Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - September 16, 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, Mike Livingston, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Jim O'Brien

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Schmitz, seconded by Schopf, to approve the minutes of the August 18, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

Larson reported that the contractor has demolished the old McDonald's building; the new facility will be ready in about two months.

Agenda Review

In answer to a question from Schiferl, Teague stated the screening and landscaping at the Minneapolis Water Works has not yet been completed. Schiferl said he wanted to make certain that the City of Minneapolis follows the landscaping plan.

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Site Plan Review/Side Yard Setback Variance - PDQ

Teague reviewed the Planning Report concerning a request to demolish and build a new PDQ Convenience Grocery/Gasoline Sales establishment.

Zisla asked Teague to put the site plan on the overhead projector and show the property lines. Teague reviewed the site features.

Baker stated that, in other variance requests, Staff has attached a resolution to the report. Teague apologized for not including the resolution in the packet. Teague said he distributed the resolution to the Planning Commission before the meeting, but forgot to mention that during his presentation.

Teague introduced Randy Manning of PDQ. Schiferl asked Manning if PDQ was trying to buy the property from the adjacent property owners.

Manning responded affirmatively. Jim Shelton, the past CEO of PDQ, contacted both the adjoining property owners. The apartment owner owns all the property on the west side and part of the property behind PDQ. Shelton has since retired. Manning stated he had not had a chance to contact these property owners, but will work toward acquiring this property. Negotiations have been proceeding for the past three or four months with those property owners. Schiferl asked if Manning was confident PDQ can purchase the property. Manning responded affirmatively, but he had not personally spoken with the property owners.

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

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

Baker asked if the Code defines the setback as the building and the parking. Teague responded affirmatively. Schiferl asked how long had the easement been in place. Manning said the records showed the easement has existed for a long time.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to adopt the Staff recommendation recommending approval of VN-320 subject to conditions.

Schiferl stated he was not comfortable with variances, but would vote for approval. Zisla stated the criteria for a variance is that, unless a variance is granted, the owner cannot make reasonable use of his property. The redevelopment of this property may be a reasonable use. In the concept review, the applicant stated that the project cannot be done without the variance.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Larson asked Manning to submit a copy of the easement when PDQ comes before the City Council on the 22nd.

Livingston stated the applicant is redeveloping the site, but the building would be smaller than the original building. The overall project will improve the site. Baker asked if the applicant had agreed to the landscaping changes. Manning answered affirmatively.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of LP-345 subject to conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Site Plan Review - US West

Teague reviewed the Planning Report on a revised landscape plan for the US West facility on Cleveland Avenue. Teague introduced Pat Conlin of US West.

Baker asked about No. 4 in the recommendation, "The remaining landscaping shall be installed per the submitted Landscape Plan." Baker asked if the recommendation means the new landscape plan and not the one the Planning Commission received earlier. Teague responded affirmatively.

Schiferl asked why deciduous trees and bushes are being recommended. Deciduous trees only provide screening four months of the year. Teague said the City Forester felt spruce trees would grow into the power lines, where these specific deciduous trees would not.

Schiferl said that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the US West facility based on the landscape plan that US West submitted. US West should provide year-round screening. Baker asked if evergreens could be planted behind the power line. The trees would have to be trimmed, but thousands of trees are planted under power lines that have to be trimmed.

Teague said the City Forester also felt evergreens would create a traffic sight hazard. Schiferl stated there must be a variety of evergreen that could be planted.

Baker said he had a problem with the fact that US West would not screen the tower. The approved plan included screening around the base of the tower to screen the maintenance building and the tower. The proposal shows a wooden fence fully exposed to Cleveland Avenue and the residents across the street from the site. The proposed plan is considerably different from the adopted plan. If this plan had come in with the application for the tower, the Planning Commission would not have recommended approval of the project.

Zisla said that US West came in with a problem and asked for a solution. US West created the problem when they submitted the wrong landscape plan to the City. Heavily landscaping the perimeter may be a solution to the problem.

Baker said US West must solve the problem, not the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission accepted the landscape plan US West proposed, whether or not they submitted it in error.

Zisla asked that if the Planning Commission should hold US West to the plan they erroneously submitted? Baker and Schiferl answered affirmatively.

Baker stated that, as a compromise, US West should investigate screening the pole by additional screening on the street side. If they cannot screen the pole from the street side, US West should abide by the approved plan. Zisla said US West was proposing to add screening along Cleveland Avenue.

Teague reviewed the proposed plan. Schiferl commented the plan would only screen the pole four months a year. Zisla asked if the approved plan provided year-round screening. Schiferl responded the approved plan provided evergreens.

Zisla said that any landscape plan only works for six months of the year in Minnesota. Baker said that US West's mistake was not the City's problem and the City should require that US West follow the approved landscape plan. Zisla asked if US West could accomplish this on Cleveland Avenue. Teague asked if putting in evergreens along Cleveland would satisfy the Commission. Baker said he thought the Planning Report stated the Forester said evergreens cannot be used. Baker said he was not comfortable with overruling the Forester's opinion. Teague clarified that the Forester said evergreens might be possible.

Schiferl suggested that, if evergreens along Cleveland would work, perhaps constructing the fence and putting screening in front of the fence on the east side would be adequate.

Pat Conlin of US West stated that they want to comply with the intent of the original plan. Conlin said she thought there was enough land between Cleveland Avenue and the parking space to put in additional trees. After doing the locates, US West found there was not much property left with which to work. Conlin said she did not have a problem with screening more of the eastern side of the fenced area. Conlin stated US West employs twenty to thirty people at the facility. According to the original landscape plan, ten parking spaces would be lost. Conlin said she had no problem with putting in evergreens.

Zisla asked for Conlin's reaction to the suggestion to screen three sides of the monopole and the building and going back to the original plan for the Cleveland road side. Conlin responded that would take out parking spaces. Conlin showed some solutions on the site plan. Conlin said she was trying to solve the issue of screening and minimizing the effect of the screening on the parking.

Baker proposed to continue the issue so US West can submit a landscape plan that would screen the tower and the street. Baker said that he could not accept a fence only; there must be landscaping. Conlin said that the underground telephone and power lines are an added complication.

Schiferl stated that he agreed with Baker. Schiferl said he would judge the proposal using the approved plan as a standard. The alternative plan must be close to the approved plan in terms of the overall visual effect. The City Forester would have to make the determination. Schiferl said that, according to the Federal Communications Act, a city has to approve monopoles if the poles meet certain requirements. Schiferl said monopoles were unsightly, but New Brighton has approved a few of them. In reading the requirements, it is unclear if this US West facility would have been approved with a lesser landscape plan. US West should be required to submit a plan since it created the problem. The City is not responsible for finding the solution.

Baker said that the Planning Commission should not have to design the landscape plan. US West should submit a plan for the Commission's review. Conlin asked what the Planning Commission would accept. Baker responded he was not a landscape engineer.

Teague reviewed the landscape features discussed this evening. Baker said he would not rule out landscaping the north side of the site. Landscaping on the north side need not eliminate all the parking spaces. Conlin showed some possibilities on the site plan. Baker said that there should be some landscaping around the fence.

Larson stated US West should submit an accurate landscape plan, not a plan showing how the site will look in thirty years. The neighbors' view is of the vans parked in the lot. This parking is not screened. The poles are painted yellow. Larson stated that the neighbors across the street from the site have to be considered. The plan shows 45-foot trees. Larson said that, unless he looked at the wrong site, there were only some short, scrawny trees there. Conlin responded there were no tall trees on the site currently. Larson commented that the existing trees on the north property line do not screen anything. Conlin responded the trees are about six or seven feet high. Larson said those trees were no taller than Conlin. Larson said the trees were small and have been there for some time. Conlin said she understood from the City Forester that the trees have only been there six or seven years. Larson said then it would take another twenty-five to thirty years before these trees reach the height shown on the plan.

Teague said the City Forester thought these trees would eventually grow together to make a solid screen. The use to the north is business and will require landscaping when it is developed. Zisla said the drawing said "existing trees." Zisla said the simple fact was adequate screening is required, but there must also be a clear view for traffic.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to continue the Site Plan Review to the October Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Concept Plan Review - Minar Ford

Teague introduced the representative for Minar Ford, Dave Phillips, Phillips Architects & Contractors, Inc. Phillips said he appeared before the Planning Commission in conjunction with McDonald's proposal. Phillips stated Minar Ford wants to renovate their facility. The Minar Ford property is approximately 7.8 acres. Minar Ford was constructed in 1972 and looks much as it did then. The Ford Motor Company wants the dealer to update this facility. Phillips gave a presentation of the concept plan.

Schiferl said there may be good reasons for vacating Service Drive. Schiferl said that he used Service Drive when he visited residents in the area because it was convenient. If Service Drive were vacated, the Service Drive traffic would have to use Palmer Drive. Schiferl asked how many vehicles use Service Drive per day that are not going to or from Minar Ford. How many vehicles would use Service Drive if Minar Ford's vehicles did not block it? Phillips answered the north side of Service Drive is posted "No Parking." Phillips said traffic on Service Drive was light.

Zisla asked if Phillips was saying that the solution to the Service Drive problem is to vacate it and use it for employee parking. Phillips responded the idea of vacating Service Drive was City Staff's, not Minar's. Phillips stated was looking to the Planning Commission for direction before formally presenting the plan. The Commission could specify that Service Drive not be vacated.

Zisla said the issue was raised about how much traffic on Service Drive comes from the townhouse development. Is the possible vacation of Service Drive being driven by the fact that it has simply become an employee parking lot? Zisla stated the key traffic issue will be the traffic on Palmer Drive and Silver Lake Road during the peak periods. Phillips responded that when McDonald's came before the City Council, Glen Van Wormer of SEH stated that the Palmer Drive/Silver Lake Road intersection would handle the increased traffic. Zisla said he was interested in the peak periods. Phillips said Minar Ford would not be opposed to a traffic study.

Teague stated the City would order a traffic study at the time Minar makes a formal request for the vacation. Baker stated Minar must answer the question of the current use of Service Drive. Phillips said there would be no time pressure for the vacation of Service Drive because no site work would be done this year. Phillips said the more pressing issues related to the design of the building.

Baker stated that, during McDonald's review, a U-turn on Silver Lake Road was not considered because of the U-Haul trucks. How will U-Haul customers get to the U-Haul facility if Service Drive is vacated? Phillips responded that Service Drive would be reached by a series of right turns. Phillips said U-Haul might not be in that location next year.

Zisla stated Phillips needs to explain his hint about the future of U-Haul. Phillips said U-Haul had indicated it would make a proposal on selling its site to Minar. Phillips stated U-Haul has not contacted Minar with a proposal to date. Phillips suggested that the U-Haul traffic could use Lund's parking lot. Teague stated that Staff's concern was that the proposal does cut off U-Haul's access. Teague said the City Engineer recommended that, if Service Drive were vacated, Minar would have to provide an access to U-Haul through their new entrance.

Larson said he would not want the U-Haul traffic diverted to Lund's parking lot or the South China Island Inn's lot. U-Haul must be carefully considered because of the inexperienced drivers who rent the trucks. Zisla said using Lund's lot is out of the question.

Schiferl said another critical issue for Service Drive is that the traffic study says the traffic can be handled on Palmer Drive. However, should the traffic be handled on Palmer Drive? Convenience for residents in the area is very important.

Baker said he noticed the site plan shows that Minar proposes to raise the grade. Would this be on the existing parking lot? Phillips showed the grade change on the plan.

Schopf said that, if a traffic study were going to be done on Service Drive, both sides should be posted "No Parking" temporarily to see how much traffic would use it. 27th should also be posted. If Service Drive were vacated, 27th may become the new parking lot for Minar's employees.

Phillips said Minar constantly reminded its employees not to park on 27th. The east side of 27th could be posted near the dealership. Baker said he was concerned about vacating Service Drive because it is a more major road than 27th. 27th would become the major road if the City allows Service Drive to be vacated.

Baker asked Phillips if he needed more direction from the Planning Commission.

Phillips stated that, from tonight's discussion, it seems that Minar should abandon asking for vacation of Service Drive and proceed with plans for the current Minar site. Baker said that was the consensus of the Planning Commission. Livingston said that was his opinion also. Livingston stated he was surprised that Staff suggested the vacation. Livingston said he often used Service Drive when doing business in the area.

Zisla said the timing was not good for requesting the vacation of Service Drive. Parking on the site seems to be a problem. The City should not vacate a public street just because Minar needs it for employee parking.

Schiferl stated there may be a scenario that would warrant vacating Service Drive. Too many unresolved issues need answering before the vacation of Service Drive could be considered. Phillips said he was confident that U-Haul would no longer be a factor.

Phillips asked for comments on the building proposal. Zisla stated he did not like parking cars in front. Although the building is an improvement, the view from the interstate should make a positive statement for New Brighton. In answer to a question from Schopf, Phillips stated approximately 110 employees are on-site at Minar at 3:00 p.m. Schopf said Minar employees parked about thirty-seven cars on Service Drive daily. Phillips stated six or seven of those cars belong to U-Haul. Schopf suggested that Service Drive should be posted "No Parking from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m." Schopf stated the soccer people and other park users could still use Service Drive for parking. Schopf said Minar should instruct its employees not to use Service Drive. Phillips said that rather than having Minar instruct employees not to park on Service Drive or 27th, the City should post it "No Parking."

Phillips asked for the Commission's opinions on the proposed building. Baker said he was not opposed to Phillips' general description, but could not give an in-depth opinion. Phillips said that, overall, the Commission seems to favor renovating the building, but has concerns about vacating Service Drive. Phillips thanked the Planning Commission for its time and input.

Announcements and Updates

Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning District - Highway 8 Corridor

Teague stated he would like to set a date in October to consider the Mixed-Use Zoning District. Teague said the first Tuesday of each month are the extra meeting dates. Unfortunately, the City Attorney has other commitments for the first Tuesday of each month. The City Attorney said he was open the following dates:

Wednesday, October 7

Thursday, October 8

Wednesday, October 21

Thursday, October 22

Thursday, October 29

The Commission discussed the possible meeting dates. The Commission asked if starting the October special meeting at 7:00 were possible. Teague said he would check with the City Attorney and notify the Commissioners by phone as to what date might work.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to adjourn the meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner