Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - November 17, 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, O'Brien, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Mike Livingston, Norm Schiferl

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Zisla, seconded by O'Brien, to approve the minutes of the October 20, 1998 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Zisla, to approve the minutes of the October 29, 1998 Special Meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

Larson said the Council had not reviewed any planning-related proposals.

Agenda Review

The agenda was approved as written.

Public Hearings

Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review	Ryder Truck Sales

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request by Ryder Truck Sales to sell vehicles from the property at 403 Old Highway 8.

Baker asked why the City was not requiring landscaping? Just because the neighboring site is landscaped, requiring landscaping on the Ryder site is not reasonable. Teague responded the area between the parking area and the fence is too narrow for landscaping. The thought was that the vegetation on the fence would provide the necessary screening. Baker asked about the landscaping requirement in the Code. Teague responded the Code does not have specific requirements for landscaping or buffering in this instance. Baker asked if the properties on the north and south were zoned the same as the Ryder property. Teague answered affirmatively.

Baker asked why the owner of the property was not making the application. The owner would have to deal with any restrictions placed on the property, not the tenant. Teague responded Ken Beach, the owner, was present and has been part of this planning process. Teague said Baker was correct, the owner should have been mentioned in the report and signed the application.

Cook said he planned to sod the five-foot easement and plant some shrubs. Cook asked if the Commission would allow Ryder to pave the lot in the spring. Baker asked Teague to respond to Cook's question. Teague responded that the Commission could require Ryder to pave the lot by a specific date as a condition of approval.

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

Motion by Zisla, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend approval of LP-348 & SP-209, subject to conditions. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker asked Teague to check with the City Attorney on whether the property owner must sign the application before the City Council hears the item.

General Business

Mixed Use District	City of New Brighton

Baker asked when the moratorium expires for development in this area. Teague stated the moratorium expires on January 31, 1999. If the Commission could make a recommendation this evening, the City Council would have time to consider the proposed MX district. Zisla referred to a comment in the minutes, " . . . 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. "

Locke responded staff had not had an opportunity to talk to all the property owners. Staff has talked with Mark Beisswenger. Teague said the property owners who attended the meeting were provided with a draft copy of the ordinance. Teague stated the City had not received any additional comments from the property owners since the last meeting.

Zisla stated some questions remain unanswered regarding specific businesses in the proposed MX District. Zisla said the ordinance should fit the Vision. Baker stated the proposed ordinance fits the Vision and he would support adoption of the Ordinance.

Zisla stated he had a comment for the record. At least one property, Beisswenger's, had some specific concerns. Beisswenger's is the kind of business the City wants in the area. Zisla stated he hoped the Planning Commission can make a recommendation and send the ordinance to the City Council for its consideration. Zisla stated his own recommendation is that the ordinance be approved as drafted.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Baker, to recommend approval of the Mixed Use District for portions of the Highway 8 Corridor area north of I-694. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker asked if the Commission intended to add a clause regarding the grandfathering of existing businesses. Baker said he thought that was the intent, but that would not be part of the ordinance. That would relate to how the City implements the ordinance. Zisla agreed that should not be part of the ordinance, but relates how the ordinance is administered.

Concept Plan	Boarman Kroos Pfister Vogel & Associates

Teague stated the proposed project would be a mixed use development project at County Road E2 and 5th Avenue NW. Teague introduced John Ordway, the developer and Gary Vogel of Boarman Kroos Pfister Vogel and Associates. Teague stated the item would come before the Planning Commission in December for formal review.

Gary Vogel and his team made a presentation of the proposed project.

Locke stated the setback issue would be the biggest hurdle for approval of the proposed project. Teague said that current plans would not meet the setback requirement on 5th Avenue. Teague said the proposed setback was consistent with the downtown area. Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission consider a variance. Staff would anticipate that the proposal would then trigger an ordinance amendment allowing flexibility in front yard setbacks if the developer provides amenities such as walkways and greenspace. The specific Ordway proposal would then come to the Planning Commission next month with the variance request.

The Commission discussed the problems relating to a variance request. Locke said the timeframe created the dilemma in adopting an ordinance amendment. Locke said arguments could be made for approving a variance, although the arguments may not be strong ones. The Donatelle building to the south of this site required a variance. The project area has difficulties such as the SuperFund site and Williams Pipeline. The City should move toward changing the PUD ordinance to allow setbacks on the perimeter of sites to be less than the 25-feet.

Zisla stated this site differs from the Donatelle site. Zisla said the City should go forward with an appropriate ordinance revision and not struggle with justifying a variance request. The concept makes sense. Baker stated he would not be comfortable with granting a variance for the proposed project. Baker said that, since the site is large and open, moving the building back ten feet cannot be considered a hardship. The ordinance amendment would be the best method to use for approving the proposed request. By granting a variance, the City would be setting a precedent.

Locke said the City would entertain a recommendation from the Planning Commission to modify the PUD ordinance and other appropriate ordinances to allow for reduced perimeter setbacks where the developer provides certain amenities.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend that the City Council direct staff to draft an amendment to the PRD and PUD ordinances to allow a development with less than a 25-foot setback, provided certain amenities are provided.

Baker asked for discussion on the motion. O'Brien stated that developing closer to the sidewalk may be more desirable in some areas. Vogel stated he was sorry no one mentioned this difficulty initially. Vogel said they were trying to continue the environment established in the downtown area.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Schopf commented that residents expressed concern about the type of housing that would be built on the Tom Thumb site at other public meetings. Ordway said the developer had not yet chosen the type of housing since construction would not begin on such a project for at least a year. Ordway said they had been concentrating on the commercial portion of the development. The Bulletin reported "executive apartments" would be built on the site. That may be an option, but the type of housing had not been selected. Assisted living, senior housing, townhouses, condos, executive apartments and coop housing are being considered. Len Pratt is very interested in looking into developing cooperative housing on the site, which is becoming very popular. However, we are not committed to anything right now.

Zisla asked if economics would drive the number of units the developer needs to put on the site. Ordway answered that he and Mr. Pratt had not entered a development agreement with the City yet. Ordway said they needed to solve the economic issues before they draft the development agreement. Ordway said it was possible the development agreement may be a two-phase agreement with the separate agreements for the commercial and residential developments.

Zisla asked what kind of commercial development would be on the site. Ordway responded the businesses would be service businesses and restaurants. The types of businesses would depend upon the market. The primary users would be a convenience store, a bank, and a restaurant. The housing type could dictate the businesses, whether offices or retail.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf, to adjourn the meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner