a fire lane on the north end of the parking lot.

Longworth commented there is adequate space for the fire lane and, if that the fire lane easement be must be entirely on the independent living facility site, that is what we will do.

16.	Check on snow storage using the park versus the parking lot.

The Parks Director has no problem with storing snow in the park.

Longworth said G & P had worked hard to accommodate these items of concern as much as possible and we think we have our best.

O'Brien asked to see the elevations again. Could G & P reduce the slope of the roof to lessen the mass of the roof? Longworth responded we have matched the roof pitch to the existing facility. However, if that were a condition of approval, we could accommodate that. We would still want to hide the air- conditioning units behind the parapet. O'Brien asked about the visual effect of the air-conditioning units from the apartments. Longworth said the units would be screened on two sides. Longworth said the units might be seen from one area, but it should be semi-screened.

O'Brien asked if the plantings would still be possible if the grade cannot be maintained and a trench has to be created. Longworth replied the difference in grade is minimal and there is only one area where the grade may be a problem for getting a planting spade in there. The swale would be as close to Brightondale's property line as possible to create the level plateau. The other grading option would be to fill the corner.

Schiferl said he had heard that Alzheimer's patients sometimes scream at full volume for extended periods, even four hours. Schiferl asked Longworth to address that issue. Longworth said that was a difficult question to answer. An acoustic engineer would have to answer that question. The walls would be fully insulated. The only penetrations would be the windows. The one inch glass, the 40 foot setback and the screening should be effective. Longworth said the staff would have to reply to Schiferl's concern, but he could not imagine staff allowing someone to scream for hours on end.

Gould said Longworth was correct that only an acoustics engineer can address the question fully. However, Gould stated he had been in a number of Alzheimer's facilities. The possibility exists that a patient could scream for hours. Gould said he had spoken many care providers and they said screaming was not an issue. The issue could affect the residents at Brightondale. The issue would become a behavioral problem and there would be a point where such a patient would not be appropriate for Brightondale. That may occur in the last stages of the disease. Gould said he was certain the noise would not be an issue. If it did become an issue, we could solve the problem then. Dementia affects 25 percent of the current Brightondale residents. Gould said these residents needed a facility that can better deal with their needs. Within the population, the disruptions are not from screaming, but from other factors.

Zisla said he hoped Gould's comments would settle the issue of screaming. Zisla said that the Planning Commission did not decide issues on the noise prospective residents might make. For example, prospective residents with teenagers might cause noise. Taking design steps is appropriate, but we cannot say that one group of residents will be noisier than others. If any resident in any home or apartment is making too much noise, it becomes a problem between neighbors and has to be dealt with then. The Planning Commission cannot make decisions about multi-family housing based on the fact someone living there may be too loud.

Gould stated it is unfortunate our residents do not have the mobility and, sometimes, the ability to represent themselves here. These people are residents of New Brighton. Gould read a letter from a New Brighton resident whose mother has been at Brightondale for some time. The letter said Brightondale enabled the family to avoid putting the elderly lady in a nursing home, which would take away her privacy and her possessions. The writer said her mother had been able to maintain her pride and independence and a measure of the quality of life she has known for ninety-seven years. The proposed edition would allow her to maintain the dignity she deserves. The writer urged the City to approve the proposed Alzheimer's wing.

Schiferl said the existing Brightondale facility had already changed functions from an independent living residence to an assisted living facility. Who is to say what function it would have in the future? If the market changes again, could it go back to independent living again? In which case, more parking would be needed. Schiferl stated he was concerned about basing the parking on the assumption that the present use at Brightondale will continue. Schiferl said he was thinking in the long term. How would the Planning Commission address that issue in the future?

Mattila responded he did not have a clear answer on to how to keep the facility an assisted living facility versus going back to a conventional apartment facility like it was in 1985 when it was built. Since 1985, New Brighton has updated its parking standards. Planning Staff is compelled to use the parking ratio for the use being proposed.

Baker stated he shared Schiferl's concern about the potential change in the number of drivers at Brightondale. Since the site would be completely filled, there is no place for future parking. Overflow parking can only go on the street or New Market's parking lot. Baker stated, therefore, he does not feel the proposal has adequate parking.

Livingston asked if a change of use must come before the Planning Commission for review. Mattila responded he was not aware of the conversion from independent living conventional apartments to an assisted living facility. Locke said the City would not allow senior facilities to convert to standard housing because of the parking ratios.

Livingston said, if the owner of a market rate apartment complex wanted convert to a nursing care facility, they would have to come to the Planning Commission for approval. Mattila said that would be considered as an application for a special use permit.

Livingston said normally nursing homes were licensed according to the number of beds in the facility and by care type, such as semi-skilled care and so forth. Gould responded assisted living facilities in Minnesota are not licensed or required to have a certificate of need. Gould said he thought the state would require licensing for assist living facilities within the next five years. G & P is prepared for more state control. Gould said the room arrangement in the Alzheimer's wing makes conversion to an apartment building very difficult. Brightondale would go back to the same condition in 1985.

Baker said the Alzheimer's unit could remain a care unit and the Brightondale facility could go back to market rate. Gould said if that happened the parking would be the same as in 1987. Baker stated it would not be the same if the owner added twenty units. Gould responded that those units could never be rented as market rate units. Baker said the Alzheimer's unit could remain and Brightondale could be converted back to market rate.

Schiferl said there are ways to convert the Alzheimer's unit to market rate by combining units. Gould said that making ten units out of the twenty might be possible. Gould said he wanted to make the point that the population more than seventy-five years old is exploding. By 2020, one quarter of our population will be more than sixty-five years of age. From a market standpoint, it does not make sense to go back to making Brightondale a market rate facility. Brightondale was not successful as a market rate facility, but is doing well as an assisted living facility. Hopefully, we will be able to offer senior coop units for independent living.

Schiferl asked how Brightondale made the transition to assisted living. Was there any kind of approval process? Mattila said he did not know if the City was involved through the approval process. Locke said there was City involvement because of the bonds and the default situation, but there was no approval process involved in the change from a market rate facility to an assisted living facility.

Baker said he asked for prints from the developer showing the exact proposal two months ago. These prints are still not available. The current prints do not show the fire lanes, the parking on the New Market parking lot, or the emergency easement to the Alzheimer's wing. It is difficult to approve a site plan without detailed plans. Gould responded G & P is still working with New Market to revise the fire easement.

Baker said print A1 showed the driveway making a common entry with the New Market parking lot. Print A1 and Print C1 do not match. Roger Johnson, the architect for the coop portion of the proposal, went over the plans with Baker. Baker said Johnson seemed unsure of the plan. The Planning Commission must have an exact plan to consider.

Livingston asked why G & P was designating the independent living units as "coop" and not "condo." Is the ownership different? Gould responded seniors would not have to put out as much money initially and the financing process is more complicated for condos.

Baker said this item was not a public hearing, but that the Planning Commission would hear anyone who wished to speak.

Ron Olson, 2026 28th Avenue NW, representing the neighbors on 28th Avenue, referred to a packet of information he sent the commissioners and the list from Councilmember Larson. After meeting with the developer, Councilmember Larson stopped by my home and asked me what could be done to salvage the project. That is how Larson developed the list G & P went over this evening. Olson said Larson asked him if the neighbors would consider the proposed building if it were moved over fifty feet. Olson said he told Larson that the neighbors really do not want any building there at all. Olson said Larson asked him if, assuming the building could be moved over 50 feet, what points Olson would like to see on a list of requests to the developer. Most of the points on the list, are the issues that came up in the Planning Commission meetings. Olson directed the Planning Commission to the list and said he would like to go over the points on the list from the perspective of the 28th Avenue group.

1.	Setback increased to a 50-foot minimum from the west property line.

Yes, G & P moved the setback from 25 feet to 40 feet, increasing the setback by 15 feet.

2.	All air conditioning units to be located on the east side of Alzheimer's wing.

The air conditioning is in the same position on the roof that is was in November.

5.	Legal agreement that the Alzheimer's wing will never exceed one story.

There is no change from the November plan. The Building Code dictates the height according to the City Building Official. A building constructed of these materials is limited to one floor anyway.

6.	Construct the Alzheimer's wing into ground at lowest elevation possible.

The height proposed for this one-story building on the upper end would be 22 feet above grade. At the other end, it will be 30 feet above grade. With the roof pitch, the building would be the same height as the two-story homes on 28th. Therefore, this is a tall one-story building. The elevation is two to three feet higher than the home sites on 28th. Considering the proposed building would be 212 feet long, the impact would be overwhelming.

10.	Utilize all underground parking slots for guests.

We checked that today and there are still four.

12.	Use a spade to plant large evergreens trees in the new 25 foot setback to screen Alzheimer's wing.

Olson showed on the plan his view of Brightondale. It is much larger than the view shown on the elevation. The impact is much different when you are closer to the building. The deciduous trees now growing in there will be sacrificed. The only change on the new plan is that the distance between the new trees would be fifteen feet. The neighborhood group feels the landscaping is just not a fit to the property.

Olson said that, at the City Council meeting in November, the Mayor indicated that when this proposal came back to the Planning Commission, he wanted the Commission to look at it a bit differently than the first time. The Mayor asked the Planning Commission to look at the project on its own merits and not look at the history. Olson said he designed his proposal for this evening with the Mayor's directions in mind. So if we are not going to consider 1979 or 1985, what is the proper density for an R-2 project? The proposal would not qualify on that basis. Olson distributed a document to the Planning Commission.

Olson stated that, if the Commission is not going to consider 1979 or 1985, he would have difficulty figuring the density is for R-2. If we count 1979 where there was a variance, Olson said his analogy of the homesite owner might be something to think about. Olson said he would go over some of the points on the document he distributed for the record.

Olson referred to item #2 on the document, "Is greenspace still important?" Olson said that when they created the buffer zone, the Planning Commission considered that our backyards were small. The homes on 28th Avenue, the park and Brightondale were all part of the same PRD. The buffer zone or greenspace that was put in there was done because of the small lot sizes of the homes on 28th. At the November Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission considered a church project. Olson said he was interested in the Commission's comments when they considered that project. The commissioners commented on how they appreciated the trees and greenspace the Baptist Church was going to retain. One Commissioners commented that it was good that the parking lot was not going to be so large that it would eliminate the greenspace. Olson stated the Planning Commission should apply the same criteria on the Brightondale project that it used on the church project. Putting a 70 foot by 220 foot building into that buffer zone will eliminate the mandatory greenspace that the Planning Commission and the City Council approved in 1985. Olson stated the 28th Avenue group does not think the Planning Commission was wrong in 1985. Olson said he was concerned about the City establishing a precedent if the City starts putting a building on every greenspace.

Olson asked if anyone had spoken with the present residents at Brightondale. That is not a land use issue, but it is a consideration. When the buffer zone was created, they created it not only for the 28th Avenue residents, but for the Brightondale residents. The dining room at Brightondale was constructed so the residents could look out into the greenspace. The yard for the Brightondale residents on the new plan looks like the exercise yard for a penal institution. Recently, one 28th resident went over to Brightondale to ask assisted living for a relative. Brightondale staff gave him a tour of the building and the manager pointed out the view from one apartment. So they must feel the view is an amenity. In fact, in your packet of supporting material, Olson said he included a couple of pages he took out of the Brightondale manual. Olson said he highlighted areas where the Brightondale management promotes the landscaping and the courtyard. Olson said he assumed that it is easier for management to rent the apartments on the west side of the building overlooking the greenspace than it is to rent the apartments on the east side. Their rate structure seems to infer that. How will the proposed building affect the long range appeal of Brightondale and its occupancy in the future? Is it a good use of land space to put a building in for Alzheimer's patients who will never see the light of day? Putting a building 25 feet away from a three- story building wipes out the east exposure. Fifteen foot trees on the other side eliminates that exposure. People will be paying about $50,000 per year to live under those conditions. I think we need to have some compassion for the residents living there. We have spoken to several elderly residents of Brightondale and they are frustrated because their concerns and opinions are ignored. A few of them were brave enough to speak out at our neighborhood meeting we had in the Brightondale dining room last fall. They were opposed to the addition and concerned about the high rates. In 1992, when G & P purchased the property, they gave the Brightondale residents the choice of a huge rate increase or moving out. Olson said he checked with some people who moved and they were paying between $700 and $750 per month for a one bedroom apartment before 1992. The rates have now increased to between $1,400 and $1,900 per month. One couple we talked to said it cost them $3,000 per month to live at Brightondale, not including the garage or special services.

Olson referred to his comments in the document on parking. The seven residents do not cause the parking problems. Brightondale is not fully occupied currently. The big issue is the visitors. The Alzheimer's people are not going to drive and will probably have more visitors. The residents on 28th know what the current parking situation is. The proposal is to be zoned as parking for convalescent, and Olson said he did not know if that allows for visitors. Olson said he did a calculation of the number of units proposed and the number of visitor parking spaces and came up with 33%. We have seen the crowds. Mr. Erickson of New Market is concerned that Brightondale visitors will use his parking lot as overflow parking. Erickson knows it happens now, but there is no way to police it. Erickson is not sure he likes the idea of his interior roads being used to get to a senior coop parking lot if they try to use that as overflow. The parking behind the Rice Creek Plaza, where the easement is, will be gone when the senior coop goes up. The senior coop will not be in the developer's control once it is sold.

Olson said there has been enough discussion about noise tonight. On the drainage issue, Olson stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has already denied a permit based on the fact there are some questions about how drainage would occur on 27th and 28th. Material in your packet says the RCWD requires written permission from the landowner for filling the pond. The problem is G & P has submitted two plans. One plan fills his half of the pond, but that will push all the water to her side. That will create a problem. The other plan is to fill the pond, but the 28th Avenue group is not sure they want to do that. The current drainage plan has been working well other than for the downspouts off the Brightondale property flooding some yards. That needs to be fixed.

Olson said the information from the City that the pond is currently designated as a drainage easement. Olson stated he was sure of what that means, but it seems both parties should approve any changes. Is there a possibility of activities conducted in the backyards of the neighboring 28th Avenue residents might be a bit unsettling to Alzheimer's patients? Has the Commission considered that?

Olson stated he talked to Mike Erickson about the fire lane easement. Erickson mentioned that there has never been any parking easement with him and there will not be because New Market needs the parking places. He also said he was not planning to grant a 24-foot wide fire lane easement on his property. The fire easement road proposed for the north end of Brightondale and the Alzheimer's unit.

Olson asked if Brightondale already overlaps the setback requirement for the park. Is there enough room for a road in there? Would the proposed 212-foot building encroach on the park land? We went to the Park Board meeting in November and they talked about the connecting strip of land belonging to the park between the Brightondale project and the proposed senior coop. Olson said he understood it would be used for a tunnel and a path between the two buildings and when the project was done they would restore it with grass and the path would be there. Now the developer is talking about a 12-foot wide paved road that would cut off access to the park. That is something completely different from what we understood the Park Board approved. The 28th Avenue group is opposed to that. That is not a good use of park land. The park was part of the PRD. The property values along the east side of the homes on 28th are appraised at $1.4. Olson said the 28th Avenue group had a market analysis done on the impact of the proposed project on our homes. They estimated a devaluation of between to 7 percent and 15 percent.

Olson said he would try to be polite about the developer talking with city officials to discuss selling Brightondale to a tax exempt organization once they construct the Alzheimer's unit. We are not questioning G & P's right to sell. We also do not question Mr. Gould's publicly stated humanitarian motives for wanting to construct an Alzheimer's unit. Our talks with Brightondale residents overshadow these motives who say the cost is so high they do not think they can stay there any longer. However, we need to be absolutely certain that we are not going to regret a decision to approve a unit in this location since Mr. Gould will not be around to deal with the problems and complaints.

Olson stated that, based on the testimony from Gould's people, there is no question that this senior coop is going to be a success. Olson said the two projects could be easily separated. These projects should always have been separate proposals. Olson said the neighbors still felt the Alzheimer's project is not a good fit, but that the senior coop project is. The impact of the Alzheimer's unit on the homes on 28th will be enormous. Olson said the 28th Avenue group would like the Planning Commission to vote no on the proposed Alzheimer's unit, make a recommendation for a correction of the current drainage problems and to make the greenspace a permanent easement. Olson thanked the Planning Commission for its time and for supporting the 28th Avenue neighbors in the past.

Eileen Brama, 2703 Mississippi Street, said the ultimate goal of a developer is to acquire land and develop the land with a minimum of expense and a maximum of profit. They propose to place a three to three and a half story building in a community where it is not compatible with the surrounding area. The ultimate goal of the city is to review and accept or reject proposals based on the benefit to the community and the increase in tax base. The developer thinks the coop project is needed and would benefit the community, but at whose expense? In the past, the City accepted a developer's proposal to place a building in a community where it was not compatible. The compensation to the community was to be a higher tax base and a park. Again, the City is considering a project that is not compatible with the area and will greatly impact the residents of the area both aesthetically and economically. Brama said she was aware that this project would replace a distressed parcel of land. Brama said she hoped the City would be responsible and consider a project that would compliment the site and appease the residents whom it will affect. Brama said her neighbors would be adversely affected economically should the Alzheimer's unit be approved. Brama thanked the Planning Commission for their time.

Alma Stepanchak, 2180 27th Avenue NW, stated her home is across the street from the proposed three and a half story coop. Stepanchak said she was disappointed that the neighbors on 27th were not included in any of the discussions with the developer or in any of the meetings called on this subject. Our property is just as much affected by the coop as the 28th people are affected by the proposed Alzheimer's unit. Stepanchak said that offended her and she felt that, as a resident, she should have been just as important as anyone else. I am directly across the street from the proposed coop. The Planning Commission received a copy of our concerns last month. Stepanchak said her main concern was the height of the three and a half story coop and would affect her privacy. Stepanchak said the proposed coop would decrease the property value of her home, which she just built last year. Stepanchak said she looked at a three and a half story apartment building across from the Family Service Center and tried to visualize what the coop would be like and she cried. The Rice Creek Center should be developed, but should be one or one and a half stories like the other businesses nearby. There will be increased traffic from the proposed ninety- seven units. Stepanchak thanked the Commission for its time and consideration, but was disappointed the 27th Avenue people were not included in any meetings.

Mattila responded the City was not invited, but the developer included the neighbors on 27th in the neighborhood meeting they held in the fall and notices were sent of the public hearing. Stepanchak said she only received one letter on the first meeting at Brightondale and after that she received no notifications. Mattila responded the developer is required to obtain a certified list of property owners within 600 feet of the site from Ramsey County and those property owners are notified by the City. It could be her name was somehow not included on that list. However, those property owners were only notified once and that was for the October Planning Commission meeting. From that point on, meeting dates were announced at the conclusion of each public meeting and Mattila recalls her attending most if not all of those meetings. Furthermore, the City is not obligated to notify property owners by mail of a public hearing, it is a courtesy the City extends to it's residents. A public hearing notice published in the paper is the only requirement of the City.

Yvonne Bessler, 2704 21st Street NW, stated she lives across the street from the north edge of the park and has a view of the park and Brightondale. Bessler said she agreed with statements made by Olson and Stepanchak. Bessler said she was also concerned about parking for the park. Bessler noticed about forty cars parked behind Rice Creek Center when there are activities at the park. Where are those cars going to go? Will people have to stop using the park? The only place they can park is on 21st and in Erickson's parking lot.

Baker asked Mattila about the parking for the park. Mattila responded the Park and Recreation Commission met with the developer and the neighbors and they worked out a proposal to share parking on the proposed coop site.

Gould responded that they would donate twenty-four stalls on the Rice Creek Center property for park parking. Bessler asked if they would be marked as such.

Zisla called for a point of order because he could not follow the remarks going back and forth without coming forward.

Zisla asked what about the zoning for multi-family. Mattila responded that would be an R-3 District. Zisla asked what is the density in an R-3 district. Mattila said eight to ten units per acre with a 30-foot height limitation. Zisla asked why is there a three-story ninety unit building in an R-2 District. Mattila responded the City overlays any R-1, R-2, or R-3 District with the PRD ordinance in which there is no height limitation. Zisla asked about the backyard setback in the R-2 district. Mattila responded 5 feet. Under a PRD ordinance, the setback is 25 feet or the height of the building, whichever is less. Zisla said, then in an R-1 zone a house can be within 5 feet of the backyard and the neighbor could do the same. Mattila responded affirmatively. Zisla asked about the backyard setback in an R-2 District. Mattila answered 5 feet.

Zisla stated there is no question that this is part of the PRD. The problem here is not Brightondale, but the undersized single family homes that are too close to their lot lines. Livingston asked if the single family homes should be able to use the park and add another unit to their property.

O'Brien stated this problem comes down to the fact that years ago something was done and the residents were led to expect a certain result and O'Brien said he did not feel it was fair to change that. O'Brien said he did not have a problem with the senior coop, but he does have a problem with the Alzheimer's unit. Zisla asked if O'Brien felt that way because of what people were led to expect before or because of the nature of the development and the site itself. O'Brien responded objects to the nature of the development and the site and that they led the residents to believe there would be a greenspace.

Knuth said most of the comments made this evening were on an emotional level regarding views. The neighbors on 28th thought certain restrictions existed. The residents moved to Brightondale expecting the amenities such as the view that were in place. Knuth said she thought we should honor that.

Zisla said often people had come to Planning Commission meetings and objected to a proposal because it would spoil the view or another amenity for them. The problem is those folks like what happens on property that does not belong to them. The benefit of view cannot control what the property owner can do with his property. Technically, the argument about covenants is that in 1985 there were such vehicles as covenants, but no covenants were done in this case. To say there was an agreement there is not true. There were no written agreement or covenants. Two Planning Commission members who were on the Commission in 1985 explained what they thought the agreement was. That causes some problems because the restriction the neighbors thought was there never existing in writing.

O'Brien asked Zisla if he felt the PRD provided those restrictions. Zisla answered yes, but the PRD is subject to change. Technically, that is the problem with a PRD. People may think the PRD protects them, but in fact the City has the authority to change it at any time. Baker said all parties to the PRD has to be considered. The City cannot amend part of the PRD without considering the entire PRD.

Schiferl said he would like to deal with the noise issue. He was referring to a comment made earlier in the evening by an unnamed person in the audience. Schiferl said he would like to make it clear his comments on noise were not meant as a scare tactic. Schiferl stated he talked to three people, including members of his family, about first hand knowledge of Alzheimer's patients. All three of them mentioned the noise issue. Schiferl said he did not know how prevalent it is and only brought it up as a legitimate issue. There were some answers tonight on the issue that clarified the issue. Regarding the comment made by Commissioner Zisla whether noise was a legitimate land use issue, Schiferl said he felt noise is inherent in all kinds of land use issues, whether directly or indirectly. For example, traffic can be a noise issue. Schiferl said he would not pursue the issue further in this proceeding, but he wanted to clarify his thinking on the issue for the record.

Baker said he agreed with Knuth's comments and we do have to be concerned about quality of life of the residents. The Golden Pond application had similar problems when it came before the Planning Commission. It was originally proposed to leave the existing a six-plex on the site and the Planning Commission did not think it was a good use of the site. That would have blocked the view of Golden Pond from the street. The Planning Commission made it a condition of approval that the apartment building be removed. The City Council agreed and the building was removed. Golden Pond is a much better development because of that condition. Brightondale is a similar case. Aesthetics aside, Baker said he had a real concern about parking. The existing Brightondale facility did not have enough parking to meet code and is the reason for the shared parking agreement with the Rice Creek Shopping Center. Eliminating the agreement and adding twenty more units to Brightondale will cause a parking problem. Baker said his other concern was that the Planning Commission does not have a complete set of plans to consider. The Planning Commission cannot do their work when it has incomplete information. The site plan should show parking and fire lanes instead of the developer giving us verbal information.

Schiferl said he would like to make it clear that, should the Commission decide to deny approval because of concerns with the Alzheimer's wing, that we make it clear that the coop is a separate issue. The coop is a viable proposal, but the details should be considered more fully.

Zisla stated that the developer made an effort to respond to the setback and the roof line issues. Zisla said he felt those were the core issues.

Schiferl said he would vote against approval based on consideration of land use issues not based on emotion.

Gould said he would like to reply to Commissioner Schiferl's comments that he could not support the Alzheimer's wing but could support the senior coop. Gould said he would welcome that recommendation and the proposals could be separated.

Baker stated he thought the senior coop proposal had merit, but he still wanted to see a complete site plan.

Livingston said he would like to take another look at the coop proposal and to vote on that separately. The Commission does not have enough information on the coop proposal to vote on the matter this evening. Livingston suggested the developer bring the coop proposal back as a separate issue.

Baker asked for a motion on the proposal.

Zisla said he had a question on procedure. If the Commission denies the staff recommendation, does that create a procedure problem for consideration of the coop issue. Will that delay the process? Mattila answered the current application is for both the Alzheimer's facility and the senior coop facility. We would have to make a recommendation to the City Council on the current proposal. Unless the developer withdraws the application, the City Council must consider it. Zisla asked if recommending denial of the Alzheimer's wing was possible. Also, would it be possible to recommend approval of the senior coop, subject to the concerns of the Commission. Mattila said that the Commission must consider the current proposal. The Commission can put language in their recommendation that would suggest that they would support a senior coop facility.

Schiferl asked Mattila if the drainage issue could be a separate issue. Is drainage a private issue between G & P and the neighboring residents? Mattila said the City Attorney advised drainage is a civil matter between the property owners unless the City Council decides to get involved in the issue.

Gregori said that, from the Council's standpoint, the Planning Commission has to vote on the recommendation on the current proposal, which includes both facilities. The Council would appreciate any further recommendations the Planning Commission may have on the matter.

Knuth asked if the Commission could vote on the applicant's current proposal and then make a statement encouraging the applicant to resubmit the coop portion of the proposal. Baker answered affirmatively.

Motion by Knuth, seconded by Livingston, to recommend denial of LP-331, PRD-59 and pl-258.

Zisla said the reason he asked about procedure earlier is that he wondered if the ordinance precludes the developer from coming back with part of his proposal after the Commission recommends denial. Mattila said there is no time frame where a developer cannot make a proposal after a proposal has been denied. A developer can reconfigure a proposal and bring it forward in another form anytime. For example, if they bring back the coop proposal as a separate proposal, that would be an entirely different application. Zisla asked how long the developer has to wait before bringing the coop proposal before the Commission. Mattila said there is no time limit. The only time limit would be that, if the City Council were to approve the application, the developer has six months to pull the building permit. If they do not pull the building permit in six months, the application expires.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 6 Ayes - 1 Nay (Zisla). Motion Carried.

Motion by Knuth, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend that the developer resubmit an application for the senior coop facility addressing the issues brought forward by residents at the last two Planning Commission meetings. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates

I-35W Corridor Comprehensive Planning Update

Mattila updated the Commission on the efforts of the I-35W Coalition which comprises Community Development Directors represented those seven northern metro Cities that border on I-35W. Essentially, the coalition is working to prepare a unified comprehensive plan for the northern metro I-35W corridor. The coalition is working with the Design Center to accomplish this task. The Design Center has asked each coalition member to set up a time when the Design Center can update each City's Planning Commission on the status of this joint planning effort. The Design Center would like to meet with the New Brighton Planning Commission at their February 17, 1998, meeting.

Baker said he was looking forward to the presentation.

Joann Knuth

The Commission members wished Commissioner Knuth the best of luck in all future endeavors and commented on what a pleasure it was to have Joann on the Commission. The Commission told Joann she will be missed.

Knuth expressed her gratitude for being allowed to serve on the Planning Commission. Knuth said she would value the experience and miss her fellow Commissioners. Knuth also thanked staff for being so supportive and professional.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston to adjourn the meeting. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

_______________________________________

Erny Mattila, City Planner