Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - April 21, 1998

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

Mike Livingston, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Present:	Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Larry Baker

Also Present:	Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development

Erny Mattila, Project Manager

Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Maurie Anderson, Director of Parks & Recreation

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schiferl to amend the minutes of the March 17, 1998, to show O'Brien and Schiferl were absent. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Council Action

Larson reported that, earlier this evening, the City Council reviewed eleven applications for the open position on the Council. The Council chose two applicants to interview Thursday, April 23, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The meeting will be open to the public and will be televised. After the interviews Thursday evening, the Council will make their choice. The appointee will begin serving next Tuesday and will serve for two years. In the November 1999 election, two four-year terms and one two- year term will be up for election. State Statute dictated this method of filling the vacancy.

Agenda Review

Schiferl asked if the Commission should reorder the agenda items. After a brief discussion, the Commission reordered the agenda and moved the G & P item to the last public hearing.

Livingston explained to the audience that, in a public hearing, the staff will review the planning report, the Commission will ask questions and then the audience will have the opportunity to ask questions and give their opinions.

Public Hearings

PL-244, NC-10	Richard E. Peterson

Teague reviewed the planning report on the application for a Type IV nonconforming use and a minor subdivision to adjust an existing lot line to construct a detached garage.

Responding to a question from Schiferl, Teague responded the property on the left has an existing home on it. Mr. Peterson would sell the property. The houses share a driveway and Mr. Peterson will be constructing a new driveway.

Livingston asked how far would the adjusted lot line be from that house. Teague answered that the lot line would be five and one-half feet from the existing house. The garage would also be five and one-half feet from the lot line. Therefore, it would meet the Code requirements.

Livingston asked Teague if he had pictures of the site. Teague apologized for not having slides. Teague said he took many slides, but the company that provided the developing service no longer does that work. The vendors that Teague contacted need a two-week lead time.

Livingston asked if the Commission had questions. There was no response. Livingston asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the issue. There was no response.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Zisla, to close the public hearing. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Zisla pointed out there was a word omitted in the last line of paragraph four of the resolution. It should read, "on Parcel A."

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to adopt the amended resolution recommending approval of PL-244 and NC-109. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

LP-38, PUD-6 and PL-243	Industrial Equities, Inc.

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning an application for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and minor subdivision to create a new industrial lot and construct a 40,125 square foot building in the BCP II area.

Livingston asked if the Commission had any questions. No one responded. Livingston asked if the applicant wished to speak. The applicant said he had nothing to add unless someone had a question.

Zisla stated that, during the Highway 8 Corridor Study, there was some discussion about the appearance of the community from I-35W and about a cohesive landscape treatment. Has the City Forester or the Highway 8 Corridor Study's consultant reviewed the landscape treatment?

Teague said the Forester reviewed the landscape plan and his comments were favorable. Mattila said staff worked with John Allen, the applicant, months ago to set up this project. Staff emphasized the need for a green area on the freeway side of the building. The applicant is providing such a green area in the setback area between the freeway and the edge of the building. This landscaping would conform to the Study's recommendations. Zisla said the Highway 8 Task Force discussed a coherent form of landscaping along the freeway rather than just the lack of screening.

Zisla said he was thinking of the large outdoor storage area for one of the first buildings we approved in that area. At the time, the Commission had a lengthy discussion on that variance. Zisla said, when he drives by the site now, he thinks the Commission should have paid more attention to the appearance of the site from the freeway. Zisla said his comments tonight would not change the substance of the decision. Mr. Allen has been cooperative with the City and staff and has done what we have required. Zisla said we should give some additional thought about the look of the site from the freeway. Mattila commented that, because of the Study, we are looking for the provision of evergreen plantings along the freeway. Before the Study was done, we dealt with the material the State Highway Department provided, which were Russian Olive trees and provided very little screening. Now when we look at a freeway site, we are looking for evergreens and this site provides such screening.

John Allen of Industrial Equities, thanked Commissioner Zisla for bringing up that point. Allen said he was not positive that making the plantings along I-35W and getting a planting design system that really works would necessarily consist of a string of evergreens.

Zisla answered he had no expertise in landscaping, but the Task Force did have a lengthy discussion on the subject. We tend to think of internal streets as the gateway or identity of the community. However, the view from I-35W is the only view some people have of New Brighton.

Mattila stated we are not just talking about evergreens but deciduous trees that do well in those situations. Rick Wriskey, the City Forester, was very much involved in the Corridor Study and understands the planting strategy recommended by the Study. For example, some planter boxes were proposed as a part of the Study that, according to the City Forester, may not work out well. The City Forester is basically looking for deciduous and coniferous plantings that were part of the Highway 8 Corridor Study.

John Allen, the applicant, stated he did not develop the US West building, which has the large outdoor storage area. Allen said his office/warehouse sites are better landscaped than most apartment complexes. Allen said he puts a high priority on creating a campus-like setting on each of his projects.

Zisla said he just felt this was a good project on which to bring up the conformity of landscaping along the freeway as recommended by the Study. Allen said he appreciated the Commission's input.

Livingston asked if 1st Street would be vacated. Teague responded 1st Street has been vacated. Livingston asked if the traffic flow will be one-way? Teague responded the traffic would be two-way traffic. Allen described the traffic flow on the site.

Zisla asked if the acquisition of the railroad wye will have an effect on the traffic flow within the site. Allen said that, when the wye is acquired, we will pick up about half of the area needed for the third and fourth phases of this project. At that time, it will be more desirable to route the truck traffic around the building and that will be our objective. There may be a more desirable traffic route when the third and fourth phases are built.

Livingston said, since there were no more questions from the Commission, the item was open for public comments. Livingston asked if anyone wished to speak. No one responded.

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

Motion by Zisla, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend approval of LP-338, PUD-6, and PL-243. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

LP-340, NC-110, VN-318, SP-20	Howard Hermann - Hermann's Mobil

Teague reviewed the planning report on an application for a Type IV nonconforming use, site plan review, special use permit, and variance for the construction of a canopy and to remodel the car wash.

Zisla asked, if the City denies the variance and allowed the special use permit, could the canopy still be built ten feet back from the lot line. Teague responded affirmatively. Teague said he checked with the City Attorney to see if the City could process the applications simultaneously to save the applicant time. The City Attorney suggested the applications could be considered at the same time.

Livingston asked for questions from the Commission. Schiferl asked Teague to further explain the six parking spaces and the adjacent property and the reasoning for the curbing.

Teague stated the parking stalls are unusual in that they are long. They are intended for double parking. An auto repair station is required to provide six spaces for off-street parking. The curbing is a requirement of the Code for these types of uses to provide area for greenspace and separation between uses.

O'Brien asked about the curb cut. If the curbing is provided there and the driveway eliminated, what option is there for getting tanker trucks in there? Teague responded the trucks either have to come off of Old Highway 8 or come in from 5th Street.

Livingston asked for comments from the public. The applicant was present.

Howard Hermann, the applicant, stated the entrance he would like to block off is where all the truck traffic comes enters the site. When the City put in the sidewalk, the entrance was cut down by about ten feet. Hermann said he complained and they opened it another six feet, but the entrance is still not wide enough. The truck traffic that comes in now comes in off Old Highway 8. Hermann pointed to an area on the site plan and said it is all run over by trucks. Hermann said he has tried to keep the area in grass, but it is futile. Hermann stated that, if he had to eliminate this entrance, he could not sell diesel fuel. A 60- foot trailer could not swing and make that curb on 5th. To get out, they would have to go onto 5th and go around the block. Hermann said that currently the trucks come in and out of his business by 8th Street and back up to the sidewalk and exit on 5th Street. Hermann pointed out the truck flow on the plan. That is the only way to get in and out. US Tire and Exhaust trucks also have difficulty coming in off 5th Street. They are shorter trucks, but their tires still come over the curbing. Hermann said that would have to be made wider for the truck traffic to get in without going over the curb. Hermann pointed out an area on the site plan where he would have no objection to putting in curbing and green area. Hermann said that would improve the appearance of the area. Hermann stated the area from the edge of the building to J & B Auto has been gravel since he bought the business 18 years ago. Hermann pointed out where a semi-truck was parked for 18 years, but now that eyesore is gone. Snow removal is a problem. The site has no area for snow storage. Hermann reviewed his requests on the site plan. The business is very restricted as to parking area. Sometimes he has to use Jack's driveway to get a car into the back of his site. Hermann showed the area where the proposed car wash would be located and how it would be accessed.

Zisla said it seems that it may be better to put curbing in places where it will work and create some definition and not put curbing in places where it is being damaged by traffic. Zisla said he did not see what the City gains by having curbing between the alley and the lot. On the other hand, the comment about the green area makes sense. The definition between the two lots seems appropriate. Is there a way to change the driveway on the south?

O'Brien asked if they could increase the size of the driveway where the curbing is being destroyed by trucks and decrease the other drive. Teague responded that, since this is a County road, it would be subject to approval by the County. The difficulty began when the County made the curb cut so small. O'Brien asked if Hermann had discussed this possibility with the County. Hermann responded negatively. Hermann said the County changed his driveways when they redid the street. Hermann said he did not know why the County did this.

Zisla asked Hermann, putting the County's actions aside, would O'Brien's suggestion work? Would widening the driveway on the south and making the north drive narrower work? Hermann responded affirmatively. Zisla said, if the City wants to do this, the City should talk to the County. We should not ask the applicant to talk to the County himself.

Livingston asked if that was where diesel customers entered. Hermann responded affirmatively; the tanker trucks also use the driveway. Hermann described the current enter/exit pattern for each type of customer or vendor and the proposed changes.

Zisla asked Hermann to explain the proposed change of size of the canopy. Would the ten foot canopy work and allow the owner to upgrade the station? Hermann replied that the ten foot canopy would work. Zisla said the Commission has considered the question of canopies before when it considered another application. A concern of the Commission was how we would deal with canopies as far as improving a site while maintaining the setbacks. Zisla said the site the Commission is considering this evening is filled and he would not be inclined to approve the setback variance. Hermann said he had talked with several other petroleum vendors and they all required a canopy to sell their product.

Schopf said there are many gas stations where the canopy has been cut short. These canopies look out of place. There should be a way to have a full canopy on the site. The Commission must deal with these canopies considering each application's unique features.

Zisla said there was no way this application can be approved if we pay attention to criteria. The ten foot canopy was an effort to achieve some sort of compromise.

Livingston asked if anyone from the public wished to speak at this hearing.

Paul Reiling, a resident living behind the Mobil Station, asked if Hermann was going to put up two canopies. Hermann responded affirmatively. Reiling said, humorously, one of them should be placed further west in Reiling's yard. Reiling stated he was in favor of Hermann's improvements and that the business was a good neighbor.

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

Schiferl asked for clarification on the curbs and asked for Teague's opinion on the options proposed this evening. Schiferl asked what could the applicant live with?

Teague pointed out the features of the proposal on the site plan. Schiferl asked the applicant about the parking for a phone. Hermann pointed out the present features of the site on the site plan and showed where he was thinking of putting the public phone. Schiferl said he did not recall that phone being in the application. Zisla asked why put a parking space there; the phone could be put somewhere near the building. O'Brien said the phone could be put along the new section of curb on the west side so cars can pull up and park along the curb and use the phone. Schiferl said his concern was that in putting a curb there, dressing it up with a few flowers, getting some definition of the property, and reducing the nonconformities, a parking space here does not seem to be consistent with that concept.

Livingston agreed. Livingston asked about having the public phone on the building. Hermann pointed out that a phone would interfere with the flow of customers at the bays and island. Livingston said he did not mean the phone should be used from a vehicle. Easy Stop has a wall phone for public use. Hermann responded that where the phone is located is where customers are going to park.

Zisla agreed that the Commission should not be negotiating where the phone is going to be located right now. It is not an appropriate place for a parking space. Many of us are inclined to approve a special use permit. However, the Commission is looking for something that will work for the applicant that we can approve.

Schopf asked if the two property owners to the north and Mr. Hermann would prefer not to be curbed as far as snow removal is concerned. Zisla said Hermann and his neighbor may have an agreement for snow storage, but the point is that the standard for development is to have that buffer. Zisla said Hermann said in his comments that it would be an inconvenience, but would improve the appearance of his site. However, curbing is the standard. The agreement on snow removal cannot change the site plan. Zisla stated the curbing makes sense in that location with the additional greenspace.

Teague commented there is no snow storage designated on the site; the curbing will define the area and create a snow storage area on the north side of the building. Zisla stated the applicant would not, then, lose snow storage space. Teague responded affirmatively. Zisla said he understood the applicant would rather not put in the curbing along the north property line between the property to the north. Hermann responded he would not like to see the curbing at that location.

O'Brien asked about the curbing on the south side of the building. Teague responded the curbing would direct traffic onto 5th and discourage use of the alley. Zisla stated the curbing would define the site visually, but asked if it would cut off an importance entrance. Hermann answered the area is cement and then blacktop into the alley. The trucks come in and make the turn.

Zisla asked if the Commission had a preference whether the motion should include all the actions in one motion. Zisla described what he would suggest the motion include:

Starting at the bottom right corner on the site plan, the green area remains and the driveway is widened;

the driveway moving north should be narrower;

the curbing along the north line of the property is added with the greenspace;

the curbed area to the right stays in and we would not require installation of curbing along the alley.

Livingston asked why we would not include the curbing along the alley in the motion. Zisla responded that curbing does not add anything. It would create a green strip that would not be maintained. Customers would just go into the alley, which seems to be working now. Livingston said the cars may be backed up around there because of the car wash. Zisla said if there are cars there people will not be able to go through to the alley, and when there are no cars, they can go through. Zisla stated the alley curbing would serve no particular function. Hermann said no one along the alley has curbing. Hermann said he wanted to make the point that there is no curbing from his business all the way down to Easy Stop. Zisla said creating some definition of the businesses would be advantageous. The curbing should be consistent along Old Highway 8. The curbing is not there now, but should be. Zisla stated Hermann was correct in that it would not do a lot of good for curbing only Hermann's business. Because Hermann's business would be the only one with curbing, we should not require it.

There was a brief discussion of the language of the motion.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend approval of Staff recommendation with the following added conditions:

Curbing and green area is not necessary along the western property line.

The southerly curb cut on Old Highway 8 remain, and be widened if possible, subject to approval of Ramsey County.

The northerly curb cut on Old Highway 8 be made narrower, subject to approval of Ramsey County..

6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

LP-337, PRD 60 & PL-242	G & P Properties

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning an application for site plan review and Planned Residential Development to replace a portion of the Rice Creek Shopping Center with a 97-unit Senior Independent Living facility.

Zisla asked about the fire lane on the west of the new building. The drawing shows an existing driveway easement to the west. Does the drawing show the new fire access? Is there an existing easement to the west of the new fire easement? Nordby explained the location of the existing and proposed easements.

Schiferl stated he was looking at the minutes from previous meetings. Schiferl asked about the issue of the headlights. Would the headlights from people coming out of the garage and shine on the houses in the vicinity of the corner of 21st and 27th? Teague responded vehicles would exit out the garage and would be facing these houses. The developer has provided some landscaping there. Schiferl asked if the trees would be evergreens and would they solve the headlight problem. Schiferl said he wanted that issue addressed this evening. Schiferl said the issue on the leaves in the stormwater pond was referred to in the minutes. It sounds like the City Engineer looked at drainage issues, so is leaf blockage still an issue? Teague responded that leaves clogging the storm drain would not be significant enough to cause flooding on those properties. Schiferl asked if the tunnel is it going to be built. Teague answered the tunnel is being proposed underground with a twenty-foot wide easement over it for construction and maintenance..

Schiferl stated the November Parks, Recreation and Environmental Commission minutes state that 30 spaces will be dedicated for park purposes and owners cannot park there. Their draft resolution references this language. Now Teague is saying that, basically, the need for park parking is for a very narrow period for soccer. Is the idea that parking would be permanently dedicated, but in reality would only be used for a narrow space of time, but would give flexibility for other park purposes sometime in the future? Is the parking a narrow thing in terms of time or is it potentially going to be wider? That would have an impact on the need for underground parking at Brightondale. Teague responded that parking in those specific times would cover the needs of the park. Teague said that was the information passed to him from the Parks Director.

Livingston asked if the fire lane to the west is on this property or is it on the City's property. Teague said the easement is partially on City property and partially on the G & P property. Livingston said he was a little uncomfortable with that situation. Could the people on the other side of the park get to the back of their property by driving across the park? Is the park currently providing access to the apartment building? Teague responded the fire lane would provide access to the Brightondale facility. Livingston said then the City is providing a fire lane for a building that already exists. Teague answered affirmatively. Teague stated the fire lane is currently located on the south. At the last meeting, it was suggested that, rather than having bituminous surface from the Brightondale facility to New Market, that we consider relocating the fire lane on the western property line. The Parks Commission and the Fire Marshal were satisfied with the relocation of the fire lane.

Livingston asked if the site was still 3.9 acres and did that include the drugstore. Teague responded the site does not include the drugstore. Livingston stated this is the same acreage as in the previous applications. Therefore, 3.9 could not be the correct acreage. Teague said it was his understanding that the site remained the same as the last time the Commission looked at it.

Livingston asked if there was shared parking between the proposed development and New Market. Teague answered there would be no shared parking with New Market. The parking for Snyder Drug and the future retail would not include the new senior housing facility. Teague pointed out the parking on the site plan.

Livingston asked who would maintain the trail and the fire lane. Teague responded the City would maintain them.

Livingston asked Teague to explain about the excess parking for the apartment building. Would they vacate the easement? How many parking stalls would there be for that building? Teague answered they would provide 22 stalls for visitor parking underneath the existing Brightondale facility. Teague said he was unsure of how many stalls would be vacated in the area indicated in blue of the plan. Teague said it was his understanding that this area was rarely, if ever, used for parking for that site. This may become an issue because Rice Creek Road is now posted for no parking. Livingston asked how many units were in Brightondale. Teague responded 72 units. Livingston said that, since Brightondale is vacating its excess parking and would be changing the deed, we should require that, since it is an assisted living facility and they are vacating additional parking, the facility should remain assisted living and should not be converted to another type of housing. Livingston asked if such an requirement is feasible. Teague responded he thought it might be possible to do so. Mattila suggested the Commission could add that as a condition of approval subject to the City Attorney's review. Mattila said that, in speaking with Larry Baker, the Chair of the Planning Commission, Baker also thought such a requirement would be a good idea.

Livingston asked about the curbs on the north and the east side of the property. Is that divided so there would be no crossing there? Teague answered affirmatively. Teague said the curb to the north would match an existing curb where a portion is now open and would be closed. Livingston asked Teague to outline the traffic pattern on the plan. Teague said there would be two-way traffic entering from and exiting to Silver Lake Road. Teague pointed out the traffic circulation on the plan.

Livingston asked about plans for the tunnel. Teague replied plans would be submitted with the building permit application. Livingston asked if the tunnel would be above ground level or at grade. Teague responded the tunnel would be underground.

Schiferl stated, on the issue of headlights, he checked and the proposed screen is deciduous trees. Mike Gould of G & P Properties responded that was a good point and the screen can be changed to evergreens to diffuse the light.

Mike Gould introduced himself and apologized that he could not attend last month's meeting. Gould said G & P had hoped to focus on the retail component last month, but was omitted by Gould's representative. Gould stated there are over nineteen easements that must be cleared before G & P can move forward. G & P has been working hard to clear these parking and utility easements. The current building shared parking easements with the Zitzlof and Strobel properties. G & P has had several meetings with Mr. Strobel and Mr. Zitzlof and G & P has a general agreement signed by Strobel and Zitzlof. A more specific agreement will be worked out before recording. Gould said his attorney indicated, that while there are many easements to clear, we have proposed language that is acceptable to both Strobel and Zitzlof.

Gould said staff has indicated that drainage is a main concern. Gould stated Chet Harrison, G & P's civil engineer, has submitted a plan to the City Engineer. The proposed facility would not be adding water into any of the surrounding areas. As to the fire lane, it was suggested by the Parks Commission, to create a trail for park users and residents. Gould pointed out the proposed trail on the plan. Gould said it makes sense to combine the fire lane and the trail in view of the difficulty of realigning the fire lane. This can function well as a fire lane and trail.

Gould reviewed the retail component of the proposal. Snyder Drug wants to downsize. Snyders has approved our plan and would like to go forward. Gould outlined the proposed retail space on the plan. There will be a seven to one ratio for parking, which is more than adequate for retail parking. Gould introduced Ken Nordby of NAI Architects.

Nordby showed a sketch of the proposed tunnel. Nordby said the tunnel would connect Meadow Wood Shores and Brightondale. The tunnel would be totally underground. The tunnel is 8 feet high and would create a berm with a keystone retaining wall. It seemed advisable to use a berm rather than have a portion of the tunnel above grade, as we planned originally. The new plan would be safer should children decide to play on it. Nordby showed how the park trail and the tunnel tie together. This will all be handicapped accessible. The grades on both the fire lane and the trail are 1 to 20 or less.

Nordby stated he and Teague spent time with the Fire Marshal to look at different methods to create the fire lane. From that discussion, we designed this fire lane. Maurie Anderson, the Parks Director, also was in on the planning of the fire lane/trail. The fire lane/trail will be accessible by Public Works and Parks vehicles as well as fire equipment.

Nordby described the revised drainage plan. The drainage off the property to the north was reconfigured and brought down to a grassy swale. Mr. Harrison can address this further should the Commission desire. Instead of taking all the water over the trail, it will go through a pipe under neath the trail for a one year storm. If the rain is a five or ten-year storm, the water will come down the swale and not go to 27th Street. The water may go over the trail because of the volume of the water. The water would slowly dissipate and go through the culvert underneath the trail to the pond. All the water from the bituminous area surrounding the senior building and some water from the south end of the extension of the driveway going to the north will go to the pond. We have softened the runoff by approximately 1.2 acres from what it is currently by using the pond and greenspace.

Nordby showed the easements on the plan. Nordby pointed to the 20-foot wide easement on the west side of the west property line on the plan. We may overlay part of the trail and part of the fire lane over that easement. Nordby asked if the Commission had any questions.

Zisla asked if Nordby had talked to the Ericksons about the left turn off Silver Lake Road. Nordby said he had not discussed it with Mr. Erickson, but at one time it was proposed to cut this turn off totally. However, his firm was able to rework the grades and maintain access between the two commercial developments. Gould said he met with the Ericksons on two separate occasions and made them aware of the fact that the access off Silver Lake Road and the easements that we hold do not impact them. Gould said he encouraged them to talk with us and I would assume we would get together with them in the future. Gould said he provided them with all the easements currently on the properties. In answer to a question from Zisla, Nordby demonstrated how the turns would be work on the plan. Zisla said the answer then is that there is still workable access to New Market off Silver Lake Road and you have talked to Ericksons and there has been no objection to this particular configuration. Teague said he showed Mr. Erickson this configuration, and he was receptive to this plan.

Schiferl asked, assuming that this flies as is, would there be a stop sign or something on the private property? Schiferl said he could see an accident in the making. Teague said that was something to consider. Teague stated he would have the Police Chief and the City Engineer look at it. Zisla said that would be a good idea. Zisla stated the traffic flowing by Lund's is a problem. Nordby said that may be very doable to put a stop sign which would take care of the southbound traffic. Also, perhaps one on Erickson's coming northbound. There would be a problem with a stop sign coming up the grade in the winter.

Zisla asked if the landscaping on the east was part of the proposal for this project or was it part of the commercial proposal. Nordby answered it is a combination of both. The required setbacks for parcels around the proposed property line are met. The green area would serve both of them. It becomes a 10- foot wide green area plus trees. Zisla asked if G & P was doing that as part of this project? Nordby answered affirmatively.

Zisla stated he asked the question about the driveway easement because, if the G & P property has the benefit of the easement, it would seem to be better to have the trail there than to exercise the driveway easement.

Livingston referred to a list of the various easements submitted by G & P. Livingston asked Nordby to go through the easements one by one. Nordby reviewed the easements on the plan.

Livingston asked if the developer had any additional comments. Gould responded that in the past he had several meetings with the neighbors. The plan presented tonight takes into consideration their comments. Additional landscaping was added. Regarding the parking easement to Brightondale, since we have owned Brightondale we have never had one car parked back there by visitors to Brightondale. Even though the easement is not used, we feel the addition of the 22 underground stalls for visitors would take care of any potential parking problems.

Steve Larson stated Rice Creek Road has been posted no parking, but he still sees people parking in front of Brightondale. Is there something to warn visitors when they enter the building that they can be ticketed if they have parked on Rice Creek Road? Gould was unaware of such a sign. Larson said Rice Creek Road has been posted for over two weeks and people have been parking there consistently. Gould said he would speak to the manager tomorrow to post such a warning. Larson said that should be done or the City will have to start writing tickets.

Schiferl asked for clarification regarding the pond on the northeast corner of the park. If you compare what's happening now and what would happen with this development, would there be more water or less water in the dry pond area?

Chet Harrison, Clark Engineering, answered that, when you run computations over a drainage basin, the impact on the park ponding is minimal. We think we are reducing the 100-year flood elevation in the park by perhaps 6 inches. That has to do with the fact we are ponding water here where there was no pond before. This water just ran into the park. The water did not go through the pipe; it went to the park along the back of the curb and overflowed into the park. We are provided additional amount of storage and overall reducing the site by 20 to 25 percent. Our pond is helping the situation, but it cannot help a whole lot because of the large volume of water in a large storm. Harrison said they are putting a 12 inch pipe into the park. Right now all the water goes into the park.

Schiferl stated, then, this development will not have an adverse impact. Harrison responded the development would not have an adverse impact. It is reducing the flood elevation of the pond by about 6 inches. Schiferl asked if that was consistent with the City Engineer's requirements. Harrison responded affirmatively. The City Engineer had an independent engineering firm review the data and we both came up with the same answers.

Livingston asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the item.

Ron Olson, 2026 28th Avenue NW, referred to the motion the Park Board passed. The motion indicates that the 30 parking spaces be permanently dedicated for park purposes and owners cannot park there. The motion goes on to state residents must be notified, upon purchase, that the parking is dedicated to the park. Olson commented he would like to see it stay that way. That was the agreement by the developer and that was the motion passed by the Park Board. The problem with limiting parking to certain hours is that it's used on the weekends. Secondly, is the pond a teacup or does it have an outlet? If it's a teacup, it would overflow across the park in the event of a large storm. In previous discussions, it was stated the pond would have an outlet pipe and water would be siphoned off and not just overflow when it was full. Thirdly, it was indicated at the March meeting, that the developer had to have the fire lane contained on his own property and not expect other people to provide it for him. Now, the fire lane will be on the park. When the fire lane would not fit any other place, now the City is providing the space for the fire lane in the park. In exchange, the City is getting a path with the gridlocked block along the side. The Fire Marshal talked to us about the fire lane and said the problem with the grid-locked block system is that it is not plowed in the winter. Therefore, the fire lane is not usable very many months of the year. In fact, they have that located behind Brightondale now and it is never plowed. The other problem the Fire Marshal mentioned is that they have had trucks mired down in the mud. Is it appropriate for the City to be providing the land for the fire lane. If that material is appropriate, the question is whether it will actually do what it is intended to do.

Livingston asked if the developer had any comments. Harrison said he could address two of Mr. Olson's items. The pond does have an overflow pipe, which was reviewed by Mr. Proper, the City Engineer. Regarding the fire lane, we did have a meeting with the Fire Marshal and he said the current path has nothing to identify its boundaries so it cannot be plowed. The walking lane can be identified throughout the year. Teague has told us it would be plowed and usable all winter. The path will be identifiable because of the bituminous on the 8-foot wide path. Livingston asked who would plow it. Harrison answered he understood the City would plow it as part of the trail system.

Schiferl asked about the precedence is used in the decision for the City to plow the path. Schiferl said he could make a logical argument that the developer should be responsible for maintaining the path. Schiferl said he would lean in the direction of developer being responsible for plowing.

Teague stated Maurie Anderson, the Park and Rec Director, will address that issue. Anderson said the path was first proposed by the Park and Rec Commission before the developer even talked about using it as a fire lane. The Parks and Rec Commission asked to have a path constructed on the property line that would become an access for people coming into the park from the north. As we progressed with the planning and after the conversation with the Fire Marshal, there was discussion on adding to the shoulder of the path to make a fire lane also. This was really something that the Parks & Rec Commission wanted as part of the City's path system, which the City routinely maintains. It would make no sense for us to plow the remainder of the path in Meadow Wood and skip the last 200 feet. Anderson stated he viewed the path as more of a park path than a fire lane. The fire lane to Brightondale has never been used in the 18 years the park has been there. With modern construction, it may never be used. It will certainly be used as a path. Anderson stated that the fact half of it is on park property and half on the developer's property was his suggestion. The path will be used primarily by park users. It seemed appropriate to split the difference. The cost of preparing the path would normally be a City cost, but will be picked up by the developer in this case.

Livingston asked if anyone from the audience wanted to speak.

Alma Stepanchak, 2180 27th Avenue NW, said she realized the coop probably will be developed. However, the residents across the street have serious concerns. A Commissioner asked about the height of the proposed building at the last meeting. Somebody said the height of the least highest part would be lower of Brightondale. Stepanchak said the building would be three and a half stories above ground right across the street from her house. If they feel the pond will hold all the water from their area, with the berm, let it go on there instead of ours. Stepanchak said that, with the garage going out, how can you have parking places where the cars are coming out? The headlights will be coming into our homes. There is nothing in front of the pond. This would be similar to St. Anthony Village by the bank. Stepanchak said she went over to St. Anthony to look at the pond. The pond looks like a cess pool. The pond is full of standing water. That will be our view from our homes. There is no berm or trees along there. It certainly will not be a very nice view. Stepanchak said her property is being devalued because of the project. There is nothing she can do. Stepanchak said she knew there would be a development there, but thought it would be in accordance with everything else that was being put up there. The highest building at Rice Creek Center is one story and a half. This is three and a half stories. There is nothing but the street between her property and the coop. Stepanchak said she has heard nothing about a berm with trees on top of it as a buffer between the coop and her property. Stepanchak said she would like to have a legally binding statement that traffic would never be routed to 27th Avenue. Is there enough room for the cars to come out of the garage and make that turn? Stepanchak said she was worried about the parking. If water overflows the pond, a berm would make the water stay on their property instead of into the street and our properties. My neighbor had water in the basement last spring because of the storm drain at the back of her lot could not take the water. If more water flows out into there, it certainly won't take it. If coop is going to have balconies, they will all look down into Stepanchak's property. There will be no privacy at all then. Stepanchak thanked the Commission for its consideration.

Eileen Brama, 2703 Mississippi Street NW, said she understood the traffic from the garage will be routed to Mississippi Street. Is it feasible to route the traffic directly to Silver Lake Road? Also, Mrs. Stepanchak talked about the developer being legally responsible not to route traffic onto 27th. We would want something from the City that would also like to see that. The three and a half story building is incompatible with the neighborhood. A two-story building would be better. The pond should be bermed so 27th is screened. Brama said she appreciated the Commission for their consideration of her comments.

Livingston asked staff about controlling the 27th Avenue access. Mattila said the Planning Commission could include that as a condition of approval that there be some type of deed filed and attached to the abstract to the property that there be no access from the parking lot to 27th Avenue NW. Mattila said he did not know exactly what vehicle could be used to accomplish that.

Gould said he did not have any problem covenanting that there would be no access to 27th, with the proviso that should the City somehow take away our access off Mississippi Street that provision would be reconsidered. Livingston asked about the berm. Gould responded berming is used to separate different uses. We plan that many of the senior residents will be current New Brighton residents. We do not want to obstruct their view of the park. Gould said he believed the proposed coop will be aesthetically pleasing. The pond will not look like a cess pool. We will put in attractive landscaping and take advantage of the natural contours. Gould said he would have no problem changing the trees to spruce trees to screen the headlights from the garage. Routing the traffic to Mississippi Street will be easier for the residents of the coop. Gould stated, from a privacy standpoint, the coop residents will also be residents of New Brighton and will not violate other residents' privacy.

Schiferl asked to return to the headlight issue. How will the evergreen screen work? Schiferl said he had the feeling a single row of evergreens will not work. A double row of evergreens may be needed. Schiferl said he did not have the feel for exactly how much room is available there. Schiferl asked what is best screening for that area. Gould responded the evergreens could probably screen almost the entire building, and a have a heavier screen for a short distance.

O'Brien asked Gould to address the issue of proximity or privacy. O'Brien said it looks like the closest house would be in excess of 150 feet away. Nordby said he saw the decks as a screening element. In looking at our past projects, the 6 foot by 12 or 14 foot decks with the required railings and roofs over them, provides another screening dimension. They will screen the windows and the sliding glass doors of the units themselves from the residents across the street. So the decks have an effect of screening for both the coop residents and the neighbors.

Livingston asked if the lower decks will be screened. Gould said the landscaping should have a uniform look. If we get enough residents who would opt to want to screen their decks, we would look at that. We do not want one resident doing one thing and others doing something else.

Schiferl stated Mrs. Stepanchak brought up the traffic issue. Schiferl said he wanted to put closure to the traffic issue. Has anyone talked to SEH in the last several months? Schiferl asked the staff and the developer if, in their professional experience, if these numbers make sense. The public may think the numbers are way too low.

Mattila responded the City had asked SEH to take a look at this project because they are transportation experts. All we can do is rely on the letter they provided to us. The letter says that based on their calculations, the project would have a minimal impact on traffic. Glen Van Wormer of SEH is a well- known traffic engineer. Our own City Engineer, Les Proper, recommended we use Van Wormer to do this traffic analysis.

Livingston asked if there other questions from the Commission or the audience.

Larson asked if Gould has been asked by a resident for an evergreen screen after the project is completed and the resident has lived there for awhile. Gould responded they have never done so, but that does not mean it cannot be done.

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

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Zisla, to recommend approval of LP-337 and PRD-60, subject to conditions.

The Commission discussed what legal vehicle might be used to restrict the Brightondale facility to 72 units and from being converted to conventional apartments without considering the parking. Language could be included in the staff report that would raise a red flag in the future.

O'Brien asked if Brightondale and the new development were completely separate entities. Mattila responded they are separate entities. The item under consideration this evening is a stand-alone PRD. Brightondale is not part of this PRD proposal.

Zisla asked if Anderson about the Park & Rec Commission's resolution on the proposed signage on the 30 parking spaces dedicated to the park. Anderson responded the Park and Rec Commission recommended signage for a permanent allocation of parking. Anderson said he differs from the Commission in that Anderson did not feel that signage was necessary. Anderson said he recommended to Teague that we restrict parking for evening hours in the Spring and Summer. That is adequate. There is no reason to permanently ban anyone from using these spaces. It would be difficult to enforce and is not necessary. Zisla agreed with Anderson. Zisla said he thought the Parks Commission was over-reaching. If we don't need the 30 spaces we should not require that in the Planning Commission's resolution.

Zisla said he was very concerned about the height and mass of the building. Zisla said he could not envision the height of the building from the elevations. Zisla said the plan eliminates much of the east part of the building and opening up the site on the east. When the developer comes back with the commercial site plan, we will at least have another opportunity to consider the overall appearance of the project. It will be interesting to see what the developer does with the commercial development in the area between the commercial development and Silver Lake Road as well. Zisla said he hoped the park feeling would be extended as much possible.

Schiferl stated he wanted to clarify the issue of the parking spaces for the park. Schiferl said he had sympathy with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Zisla's point of view. Why ask for something you do not need? Schiferl said he wonders if we will need it in the future. The one way to do this is to leave the recommendation as it is--basically that those are dedicated parking spaces. The reality is that the City can simply post it the way it wants it. For all practical purposes, the spaces are only dedicated for those few hours of the week for six months of the year. Schiferl said that may be a reasonable way to approach it. Practically, the signage does what we need and that may never need to be changed, but we leave the option open.

Schiferl asked Anderson if the park uses would change perhaps ten years from now. Anderson responded, given the size and character of the park, he could not imagine any more intensive use of the park. Zisla said he would recommend using Mr. Anderson's language as to signage for the park spaces.

The Commission added the following conditions to the motion:

Include Mr. Anderson's comments on parking times and hours.

A deed restriction be created to restrict access from Meadow Wood Shores to 27th Avenue from the proposed parking lot.

To effectively screen the 27th Avenue neighborhood from the northwest parking lot area headlights with an evergreen screen, working cooperatively with the affected residents, if necessary. The screen would be subject to approval by the City Forester.

Staff shall investigate the provision of traffic signs at curb cut at the Ericksons/Gould property.

Livingston asked for a vote on the amended motion. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

LP-339	Nutec Construction Company

Teague briefly reviewed the Planning Report concerning a request for site plan review for a redevelopment of Ken's Market and Higher Grounds, and a development of a new office building.

Zisla asked if the applicant had spoken with the property owner to the west of the proposed project since the last time this item was before the Commission.

Rod Bernu, the applicant, stated he talked with Kevin Locke and he understands the City made an effort to talk to that party. Bernu said he has contacted this party several times and have not made any headway with them to acquire the property. Bernu said he had abandoned the idea.

Schiferl said he recalled there was opposition from the neighbor on the pond on the north side of the proposed development. What does the neighboring property owner think now? Bernu answered that person has since sold her property. Bernu said that his new application no longer has a pond adjacent to that property, and additionally trees will be planted to provide additional screen of this property.

Livingston asked if this project were approved when would the developer start construction. Bernu responded June 1.

The Commission added condition #5 to the staff recommendation, "add screening to the north lot line."

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Zisla, to recommend approval of LP-339, subject to the amended conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates

Highway 8 Corridor - Draft Zoning District	New Brighton Staff

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schmitz, to continue consideration of the draft zoning district to a special Planning Commission meeting on May 5, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

TIF District Expansion	New Brighton Staff

Teague reviewed Bishop's memo to the Planning Commission on the TIF District expansion. There was a brief discussion on the Bishop's recommendation.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Zisla, to recommend creation of two new districts within Development District No. 1. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Adjourn

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to adjourn the meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner