Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Special Meeting - October 29, 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, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Larry Baker, David Schmitz

Also Present:	Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development

Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Charles LeFevere, City Attorney

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

MX Zoning District Ordinance Amendment

Teague reviewed the proposed Ordinance.

Richard Bury, of Midwest Asphalt, spoke opposing the proposed amendment and made the following points:

Proposed amendment is unfair to the existing businesses in the area

No one would wish to live in the proposed residential development

Recommended industrial uses for the area

45% of the area is contaminated and can never be developed

Mortgage companies will not lend money for development of Midwest Asphalt's site

Single family tax base does not benefit the City

The proposal will eliminate jobs

Does not want to see the extension of "Main Street"

Water table four feet from the surface so no basements can be built

Mark Beisswenger of Beisswenger's Hardware spoke opposing the limitations the proposed Ordinance amendment would put on his business:

Needs to expand the business to compete with the hardware/building products chains

Needs to add 12,000 square feet; the capacity to do so was specified by the City when we constructed the new building

Employs 60 people

The outside storage area is a result of the business outgrowing the building

Beisswenger's cannot continue in business and compete with the chains if it cannot expand

To meet the requirements of the proposed ordinance, Beisswenger's would have to cut the business in half and discharge half its employees

Beisswenger's has not been financially able to clean up the outside storage area

Favored one large industrial area

If the proposed amendment is adopted, the City will have to relocate Beisswenger's because the business cannot exist under the constraints imposed by the amendment

Livingston asked Beisswenger about the current square footage of the Beisswenger's. Beisswenger replied 21,780 square feet. Livingston asked about if an expansion was part of the original plan review. Beisswenger stated the original plan included the ability to expand 12,000 square feet to the north.

Beisswenger stated his business needed the following to be a viable business:

Warehouse space, either on or off site

More parking area

Needs to grow to compete

Would like to purchase a portion of Bury property to expand parking, ponding, build warehouse and outside sales area - 12,500 square foot, outside storage; 8,000 square foot, warehouse

Locke outlined how the proposed ordinance would work:

The Ordinance amendment would discourage construction of a 140,000 square foot facility.

The amendment accomplishes this by saying the maximum size of any use would be 10% of the area

Zisla expressed concern about the impact of the proposed ordinance amendment on the existing businesses in the area. Zisla said he supported the vision expressed for the area and the concept of mixed use development. Locke stated the floor area ratios using the ordinance amendment would be much higher than the current ratios. The Highway 8 Corridor Study included the mixed use zoning in their vision and will be included in the Comprehensive Plan update.

Blair Bury, of Midwest Asphalt, spoke opposing the proposed amendment:

Expressed concern about loss of tax base

Livingston responded that as a planning entity, the Planning Commission cannot consider tax base. Livingston commented, as a real estate appraiser, that the more densely a site is developed, the more tax is generated.

The Commission discussed how the proposed ordinance would apply to an expansion of businesses like Beisswenger's and yet discourage "super stores." The consensus was that the Highway 8 Corridor Study vision for the area is to encourage a lively, mixed use area.

LeFevere summarized the proposed ordinance amendment:

Ordinance amendment allows a wider range of uses in the area north of I-694 than any other part of the City

Allows multi-family residential development in three densities

Allows not just neighborhood commercial uses, but in the right context and circumstances, it allows shopping centers and regional businesses

Allows industrial uses

Many uses can be on the same site

To achieve the Vision of the Highway 8 Corridor Study, some tough decisions have to be made

on existing land uses

The Commission discussed how an expansion of Beisswenger's would fit into the proposed ordinance amendment. Zisla stated perhaps there should be two standards--one for existing businesses and one for new businesses. LeFevere responded that, if the City changes the ordinance for an area of the City, but the owners of the land in that area are allowed to operate under the old ordinance, then the City has not changed the ordinance. Zisla stated there must be a way for the existing businesses to remain viable. LeFevere responded that part of the ordinance would not change. There would be the same choices about how far the City is willing to allow upgrades to occur in nonconforming uses in a MX District as exists in the rest of the City.

Zisla asked if the intent is that we do not intend all nonconforming uses to continue. LeFevere responded such businesses would be allowed to continue, but not to expand or change to another nonconforming use. For Beisswenger's, apart from the outside storage issue, the land area problem would make it a nonconforming use. When a city changes the ordinances, to a certain extent, the city does not have the authority to require existing uses to cease. The City can grandfather in something where it does not want to create an unnecessary hardship, which may take care of Beisswenger's 12,500 square foot expansion.

Schiferl stated the Zoning Ordinance by itself will not effect much change. The area would be subject to redevelopment. How much of the Vision would be driven by City redevelopment? The Zoning Ordinance would then only dictate the uses. If the City ends up owning property in the area, it could do what it wants at that point. Schiferl said that would be the time to think about a new zoning. Schiferl commented the proposed ordinance amendment was unworkable.

LeFevere responded the area has been under a moratorium for two years. The justification for the moratorium is that the City is concerned about development of the area before implementing the Vision is possible. A moratorium can only remain in effect for a limited period. To a certain extent, the proposed ordinance amendment would have the same effect as the moratorium. If the Zoning Ordinance is not amended, uses inconsistent with the Vision could not be turned away.

Locke stated the moratorium was enacted so a Vision could be created. Locke said LeFevere was correct in that, if the Zoning Ordinance is not amended, the area could go 180° away from the Vision.

Livingston asked about underground parking. Bury's point about the water level is a good one. Could the parking be on grade and the apartments built on top of the parking? O'Brien asked if the intention is to have the parking underground or simply enclosed. Locke stated the concern is that garages could be built in conjunction with apartment buildings. Locke said the City may not want such parking to be completely underground. LeFevere commented the proposed zoning should be viewed as a "work in progress." If certain conditions are found such as a high water table, there may be justification for a variance. Should a wonderful project comes along, the Ordinance could be changed if the project is consistent with the overall Vision. The MX zoning would allow for quality development whether it is industrial, commercial or residential in nature. The zoning in the area must be flexible to encourage quality development and will benefit all the properties in that area.

Livingston suggested restricting the parking for residential by having one indoor parking place for each bedroom. According to the proposed ordinance amendment, there are restrictions on parking spaces. Locke responded the City's parking ordinance would apply to these uses. The requirement for multi- family housing is two spaces per unit plus ten visitor parking spaces and an additional half space per each dwelling unit beyond ten units, which comes to about two and a half spaces per unit.

Schiferl asked about the procedure for the rest of the meeting. Livingston asked if anyone in the audience had comments.

Jim Van Dale, the owner of Accurate Press, spoke against the proposed amendment:

He will need to expand his building three years to double its size.

The new ordinance would require five acres for the expansion; he has only one acre.

Would Van Dale be able to sell his building?

LeFevere responded:

Ten percent lot coverage applied to the commercial Special Use Permit, not to industrial uses.

Van Dale's use would be grandfathered in and could be sold or continued with that same use.

Under the proposed ordinance, there are no permitted industrial uses. Industrial uses are by Special Use Permit only.

If a business wished to leave the grandfathered status to a permitted use status, it would have to comply with the industrial use special use standards:

No outdoor storage

No fumes

Minimum 5 acres

Accurate Press can continue under the grandfather status with the current use in the current building.

Accurate Press would not have the right to expand or alter or become a conforming use by getting a special use permit.

The Commission, Staff and the City Attorney discussed Van Dale's expansion scenarios and how the expansion would fit with the proposed ordinance amendment.

Livingston stated there is a moratorium on building in the area. The proposed ordinance amendment sets forth the rules under which the area can be developed. Livingston said it is not in the City's best interest to continue the moratorium.

Schiferl stated he would like to go over the 5-acre requirement again. The issue seems to be the focus of this evening's discussion. Schiferl asked why the 5-acre requirement is in the proposed ordinance amendment. Beisswenger's fits the Vision. If the City's long-term goal is to have a mix of uses in the NW Quad, we may need to reconsider the 5-acre/10 percent requirement. Livingston commented the proposed amendment is less restricting than the in the present zoning. Schiferl said that the idea that each site must contain a mix of uses, but that creates a problem for the existing uses in the area.

LeFevere stated that if the City allows development of 1-acre sites, it will be difficult to realize the Vision. Development of larger sites would accommodate mixed uses that are compatible with each other. Higher density developments would require larger sites. Zisla asked if Beisswenger's and Accurate Press could develop on the same site. LeFevere responded a hardware store would be allowed to combine with an industrial use only if the hardware store were 22,000 square feet or less. Under the proposed ordinance, the commercial uses that may be combined with industrial uses are those listed under "Permitted Commercial Uses." Combining commercial and industrial uses would require a 10-acre site.

Locke stated that Staff has been working to develop an ordinance that reflects the Vision. Locke said City Staff would be happy to meet with any of the business owners in the area to discuss how the proposed amendment would apply to specific businesses.

Sandy Carlson, part owner of the Bury parcel, stated as property owners, the business people's ideas differ from the City's Vision. Carlson said the City should have talked to the property owner's about their needs. Carlson said that, speaking as a real estate agent, home buyers do not want to be near commercial and industrial uses.

Livingston responded that the zoning must be established before development takes place. The proposed ordinance amendment actually expands the possible uses. The property owners have had many opportunities to give their opinions. In fact, Livingston said he had heard Mr. Bury's opinions on other occasions. The consultant interviewed the property owners during the Old Highway 8 Corridor Study. Livingston asked Bury if the consultant met with him. Bury responded affirmatively, but said none of his concerns were taken into account.

Zisla stated he agreed with Livingston that the property owners were contacted and interviewed. The argument that the City is not listening is not valid. The City is listening, but may not be agreeing with the owners. Zisla said that he and Livingston participated on the Corridor Study Task Force. It was a long process. Speaking as a Task Force member, the Vision was not intended to make difficulties for the existing businesses.

Carlson commented that it does not seem that any of the existing businesses fit with the proposed ordinance.

Livingston asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. No one responded.

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

Livingston expressed concern about mixture of uses. Too many uses on a site may not work. Livingston cited the example of condominiums built above a commercial development on Rice Street. Such development must be carefully thought out.

Schopf said he had problems with the five-acre limitation. Only four or five parcels out of forty or fifty are at least five acres. This is a hardship for the current owners.

Locke stated the five-acre minimum requirement could be changed. Not every use has to be five acres. The permitted uses do not have a minimum requirement, so it is not a case of making everything under five acres nonconforming.

LeFevere stated that the City is trying to encourage developers and current owners to acquire some additional property to have parcels that will accommodate permitted uses. For example, with a small site, the lot area per unit for one floor is 3,000 square feet. In the five-acre category, only 2,400 square feet is required. If the use can be combined with a commercial use on the site, 2,100 square feet is required, which is about a 50% increase. The City is trying to create incentives for property owners to get together to make a larger site and qualify for the higher densities. Higher density generates more income per acre, making combining sites viable.

Schopf pointed out that in, Van Dale's situation, where currently he has an 11,000 square feet building on a 1.1 acre site, he needs 5 acres to expand his building to 20,000 square feet. Unless Van Dale can purchase two adjoining sites, Accurate Press cannot expand.

Locke pointed out that Accurate Press could not expand under the current ordinance. A site to build a larger building or another larger building may not be available in the NW Quadrant, but may be available in another New Brighton location. Zisla pointed out that was the same problem SuperAmerica had on their site. The problem exists in other parts of the City.

Schopf said that, if Van Dale complies with the Zoning Code with 11,000 feet on 1.1 acres, the rationale might be that he could put a 22,000 square foot building on a 2.2 acre site. Zisla said the question becomes, can Van Dale buy some adjoining property or look for another site within the City. Locke commented that Accurate Press is a good business and we are proud to have it in New Brighton. If a current New Brighton business wants to expand, the City certainly wants to work with it to keep it in New Brighton.

Livingston asked for a motion on the issue. Schiferl stated he was not ready to vote on the issue. Schiferl said he was concerned about the five-acre requirement. Schiferl said he was reluctant to talk about specific businesses because the City should not design an ordinance for specific businesses. Beisswenger's should form a nucleus for redevelopment.

Zisla stated it was never the intention of the Old Highway 8 Corridor Task Force to create problems for existing businesses.

Livingston suggested giving Staff a list of items to research. Locke commented that the moratorium ends January 31, 1999. Locke stated the issue needs to come before the Council fairly soon to give the Council time to consider the proposed amendment before the moratorium ends.

Schiferl stated he would like to know which of the current uses would become nonconforming by the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to continue the public hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Locke asked each Commissioner to give Staff a list of comments and questions before the next Planning Commission meeting. In answer to a request from the Commission, Locke responded Staff will provide the business and property owners in the area with a copy of the draft ordinance amendment and ask for their comments before the meeting.

Adjourn

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schiferl, to adjourn the meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner