Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting June 15, 1999

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 (late)

Absent:	Larry Baker

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schmitz, to approve the minutes of the May 18, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

Teague reported the City Council approved the Charles Stark subdivision at their May 24 meeting.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Minor Subdivision	Dave Schell

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request to divide an existing lot at 1390 Silver Lake Road into three lots of record.

Zisla asked why the City was requiring the applicant to dedicate a portion for the road. Zisla stated he could not understand why the County should not have to pay for the property. Teague stated that would be a question for the City Attorney. Zisla said Schell was not doing anything that should enable the County to have a claim on that corner. Teague said that, as part of the planning process, the City wishes to protect the safety of the intersection. Zisla asked how the subdivision would make that intersection unsafe. Teague responded this gives the City the ability to provide the safe turning lane on Silver Lake Road. Zisla stated he does not agree with that view.

O'Brien asked if all three lots could use the one drive easement. Teague said the purchaser of Lot A wants his own drive. Teague introduced Dave Schell, the applicant. Schell said the buyer of Lot A has requested a private drive.

Schiferl said that, during the concept discussion, concern was expressed about headlights from vehicles turning into the easement area. The Commission also discussed landscaping. Has Schell addressed the landscaping? Teague responded that Schell has not addressed landscaping in this application. Schell pointed out that he increased the easement to 25 feet. Teague asked the applicant if he planned to landscape the area. Schell said he did not recall a discussion about landscaping.

Larson asked about the existing driveway. An island is shown in that location on the Ramsey County reconstruction plans. If the City asked Ramsey County for a curb cut to the existing driveway, the long road on the back of the property would not be needed. The City is making such a request for the Bru House. A curb cut would leave the green space to the west and would put the traffic in one place. Has this idea been considered?

Schell responded that the existing grade has a drop to the south that would make a curb cut unworkable. In conversation with the City Planner, the City indicated that a curb cut on Silver Lake Road would not be the best way to go as an entrance off 14th was seen as the safer option. Larson stated the City Council would make the final decision. The Council's decision may differ from the City Planner's recommendation. Larson said that putting a road on the west side of the property and having another driveway twenty or thirty feet from it seems ridiculous. Schell stated that a curb cut for a single family home was unusual since the lot would generate little traffic.

Teague stated the Staff Recommendation was based on conversations with the City Engineering Department and with Ramsey County. Both Ramsey County and the New Brighton Engineering Department recommended that access off of 14th Street was a safer entrance to this site. However, if the Planning Commission and Council decide that the curb cut off Silver Lake is the way to go, the City can certainly pursue it.

Schiferl asked about the City's obligation in this lot split. Teague responded that the lot split meets the lot standards; the issue is access. Schiferl stated that the lack of safe access may be grounds on which to deny the subdivision. Schiferl asked if the site could be split into two lots. Schell answered he always planned on three lots.

Livingston stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

Al Goetsch, 2508 14th Street NW, stated his home is immediately to the north of the existing property. Goetsch stated he understood the property is currently one lot. How is it possible for Schell to sell part of it? Teague stated the property has not been subdivided, and the applicant could not sell property that does not yet legally exist. Schell stated the sale is contingent on the lot split. Goetsch stated he thought the lot split had gone through the City because Schell has a Bobcat digging the perimeter for a garage. Schell stated he has a building permit to build a garage, which has nothing to do with the lot split. Goetsch stated he has lived in his home for twenty-one years. During that time, the property has changed owners several times. Each owner has wanted that old house to remain on the site. Schell should demolish the old house and build two homes on the site. One lot would have access from Silver Lake Road and the other from 14th Street. Goetsch said U-turns were not allowed in the area; many vehicles turn around in Goetsch's driveway daily. Vehicles will also use the two added driveways to turn around. Livingston asked if Goetsch was advocating two lots instead of three. Goetsch answered affirmatively. Goetsch said that the long driveway behind the existing homes would not be necessary. However, every owner of the site has wanted to keep that old house there. Goetsch said he was very concerned about the traffic congestion.

Donald Sroka, 1375 26th Avenue NW, stated his home is directly west of the site in question. Sroka stated his opinion is exactly that of Goetsch. Schell mentioned the traffic to Lots B and C would be two cars per day. That is not a realistic estimate. The corner has heavy traffic and three homes would compound the situation. Two homes, one on 14th and one on 26th, would be more practical. The proposed driveway would be immediately behind Sroka's home. Sroka said his property value would go down because of this long drive.

Barbara Sroka, 1375 26th Avenue NW, asked about the maintenance on the long driveway. Would the snow from the drive be blown onto Sroka's lot? Although the proposed drive would be five feet from the lot line, it is very close to Sroka's house. The new owner would have to maintain the private drive. Sroka's home would be closer to the private drive than the proposed home would be. Sroka suggested that the curb cut could be moved to serve the two proposed homes. The driveway would be shorter and eliminate maintenance problems. Sroka stated she spoke with Schell and he said the City was going to put in a street there. The private drive would not be a City street; the City would not maintain a private driveway. The existing home should be accessed by 14th.

Goetsch asked if the access for the garage Schell is building is off 14th Street or Silver Lake Road. Schell responded the access will be from 14th. Goetsch asked when did the City grant the access from 14th. Schell answered that the City granted the access when the permit was approved. Goetsch said Schell was building a garage facing 14th Street when he does not have access to 14th Street yet.

Schell responded that it was a "given" when the City approved the permit for the garage. Livingston stated that was a separate issue.

Tom Cunningham, 1347 26th Avenue NW, stated his home is to the west of the property in question, just south of Srokas. Cunningham stated the drive would, in effect, be an alley. The proposed drive would make the current green space behind his home into a concrete area and would detract from both sites. The maintenance of the driveway could become an issue because the City would not maintain it. After the concept discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the neighbors understood that access could be off Silver Lake Road via the existing driveway. Is that driveway currently unusable? Why not use the existing driveway? The problem is that Schell wants to move that drive. Accidents have not occurred because the driveway is there. Two of the proposed lots should use Silver Lake Road and access to the garage that Schell is building should be from 14th.

Livingston asked Teague to comment. Teague stated the Commission did discuss using the existing drive and providing a shared drive for two lots as an option in the concept review. The County could not deny access because the curb cut already exists.

Livingston asked if anyone else in the audience wished to comment.

Brenda Goetsch, 2508 14th Street NW, stated the site will consist of driveways and a garage. Goetsch expressed concern about the traffic that three homes would generate.

Schell commented that when he purchased the property he disposed of forty tires from the site, got rid of junk cars, and filled four dumpsters full of trash. Schell stated he is trying to improve the property. Schell said he made improvements to the house. Schell said he was flexible as to the curb cut. The City and Ramsey County made the recommendation for 14th; however, a curb cut on Silver Lake Road would also work. Schell stated the property is in much better shape than it was before he purchased it.

Zisla asked if the proposed drive for Lots B and C could be moved to the east. Schell responded the drive could be moved, but did not think it would answer the concerns expressed this evening. Some residents stated that would make the situation worse. Livingston stated that it would work for some residents, but not others. Zisla stated that the Commission has discussed not adding traffic to Silver Lake Road for safety reasons. Zisla stated that dividing the site north to south would be possible, making two lots having driveways onto 14th. Schell responded that would not work.

O'Brien asked if Ramsey County would move the curb cut on Silver Lake Road to the south. O'Brien stated that, if the curb cut could be moved to straddle the property line between the two proposed south lots, it could provide one drive at the curb cut and split off to the two lots. Teague stated that, if the drive were a shared drive, it would be a good idea to shift the cut. Teague stated the County cannot deny the curb cut because there is an existing cut. If the City approves the shared drive, the drive should be shifted to the south.

Larson stated that, if the drive behind the site were eliminated, Schell could build the homes farther to the west. Having a view of a home rather than a driveway would be better for the neighbors. Moving the homes to the west, would provide more privacy for everyone.

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

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schmitz, to recommend approval of PL -252, subject to conditions, and adding the condition, "Shared driveway access shall be off of Silver Lake Road and the access be moved to the south," and eliminate the driveway easement on the west side of the property, and conditioned upon the applicant submitting revised plans to the City Council.

Schiferl commented he agreed with Zisla on the triangle section being dedicated for the road. Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Zisla, to amend the motion to delete Condition #7. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review	Hollywood Video

Teague reviewed the Planning Report on a request for Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review for constructing a Hollywood Video Store located at the northeast corner of Silver Lake Road and Rice Creek Road.

Schiferl asked when the site was last occupied by a gas station. Larson responded the gas station closed in 1988 or 1989. Schiferl stated he asked the question because he was wondering about the reasonable expectations of residents who buy property next to a commercial site.

O'Brien asked if the drawing showed the existing curb or the curb after the County widens Silver Lake Road. Teague stated he assumed that was the location of the existing curb.

Schiferl said Portfolio Design Services talked about lighting in its letter. What is the history of the lighting standard? When does the lighting standard apply? Teague stated that the City's Ordinances have not been codified since 1988; Teague only became aware of the lighting requirement recently. Teague stated he would check with Erny Mattila about the enforcement history. The Ordinance was adopted in 1989.

Zisla asked what would happen, under the current zoning, without the Special Use Permit to allow the reduced setback. Teague stated the item would become a site plan review. Zisla asked if the project would be feasible without the reduced setback.

Peter Hilger, Portfolio Design Services, responded that, without the Special Use Permit, the building would be slightly smaller because of the square footage needed per parking stall. Parking would be reduced by three or four stalls and the building would be reduced by 750 square feet. Hilger stated that, if the Special Use Permit is denied, Hollywood Video would submit a plan for simple site plan approval. However, the applicant does not want to do that because precedents exist that would allow the current request. Hilger stated he had discussed several site plan options with Staff before making the formal application.

Zisla stated, then, if the Special Use Permit is denied, the applicant could build the same project with a smaller building and smaller parking lot. The Hollywood Video store would be a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance. Teague responded affirmatively.

Hilger stated that Hollywood Video is willing to consider the option where the building would be reversed. The building would screen the parking lot from the neighbors to the east. Landscaping can only screen the parking lot from the north. The drawback would be the proximity to the curb cut on Rice Creek Road to the corner. Hilger said that Staff indicated that the minimum advisable setback would be 50 feet. The proposed building is approximately 54 feet from the intersection. Because of the proximity to the intersection, Hollywood Video proposed the original plan where the parking lot would be behind the building. From a retail perspective, parking behind the building is not as attractive as parking in front. It provides more landscaping on the street side. Hilger stated Hollywood Video would be willing to accept the reversed plan. Parking would be increased by one additional parking slot. The landscape area would be identical with a two-way curb cut on Silver Lake Road. Regarding the lighting, one foot candle is low for a retail application.

Schiferl asked about the average lighting used by New Brighton businesses. Hilger replied that he was not a lighting engineer. The lighting level for Walgreens, for example, is four foot candles. Foot candles are measured at a point beneath the light source and diminishes from that point. Averaging all the light sources on the proposed development comes to one foot candle. A gasoline station canopy would be ten to fifteen foot candles.

Teague stated that the most restrictive lighting ordinance he had studied required one foot candle at the property line. Teague said he had never seen an ordinance where the foot candle requirement was averaged over the entire site. Teague suggested that New Brighton consider revising the lighting ordinance after studying ordinances from other cities.

Livingston stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

Jim Tri, 2443 Mound Avenue, stated he opposed the proposed Hollywood Video store. The proposed store would be open until midnight. Tri showed the location of his home on the area map. Tri said that he had asked SA to trim the bushes to the east because the bushes infringe upon Tri's property. Tri was not aware then that SA had sold the property to Hollywood Video. Tri said that, since the property nearby is residential, the lot should be split and zoned Residential. A drainage problem exists on the site. The water from the site drains to Tri's lot and Tri's neighbor's lot. Tri stated the water table is high on his lot. Hollywood Video should be built somewhere else.

Livingston pointed out that, should the applicant withdraw the Special Use Permit request, Hollywood Video can build a store there without the 15-foot setback variance. Tri stated the number of young people congregating behind the video store will increase vandalism. Livingston stated the area would be lighted. Tri said the lights would shine into his yard. Tri stated the site should not be for a commercial business. Livingston stated that the site is zoned B-3 and, therefore, can be developed for a business. The Planning Commission will consider the specifics of the site plan, but the zoning is not under consideration.

Tri stated that a curb should run along the back of the property so that all the water will run off to Silver Lake Road. Livingston stated that grading is part of the review. Teague stated with the City Engineering Department indicated there is a drainage problem on the site. The proposed grading plan puts the runoff into Silver Lake Road. No runoff would go onto adjacent property. Tri stated that recently the site was surveyed. The surveyor's stakes left one-foot holes in Tri's front yard.

William Pickering, 2407 Mounds Avenue, stated he was a real estate agent and appraiser for Edina Realty. Pickering stated he listed the three homes on Mounds Avenue. When he listed the house at 2467 Mounds Avenue, Pickering stated he talked with Erny Mattila, the former City Planner, about the commercial property. Pickering stated Mattila said the site was only large enough for a small office such as an insurance agency. Pickering stated that, when he listed Tri's house, he talked to the City again. Staff said there would never be anything on that site but an office building. Pickering stated he asked City Staff about the site on a third occasion. Staff stated the City was going to recommend that west of Silver Lake Road would be commercial and the property to the east would be for office development. An office would be open eight hours per day; the Hollywood Video store would be open twelve to fourteen hours per daily. The store would reduce the value of the neighboring properties. Pickering stated the City on three separate occasions told him that only an office building could be developed on the site.

Schiferl asked how many years ago did this happen. Pickering responded in 1993 or 1994, in 1995, and again within the last two months. Schiferl asked if Pickering he told the buyers what the existing zoning is and what the permitted uses are. Pickering responded he told the buyers exactly what City Staff told him. Schiferl asked Pickering if he told the buyers about the existing zoning and the permitted uses in that zoning. Pickering stated he went to the City and each time the City told him what would be there. Whatever the zoning, if the City's long-term plan was for office and limited uses on the east side of Silver Lake Road, the buyers of the homes have a grievance. If the City approves this commercial building, buyers will pay five to seven percent less for homes in the area than if an office building was on the site. Schiferl stated that a property owner located next to a vacant lot that is zoned commercial should expect the owner of the vacant lot will eventually build a commercial business on the site. Pickering asked if a resident has a right to rely upon information given by the City Planner. Schiferl responded that unless the current zoning is changed, despite any long-term plan, the zoning cannot be construed to be anything other than what it is. Schiferl said Pickering did not tell the buyers about the current zoning. Pickering asked if the buyer had a right to rely on the information Pickering got from the City Planner. Pickering stated he disclosed what the City told him.

Livingston asked if, as an appraiser, Pickering called a city to find out what are the permitted uses on a property. Livingston stated he is a certified general appraiser and that is what he does. Pickering stated he is not appraising a house when he lists it. Livingston stated he understood the difference, but Pickering had a responsibility to find out about what the zoning permits. Pickering stated he not only called the City but asked the City Planner in person about the City's plans for the property. Livingston's responded the City normally does not have plans for a particular property except for what the zoning indicates. Pickering said he attended a meeting recently where the City said they wanted to change the zoning so there would only be office buildings to the east of Silver Lake Road. Livingston stated the Planning Commission did not meet on rezoning of the property in question.

O'Brien asked if the meeting Pickering to which referred was a meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Teague stated that the site was mentioned during the Comprehensive Plan process. Teague said he stated in his presentation that evening that the Task Force suggested the Comp Plan request a zoning change for that site, among many others, to B-3 from B-1.

Zisla asked if there is a recommendation in front of the Commission now for rezoning this property. Teague responded negatively. Zisla stated that the fact is this property is currently zoned B-3. The Comp Plan Task Force has discussed changing the zoning, but a zoning change is not pending. Currently there is a proposal before the Planning Commission for a permitted use. The only Special Use Permit consideration concerns the setback. Under the current zoning, Hollywood Video is a permitted use.

Pickering stated he wanted to talk about the drainage on the site. After the shopping center and Salem Baptist Church was constructed, the homes on Mounds Avenue have water in their basements. Water collects in the backyards. Some neighbors had to put drain tile systems in their basements. Tri stated he has suffered about a $10,000 loss on his property. Tri stated he had to install a drain tile system and completely redo a bedroom and a bathroom on the lower level because of mold. Six weeks after Tri moved into the house, his daughter developed asthma due to the mold. An environmental health and safety person from the University came out to Tri's house and took a mold sample that showed high mold levels. Tri stated he opposed a business that would be open long hours on the site.

Zisla asked if someone has determined where the water comes from that caused the mold problems in Tri's home. Tri responded the City Engineer said the runoff came from the vacant lot. Salem Baptist Church had a flood in its parking lot where vehicles were damaged. The 12-inch pipe from the church parking lot drains toward Mounds Avenue. Tri said he had pictures of flooded parked cars and a lake in Tri's backyard. The shutoff the City installed should be reversed to allow relief from the water on Mounds Avenue first, then the Church should be next.

Zisla asked Teague about the drainage plan. Teague repeated the engineering staff was satisfied with the proposed drainage plan. Tri stated he has two sumps in his home and drain tile. Tri stated his sump pumps every five minutes daily and more often during rain. Eighty percent of the water comes from the lot in question. Zisla stated he was concerned about the remarks about the drainage from Salem Baptist Church. The remarks are discouraging because the Planning Commission reviewed their site plan and had no idea such flooding would occur. Tri responded that the problem is that the pipe sizes are backward. The 12 inch pipe service Mounds Avenue and the 8-inch pipe should serve the church.

Zisla stated he had some concern about the hours of operation. The zoning ordinance does not deal with the hours of operation. Under the Special Use Permit, however, the hours become fair game. Hilger responded that Hollywood Video is requesting a Special Use Permit strictly for the parking setback. The City has granted such Special Use Permits to other businesses in the past for precisely the same purpose. If the Commission limits the hours, Hollywood Video would appeal that decision to the Council or would withdraw its Special Use Permit request and build a smaller building. Zisla stated it may be appropriate to know how many cars are present late in the evening. Hilger stated there would be few cars in the lot during the late hours.

Zisla asked if berming would alleviate the light problem. Hilger stated berming may interfere with drainage. Hilger showed the drainage on the site plan. The site will require fill to drain to Silver Lake Road. The only water still directed to the northeast would be the from the setback or current landscape area. Hilger outlined the drainage plan on the site plan. Eighty percent of the water, including the rooftop drainage, will go to Silver Lake Road. A berm on the north side could exacerbate the drainage problem. It could serve as a dam. Zisla stated that a berm should be considered. Hilger stated he would work with Staff on the berming.

Tri stated Hollywood Video should berm the north and the east side of the site. If the runoff goes to Silver Lake Road, it will run on Silver Lake Road for about 100 yards and run into Mounds Avenue. Hilger stated that putting a berm on the east side will wipe out the existing vegetation. That would open the site and reduce the screening.

Zisla said the vegetation could be replanted. Landscaping and berming would be studied during a regular site plan review. Hilger stated the existing screening on the east side is substantial. O'Brien asked about the contours on the grading plan. Hilger responded the contours are one-foot contours. O'Brien stated the back corner of the site would be raised five or six feet. Hilger responded affirmatively; the parking lot would be level to allow for drainage. O'Brien asked how the grading would work on the reverse plan. Hilger answered the parking lot drainage would be the same, but two feet of the foundation would be exposed.

Schiferl said that the vegetation on the east side of the site is mostly deciduous. Hilger responded affirmatively. Schiferl stated, then, six months of the year there is no screening. Hilger stated he thought maintaining the vegetation on that side was the correct thing to do. If that is not the case, Hilger said they would be happy to change the plan.

Livingston asked if Ramsey County planned to put in a median in that area when it reconstructs Silver Lake Road. Larson showed where a stop light and left turn lane has been proposed. South bound traffic may have to access the site by traveling on Rice Creek Road.

Livingston stated no one has commented on the reverse plan. A resident commented the reverse plan directs the light away from the residents on Mounds Avenue. The back of the site could be bermed to direct the water away from the Mounds Avenue homes.

A resident on Rice Creek Road stated the lights from Salem Baptist Church constantly shine into the homes on Rice Creek Road. The lilac bushes along the east side will not stop light from shining into the residents on Mounds. Plan one is totally unacceptable.

The resident at 2455 Mounds Avenue stated they bought the house from Pickering. Pickering said that an small office building would be built on that lot. The resident said she was concerned about the business hours of Hollywood Video. The resident stated her backyard is only 18 feet deep; she will be looking directly into the Hollywood Video store.

O'Brien asked Hilger if he would consider a retaining wall on the north and east. The planting will be planted about six feet above the existing grade. Hilger responded he did not see the necessity for a retaining wall. Natural grading helps drainage more effectively. O'Brien outlined how the berm and retaining wall would work. Hilger stated he would consider either a flat area and retaining wall or a berm. Hilger pointed out the drainage problem is not caused by the site. A larger drainage issue exists in the area. Hilger stated he was concerned about drainage.

Terry Gillman, 2298 Rice Creek Road, stated the proposed business will bring in more traffic than the old filling station. Why would Hollywood Video want to come into a neighborhood where it is not wanted? There is residential property on two sides of the site. Gillman stated she was concerned about drainage and the proposed business hours.

Schiferl asked Gillman if, assuming Hollywood Video builds the store without the Special Use Permit, she would prefer evergreens to the deciduous vegetation on the east side. Gillman stated the site sits below her property, so evergreens may not offer any screening from the lights. Livingston asked Gillman if she preferred the reverse plan. Gillman answered it was hard to choose between looking at the back of a building or having light shining into her home. Gillman said there may be less noise if the building faced west, but she would rather not see any building there.

The resident at 2455 Mounds, stated drainage, lighting, and hours of operation are the key issues. Noise will be a problem when residents windows are open. A retaining wall on the north side would be a good idea. Either orientation would put headlights in the windows of the homes on Mounds.

A resident said there are many video stores in New Brighton; how many do we need? Livingston responded that is not the question under consideration.

Ellie Skare, 2412 Mounds Avenue, stated she was concerned about young people congregating at the video store. The hours of operation will create opportunities for vandalism.

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

Livingston asked Larson to comment on the drainage. Larson said the City should study the problem of excessive amounts of water draining from the Salem Baptist Church site. The City can ensure that water from the Hollywood Video site does not drain to neighboring property. Larson said the Comp Plan Task Force recommended the area east of Silver Lake Road be zoned B-1. Larson said he agreed with the Task Force's recommendation.

Schiferl stated he would like to have the developer withdraw the application. Hilger responded he did not wish to withdraw the application. Hilger stated that even though there is a recommendation to rezone the site, he stated the owner, Ashland Oil, would vigorously oppose such rezoning. Hilger stated the only issue to be decided this evening is the granting of a Special Use Permit for the parking setback. The rest of the application conforms to the requirements of the present zoning. The applicant has offered the reverse site plan. Hilger asked the Commission to favorably consider the setback request in view of precedents which have been set in New Brighton.

O'Brien stated that he was on the Task Force that recommended the property be rezoned to B-1. However, that action has not been taken. O'Brien commented he wished the zoning was B-1; however, the application is appropriate for the B-3 zoning. Zisla stated he did not think the Special Use Permit would not be approved by the Commission. Zisla stated berming should be seriously considered.

The Commission discussed the procedural options available to the Commission.

Hilger stated that Hollywood Video would be amenable to reviewing the landscape plan, a plan for a berm, and the drainage plan with the City Engineer, the City Planner and any interested neighbors. The review could be made part of the approval conditions.

A resident expressed concern about a soil compactor causing damage to the homes. Hilger answered there are many types of compactors and there would probably not be any damage to the neighboring homes.

Zisla asked if Hilger was saying "probably not" or that no damage would be done. Zisla stated there was a huge difference between probably not and no. Hilger stated he could not answer that question with assurance. A geotechnical engineer would probably say there would be none.

Motion by Schopf, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend approval of LP-354 and VN-323, subject to conditions.

The Commission discussed the conditions outlined in the planning report.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Zisla, to amend the motion to limit the hours of operation to 10:00 pm and eliminate condition #5.

6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Garage Setback Variance	Randall Rein

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a front yard setback variance for the purpose of constructing a detached garage at 575 2nd Avenue NW.

Livingston said this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

Randall Rein reviewed the site plan and outlined the site difficulties. Livingston asked if the present attached garage is a single or double garage. Rein responded the garage is a single garage. Rein is requesting a variance to build an additional double garage. Livingston asked if Rein would put in a concrete driveway, making two driveways. Rein answered affirmatively, and showed the location of the drives on the plan.

Schiferl asked how the request constitutes an undue hardship, which is required for approval of the variance. There are homes in the neighborhood with single car garages where a double car garage could not be constructed. Schiferl stated he was concerned about a precedent being established. Technically, there must be an undue hardship.

Teague responded that, in his opinion, denying the request would be denying Rein a reasonable use of his property. Zisla stated that the standard for new development in New Brighton requires two-car garages. Zisla stated the request is like any other setback variance. The City accepted SuperAmerica's argument that the store would be too small to be viable without a setback variance. The argument could be make that a single-car garage is not economically viable.

Teague said the shape of the lot is a unique and the circumstances concerning the road is unique. It would be difficult to compare this lot to another lot. O'Brien stated this would be a reasonable use of Mr. Rein's property.

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

In answer to a question by Zisla, Teague said he visited the site today and determined that a 10 foot setback variance would be consistent with the neighborhood. Rein said the utility lines are a consideration in the setback. The Commission and Rein discussed the site difficulties.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, to recommend approval of VN-324 subject to conditions, with the possible altering of Condition #1 to 7 feet, after review by Staff and the applicant prior to the City Council meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review	Freeway Towing

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the purpose of constructing a new facility for Freeway Towing at 501 5th Street SW.

In answer to a question from Livingston, Teague said the applicant would be required to come before the Planning Commission again before he builds the second building.

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

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

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schmitz, to recommend approval of SP-214 and LP-356 subject to conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Planned Unit Development (amendment)	Industrial Equities

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development for Industrial Equities for the purpose of adding an additional site. The subject property is located at the intersection of 5th Avenue NW and 1st Street NW.

John Allen, the applicant, stated the site is a difficult site. Allen requested flexibility in the building design as the tenant needs are not final. Allen stated Industrial Equities would like to stay with the 25-foot setback off 1st Street NW. The green area would be 40 feet from the curb to the building. Since the site faces the railroad, Allen asked that the road and parking area could go to the property line. This would make more parking possible and would enhance the use of the site. Allen asked that the Commission waive the provision for a Letter of Credit or bond to ensure the landscaping, paving, etc. Allen stated he has developed 800,000 square feet in New Brighton; Industrial Equities has never been asked to post a bond during the ten years it has been building in the City. Allen reviewed the proposed site plan and the site limitations. The City has requested that Industrial Equities include the fifth building in the redevelopment project. Allen said that is the reason Industrial Equities is requesting some flexibility for developing the site. The plan Teague showed this evening is close to the end product. Allen reviewed the site plan.

Livingston asked how many extra parking stalls would be made possible by the setback variance off 1st. Allen answered 15 to 20 more parking stalls.

Schiferl asked Allen to review his reasons for requesting flexibility in the building design and setback. Allen reviewed the proposed site plan. Allen pointed out that the building would still be 40 feet from the curb with a wide green area.

Zisla asked Teague for comments on the setback variance. Teague responded that the City amended the Code to allow flexibility in the front yard setback, as the City did in the Ordway development. The City's Streetscape Plan goes down to 5th Avenue. The plan may include some additional sidewalk from 1st to Old Highway 8. That would provide grounds for allowing the flexibility requested by Industrial Equities. The new provision in the Code allows that flexibility.

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

Motion by Schopf, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend approval of amended PUD-6 & LP-357, subject to conditions in the planning report and removing condition #9, which requires a Letter of Credit or bond.

Schiferl asked about the history of the bond or Letter of Credit. Teague stated inclusion of the requirement for a bond or Letter of Credit is the standard practice for developments in the City; however, Industrial Equities has never been required to post a bond or Letter of Credit. The City has never had a problem with Industrial Equities. Schiferl asked if omitting the condition would set a precedent. Allen pointed out the Redevelopment Agreement does not call for a bond. Schiferl asked if the zero lot line should be added to the conditions in the motion. Teague responded affirmatively.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by to add Condition #9 to allow for a zero lot line setback along the railroad property. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

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

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague stated the amendment is exactly the same as in the concept review. Teague reviewed his memo on the amendment.

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

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schmitz, to recommend adoption of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business - None

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by sf, to adjourn the meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner