Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - May 18, 1999

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 (late), Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	None

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schmitz, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Agenda Review

Teague stated that Minar Ford withdrew its application for the vacation of Service Drive. The area residents favored keeping Service Drive open. Larson stated the Public Works Department put up No Parking signs along the curve of Service Drive this week. Minar Ford employees told our Public Works people that putting up the signs was a waste of time and money because Service Drive would soon be the property of Minar Ford. The signs are up and the Police Department will ticket cars parking illegally.

Teague added Item C, a discussion of the Comprehensive Plan land use elements. The agenda was adopted as amended.

Public Hearings

Minor Subdivision	Charles Stark

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a minor subdivision request from Charles Stark to divide an existing lot at 201 5th Avenue SW into two (2) lots of record. Teague showed graphics relating to the request.

O'Brien asked if the billboard was on the raspberry patch property. Teague responded affirmatively.

Baker asked if the applicant wished to speak. Charles Stark stated that the easement to Freeway Towing is a 20-foot easement. Freeway Towing will come in next month with its proposal. The easement would be considered then.

Stark asked if Freeway Towing could hook up with the sewer and water from New Brighton Lumber. Teague responded that the City Engineer said that connection cannot be used. A separate connection is required for each individual site.

Teague stated a 40-foot greenspace setback will be required for the Freeway Towing proposal. The issue is where the setback will be located. Is the setback off I-35W? The property cannot be accessed from I- 35W. Teague pointed out the location where Freeway Towing proposes to provide the 40-foot strip of greenspace. Freeway Towing would like a 20-foot greenspace, through a special use permit, off I-35W, which would constitute the side street. The location of the setback will be considered when Freeway Towing formally presents its proposal next month.

O'Brien asked about access to the south property and the easement to maintain the billboard. Does that include any development on that property? Teague responded that, as it is now, nothing could be developed on that portion other than the billboard. If this piece of property were combined with another property, it could possibly be developed. O'Brien asked for clarification of the billboard parcel. Teague showed the parcel area. O'Brien said now was the time to make sure the easements are done so the site could be developed.

Don Leier, owner of the berry farm, explained the history of his parcel. Schiferl asked if the property is divided into three parcels. Leier stated the berry patch that is south of the proposed lot split is one parcel.

Schiferl stated that developing the berry patch is not the issue. Teague stated the berry patch would have to be combined with another parcel before it could be developed.

Schiferl asked what language would need to be included with the easement language. Teague responded the surveyor would draw up the legal language providing a cross easement to the property to the south to access across Parcel B. The language would be subject to review by the City Attorney. Schiferl stated that no parking would be allowed in the ingress and egress easement. Would that apply to the area in question? Teague responded negatively, only Parcel A would be involved.

Baker stated that the proposal would provide easements to the new Freeway Towing site, but it would not be a dedicated easement per se. It would give Mr. Leier access through their lot to the gate in back. Teague stated the easement would not be specific to this 20-foot area, but would be through the site in general.

Zisla stated he did not think the City should get involved in this type of easements that are not specifically located. These easements can create trouble in the future. The intent is for the plat to require access to another property, but not specifying where that would be. The best the City could do now is to recommend that the parties negotiate a specific easement agreement. How does that get shown on the plat? Would it be specified in a notation to the plat, subject to an unspecified easement in an unspecified location to access another property?

Schiferl asked if a surveyor can frame this language before the next Council meeting. Teague responded affirmatively. Zisla stated that would be a legal description, not an easement. Baker asked about the location of the existing easement. Teague responded no easement exists; Leier has used it for years and would have to make an adverse possession claim. Stark is agreeable to providing Leier that legal access.

Zisla stated the City should not have to negotiate the easement. The owner should record the easement along with the plat as a condition of the plat. Zisla referred to the Staff recommendation, Condition #1, "Ingress & Egress shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney." Zisla suggested that the condition be more specific by saying "and driveway maintenance agreements." To get the lot split done, the applicant would agree to a simple ingress/egress easement. Since this easement is not defined, the property owners could have a disagreement about the easement in the future. Because this is a substitute for a public street, a driveway maintenance agreement should be provided now and the City Attorney should review it. Stark stated that was part of the purchase agreement. Zisla stated the easement should be part of the plat and should be a condition of the plat. Condition #1 should read, "There shall be a driveway easement and maintenance agreement, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney." Condition #2 should read, "There shall be no building encroachment into the 30 & 20 foot driveway easement."

Schiferl asked if, Condition #7 and #8, should be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Teague said that language could be added to the conditions. Condition #9 should be added, "The 20-foot ingress/egress easement on Parcel B shall be removed and the parties shall enter an access agreement subject to the approval of the City Attorney." Zisla stated that the persons gaining the access do not have a part in this plat so they cannot be called "the parties." Zisla suggested, "The 20-foot ingress/egress easement on Parcel B shall be removed and the owner will grant an access easement to the owner of the property to the south, subject to approval of the City Attorney."

Baker reviewed the changes to the conditions in the staff recommendation:

1.	There shall be a driveway easement and maintenance agreement, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.

2.	There shall be no building encroachment into the 30 & 20 foot driveway easement.

7.	Grading and drainage associated with the development of Parcel B shall not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

8.	The development of Parcel B shall require the submittal of a Utility Plan showing individual lot hook up of sewer and water for Parcel B, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

9.	The 20-foot ingress/egress easement on Parcel B shall be removed and the owner will grant an access easement to the owner of the property to the south, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.

Schiferl asked about the utilities easements. Zisla said the utility easements were covered in the plat.

Baker asked the applicant if the new and reworded conditions were agreeable to him. Stark responded yes.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. Don Leier asked about the applicant's plans to fence the property. Leier asked if he would need to get a key to the gate every time he wanted to go to his berry patch. Leier stated that he had open access to his property for years. Baker stated that is why the property owners should negotiate an agreement so that both sides know what is expected.

Baker asked if anyone else wished to speak during the public hearing. No one responded.

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

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of PL-251, subject to the amended conditions. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the memo outlining minor revisions to the MX, Mixed Use District recommended by the City Council.

Baker referred to the language, "... adjacent to or having access to state or federal highways." Baker stated every property has access to a state or federal highway. Teague responded that was true for most properties. If some roadways were connected off Old Highway 8, they would not have direct access to a state or federal highway. Baker said every lot in New Brighton had access to a highway. Teague responded affirmatively. Baker asked what the Council intended by this revision. Larson answered that, the language "adjacent to" is the key here.

Teague said a public hearing would be held at next month's Planning Commission meeting to consider the ordinance amendments formally.

Comprehensive Plan	Land Use Elements

Teague stated the Task Force has looked at future land use considerations as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Four areas are being suggested for changes.

D. L. Beach property, on Long Lake Road

The current Comprehensive Plan designates that site for single family residential uses. Mr. Beach would like to expand his operation and has expressed an interest in requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use designation to accommodate the expansion. The Task Force recommended that this site be changed to a community business designation. The Task Force has comments from residents supporting Beach's business.

Baker asked for a definition of "Community Business." Teague responded Community Business allows for uses that would be allowed in the B-3 zoning district. The Beach site would have to be rezoned to B-3 from the current R-1. Community Business has been defined by the consultant as a business that draws customers from the community as a whole and not just a neighborhood business. Baker asked if the business would be rezoned to B-3 or controlled through a special use permit. Teague responded Beach's expansion would require a special use permit. Baker stated that, once the City rezones a property to B-3, any B-3 business could go in there without a special use permit. Baker asked if that is what the City really wants. Teague responded that is the question the Commission needs to consider.

Zisla asked about the uses in a B-3 district. Teague responded that auto repair and convenience gasoline stations are higher intensity uses that would be allowed. Baker stated he was concerned about rezoning to B-3 without controls. Teague stated the area is a single-family, residential area and B-3 uses may not be compatible. Larson reviewed the zoning history of the Beach site.

Baker stated he was concerned that rezoning the site to B-3 is a spot rezoning. Teague stated the rezoning would be necessary for Beach's expansion plans. Teague stated the City has received some complaints about noise from music and fixing cars late at night.

Schopf asked if Beach could to continue to operate, but not expand. Schopf asked if there were alternatives that would allow the expansion. Teague responded negatively. Mr. Beach talked to the City last fall about the expansion. The City told Beach that the City would look at the proposal as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

O'Brien asked if the zoning could revert to the original zoning if the use changes. Teague stated the B-3 zoning is the only way to allow Beach's expansion. The City Attorney would have to decide if such a reversion could be done.

Zisla stated he is sympathetic to business expansion. However, trying to administer the zoning code for a particular site, does not make sense. Baker stated the consensus favors Beach's expansion, but the method is questionable. Larson supported the reversion to the original zoning if the use changes.

Vacant property across from SuperAmerica on Rice Creek Road and Silver Lake Road

The property is currently zoned B-3. The Task Force recommends changing the zoning to B-1, Limited Business. Hollywood Video will bring a proposal to the Planning Commission in June. Hollywood Video's use would be allowed under the B-3 zoning. Teague said he informed Hollywood Video that the Task Force is recommending the zoning change to B-1. Office buildings are allowed in the B-1 district. The site is adjacent to single family homes to the north and east; the zoning on the west side is B-3.

Baker asked about the size of the lot. Teague responded the lot is 170 feet square. Zisla stated the location is well suited to the B-3 zoning. There is a gas station on one corner and a large church on another corner that generates heavy traffic.

Teague said the proposed Hollywood Video store would have a 25-foot buffer to the residential property. The proposal does not meet the building setback requirement. Hollywood Video shows a 24-foot setback. Thirty feet is required. If the size of the proposed building is reduced, it could meet the requirements.

Zisla asked if the Commission is considering the Hollywood Video proposal or the general zoning category recommended by the Task Force. Why would an office use be more consistent with the overall development of the neighborhood than a B-3 use? Larson commented that the Task Force was concerned about the impact on the single family homes in the neighborhood. An office building would be quiet in the evening and at night. Zisla stated he would have a problem with a variance request on Silver Lake Road.

Schiferl asked for the opinions of the Commission on the rezoning. Zisla stated the B-3 zoning is appropriate, subject to how B-3 uses would interact with the adjacent neighborhood. Schopf stated he would agree with the rezoning to B-1. Baker stated the B-3 zoning is more appropriate for this location than the Beach site.

Beauty Salon, located at ____________

The surrounding land uses are all single family homes. The beauty salon is on the corner. The Task Force is suggesting that the future land use designation be B-1 or B-2, Limited Business.

Baker stated he could support the change.

Ken's Market area

Teague showed a plan for the area. The Task Force recommended that the single family area to the north be a mid-density zoning. Discussions on joint planning with Arden Hills and Roseville to develop a master plan for that intersection will be undertaken by the I-35W Corridor Coalition.

Announcements and Updates

Baker asked when Brightondale would remove the illegal sign on the side of the building.

Teague responded the sign in the front has been removed. Teague said he would talk to Brightondale again. Baker suggested that the City Attorney send a letter. The illegal sign has been up for well over a year.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schmitz, to adjourn the meeting. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

___________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner