Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting August 17, 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, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Eugene Delaune, Chair of Comprehensive Plan Task Force

Brad Scheib, The Hoisington Koegler Group

Approval of Minutes

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

Report on Council Action

Teague extended Council Liaison, Steve Larson's apologies for not being able to attend the meeting. Larson was doing the play by play for the Grundge Softball game held in conjunction with Stockyard Days.

Teague reported the City Council approved the Freeway Towing request.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Nonconforming User Permit & Site Plan Review	Houwman Architects/Mir Ali

Baker called the public hearing to order. The item was a request for consideration of a nonconforming use permit and site plan review for constructing a 43-unit apartment building at 219-221 Old Highway 8 NW. The applicant has requested the item be continued to the September Planning Commission meeting. Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on that issue. No one responded.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schmitz, to continue the public hearing to the September Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague introduced Gene Delaune, Chair of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force established to draft an updated Comprehensive Plan. Teague also introduced Brad Scheib from the Hoisington Koegler Group, the consultants who helped draft the Plan.

Delaune gave a presentation on the Task Force and the process the Task Force employed to update the Comprehensive Plan.

Scheib stated The Hoisington Koegler Group is a planning and urban design firm, specializing in comprehensive plans. Scheib described the difference between a Zoning Ordinance and a Comprehensive Plan. A comprehensive plan is an overview of the goals of a city. A zoning ordinance defines the specifics for each site within a zoning district. The zoning ordinance is a legal tool that implements a comprehensive plan. The zoning ordinance reflects decisions that the City has already made. A unique difference exists between a comprehensive plan and a zoning ordinance, though they can be similar.

Scheib reviewed the key points of the updated comprehensive plan. Scheib stated the Vision Plan was the guide to the entire process.

Land Use - 5.1–5.20

Existing Land Use - 5.1–5.4

Scheib reviewed a graph outlining a report by the Wilder Foundation on aging and maturing populations. The demographics have driven the development of the community. The graph illustrated that more senior housing and more assisted living housing will be needed in the future to adapt to the population changes. Besides looking at trends, Hoisington looked at physical patterns such as land use maps and topography maps. The freeway system dividing New Brighton was also taken into consideration.

Future Land Use - 5.5–5.15

The future land use does not change extensively. Task Force created a Land Use Category called, "City Center." This land use area would be on both sides of I-694, including the Northwest Quadrant. The Northwest Quadrant is a section where redevelopment will be the focus in the years to come. The new land use category would be more compatible with the Regional Park area. The area will be a mixed use area with places to live, shop, for recreation, and to work. The area will be pedestrian-friendly. The area will have compact, higher density development than other areas in the City and will be supported by mass transit. This was a theme expressed in the Old Highway 8 Corridor Study.

Potential Redevelopment Areas - 5.17–5.20

These areas were identified in the Old Highway 8 Corridor Study and are primarily focused along Old Highway 8. The aging strip centers and shopping malls are indicated. The Plan recommends that these uses evolve. Redevelopment is a tool used to create the Vision and restore areas that have a negative impact on the community. Scheib reviewed Figure 5 - 3, Potential Redevelopment Areas (Old Highway 8 Corridor Study).

Environmental Protection - 7.1–7.6

The section acknowledges Rice Creek as an environmental corridor. Ways to preserve water quality and the environmental features along the Creek are identified in the environmental protection element in the Comprehensive Plan.

Urban Design Principles - Appendix C

Design principles are defined that will help shape the urban development of a certain area. Setbacks, building heights and the like are talked about in this section of the Plan. Scheib reviewed the criteria set out in the section. The subject was put into the Plan as an Appendix so that it can be used as a resource and guide to apply to redevelopment areas.

Housing - 6.1–6.14

The Housing Chapter is required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Regional government is interested in affordability in housing and making certain that communities in the Metro area provide such housing. New Brighton's housing stock is aging. The population gain was largely in the 1960's. Ensuring the quality of housing in New Brighton is the focus of the Housing section of the Plan. Maintaining the existing housing stock would include the apartment stock. Most of the apartment units were built in the late '60's and early '70's. Because these buildings are older, the units can be considered affordable housing stock. The quality of the apartment buildings must be maintained.

In summary, New Brighton has a life cycle housing chain. First, New Brighton has smaller, single family homes and apartments. Next are the larger, single family homes. Finally, New Brighton has apartment and townhouse units for the retirement years. New Brighton lacks upper-end apartment units. New Brighton needs to focus on in-fill development to provide the housing types the City lacks. The City center area is a place for such redevelopment.

Parks and Recreation System Plan - Appendix A

An overview of the Parks and Recreation System is included in the Comprehensive Plan. One chapter talks about the available land and how the needs of the community are being met. According to the National Park and Recreation standards, the City of New Brighton has enough park land to meet the standard for its population.

Demographics are changing. New Brighton is changing from a community of young people to a mature community. In view of the demographic changes, changes in the use of park facilities is possible. More trails and adult recreation activities will be needed in the future. The parks are becoming a neighborhood focus as a gathering place.

Transportation Plan - 8.1–8.15

Because New Brighton is part of a region, New Brighton relies on regional roadways. Future projections show that I-694 and I-35W will be over capacity. The Met Council is encouraging mixed use, high density areas to concentrate development within the Met area, rather than creating urban sprawl to outlying communities. Redevelopment will put extra stress on the existing roadways. The local roadway system must also be taken into account. Creating other connections over the freeways could alleviate the problem. Traffic that is not going to enter the freeway system could cross the freeways without using the freeway.

New Brighton can encourage flexible work schedules, car pooling and van pooling, walkways and bike trails to reduce peak period congestion.

The section on transportation system management outlines physical improvements to the roadways. Traffic calming is discussed in this section of the Plan. Traffic calming is a way to reduce the number and severity of accidents by altering the character or the physical design of the roadway to slow traffic. A series of strategies is listed in that section.

Community Facilities - 9.1–9.40

This section deals with the sanity sewer system and the water supply system. The section was developed by the City Engineer and the City's engineering consultant, Barr Engineering. New Brighton is 50 percent under capacity. Redevelopment of the Northwest Quadrant will add capacity; however, New Brighton will still be within the required limits.

Surface Water Management Plan - Appendix B

This section deals with strategies to handle stormwater runoff and preserving the water quality in the lakes. This section was also developed by the City Engineer and Barr Engineering.

Implementation

The section outlines a variety of tools that can be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The central tool is the Zoning Ordinance, which is required by law. The section recommends a few minor changes in the Zoning Ordinance.

Other strategies such as redevelopment planning, master planning, or neighborhood planning could be considered. The previous Comprehensive Plan broke the community into neighborhood groups, which were bound by physical boundaries. Those boundaries were not necessarily the boundaries the residents considered their neighborhood boundaries. New Brighton might look at those neighborhoods and reconsider the boundaries.

Scheib asked for questions from the Planning Commission. Zisla referred to Section 5.7, and asked about the section marked in green. Livingston stated it is church property and is not available for general use by the residents. Teague stated the area should have been designated "Public or Quasi-Public." Livingston suggested that the area where the Public Works garage is located be designated "Public or Quasi-Public." Zisla asked if the City plans to covert that site to a park. Teague stated the City has no immediate plans for the site.

Zisla asked if a conflict between current land use and projected land use would exist in areas other than in the Old Highway 8 Corridor area.

Teague outlined the four major changes in the new Comprehensive Plan:

Service station on Long Lake Road just south of the high school. The Task Force recommended that the site be designated as Neighborhood Business. Baker stated he thought a gas station had to be located in a B-2 district. Teague responded a gas station would be a B-3 zoning. Baker stated the gas station is nonconforming currently. Teague stated the thought was to make the station work under a neighborhood business designation.

New Brighton Road - current beauty salon. The existing Comprehensive Plan calls for single family homes there. The Task Force recommended designating that site as neighborhood business to be consistent with the existing use.

Silver Lake Road and Rice Creek Road, the northeast quadrant of the intersection, which is across from the new SuperAmerica. Construction will begin soon on the Hollywood Video Store. The existing Comprehensive Plan calls for General Business; the proposed change is for Limited Business, which is more suited for office uses.

Old Highway 8 (turns to the west, where Tom Thumb is located). That site is part of a redevelopment proposal, which will be some type of high density residential use.

Zisla asked if those were the areas where inconsistencies between the current land use and the Comprehensive Plan designation exist. Zisla asked if Hollywood Video begins life as a new building that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Teague responded Hollywood Video is currently consistent with the Plan; under the recommended zoning change, it becomes inconsistent with the plan.

Zisla referred to page 5.11. Zisla suggested considering reducing neighborhood business lots to less than four to six acres rather than eight acres. Scheib stated typical neighborhood businesses are five to ten acres in size. The nature of video stores needs to be clarified. Zisla referred to page 5.12. Zisla suggested that "banking establishments" should be removed under the definition of Limited Business because of the traffic generated. Baker agreed with Zisla. Zisla stated he is not comfortable with the definitions of "spot zoning" and "strip zoning." If an area is not designated for commercial use by the Comprehensive Plan, then it would not be zoned for commercial use. The definitions should be rephrased.

Baker referred to page 5.16, under solar access protection. The verbiage may sound good, but how can the Planning Commission administer such an item. For example, if Dairy Queen had a solar panel on the roof, would that have precluded SuperAmerica from building where it did? The SuperAmerica proposal complied with the Code. Teague responded that SuperAmerica's proposal would still comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Baker stated it seems like bad planning to include a requirement in the Comprehensive Plan that cannot be administered. Scheib asked if Baker was saying solar panels are not allowed. Baker stated the item calls for "protection of existing solar collectors." How can these collectors be protected without a strict ordinance? Baker stated the City is trying to get higher density in some areas; this item is not compatible with that goal. Scheib stated the issue is a site planning issue. Zisla stated then, in effect, no building can be south of another building. Baker agreed with Zisla.

Scheib stated that is not the intent of the item. The Planning Commission would look at distance and angle of sunlight during the site planning process. Zisla stated that this item could be construed as a policy that creates shade easements. Baker asked what would have happened if Dairy Queen had put a solar panel in the ground next to their building. Would that have forced SuperAmerica to build 50 feet from the lot line? The Comprehensive Plan could be used as a tool to block development. Scheib stated he did not believe this policy would restrict development. Baker stated he objected to the wording of the item. It is too strong. Scheib agreed with Baker.

Delaune stated he would rather look at points 1, 2, and 3 together. No 1 says "protect" and No. 3 says "prohibit."

Baker stated that, as a member of the Planning Commission for the last twenty years, this language will be used by those who wish to block development. This is very firm language. The language has to be lightened to serve as a guide and not to prohibit development.

Zisla stated he did not believe the Council should adopt the Plan with Item #3 included, unless a demonstration with the appropriate models is included. If the Council wants a recommendation from the Planning Commission to adopt the Comprehensive Plan as the law of the community, Zisla stated he would be absolutely against it. This item should not be adopted unless it can be shown not to have an adverse effect on development.

Baker referred to 6.11, which talks about in-fill development, "encourage housing development on underutilized, undeveloped, or skipped over lots." Baker stated that the development on Old Highway 8 that replaced older houses with new townhomes would not be "consistent with the style and type of housing in the surrounding neighborhood." That development was a positive development, but would not fit with the language of 6.11.

Scheib stated that the policy outlined in 6.11 is a general, conceptual guide that is flexible and leaves room for interpretation. The policies in the Comprehensive Plan are meant to be general. The statement in 6.11 is simply to encourage consistency with the housing styles. What that means is open to interpretation. The zoning ordinance is the "law." Scheib stated the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a general, visionary guide. Hoisington Koegler may have been too specific in certain areas, such as the solar access point.

Zisla stated that Minnesota law clearly states that when an applicant comes in for a conditional use permit the applicant must meet the criteria outlined in the Planning Commission's finding. For example, if the Planning Commission finds ten criteria, of which the applicant complies with nine criteria, it is a matter of law that the permit cannot be granted. Perhaps the language should be reworked. For instance, the language should be changed to take out "protect" and replace it with "Encourage the protection of existing..."

Baker stated that, if New Brighton does not have spot zoning, and a site is zoned appropriately for the neighborhood, that is all that is necessary.

Zisla said that, although the Commission is going over some changes, the overall Plan is well done. Zisla referred to page 5.13, #8. Take out "require" and replace it with "encourage developers to comply with..." Zisla referred to #10 and suggested "require" be replaced with "encourage."

Baker referred to references to environmental laws. Zisla asked why employers are asked to do certain things. Scheib stated the policy was included in response to air and noise quality concerns. The MPCA regulates these items. Zisla stated it is not that simple. Zisla stated he knew of a case in another city, concerning a land use decision, where there is a question of who enforces the environmental standards. That city's position is that is the job of the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). This one will need some work. Zisla said he did not think the City wanted to get specific at all.

Scheib stated that the Planning Commission must decide whether to revise these points or scrap them from the plan. Delaune stated the Planning Commission must understand where the Task Force was coming from when the plan was formulated. Then, the Commission can make specific modifications.

Teague stated that he did not think the City wanted to get into the position of enforcing MPCA regulations. Statements #8 and #10 could be changed to "Encourage developments to comply with environmental performance standards." For instance, the approval process typically involves Rice Creek Watershed District review. "Requiring a high level of aesthetic quality and design"could be changed to "require that all developments meet the City's performance standards."

Scheib stated he felt it was simply a policy statement. Scheib stated the Commission's clarifications make good sense.

Baker asked for comments from the audience. D. L. Beach, the owner of Long Lake Service, stated his property was being considered for spot zoning. Beach referred to page 5.12 where the statement is made regarding disallowing spot zoning. Beach stated this item puzzled him because the Task Force adopted this Comprehensive Plan. Beach stated that his business has the overwhelming support from the neighborhood to have his property rezoned to a business zoning. If the Plan is adopted, the process for changing the zoning is thrown to the winds. The Commission is not considering the neighborhood. Beach said his business was a part of the neighborhood. The continued existence of the business requires a zoning change. The neighbor's wishes should be taken into consideration.

Ken Holberg, resident on Erin Court, stated that he attended the planning event on April 22. The community gave their input on the Plan. What was done with this input? Was any of the input incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan? The input regarding parks was extensive.

Scheib responded the urban design principles were discussed at the planning event. Comments from the planning event were applied to the design principles. From these comments, the Silver Lake Road area as well as City Center was defined as the "Main Street area."

Schopf asked about Map 5.7. All the railroad right-of-ways have been removed. Was that intentional? Scheib stated that it was intentional. The Plan says that by 2020 those right-of-ways will not be used. Schopf said he thought there was a 30-year contract for the coal trains to use the right-of-way. Teague stated the Plan assumes these right-of-ways will not be used after 2020. Schopf asked, if the right-of- ways did go away, would County Road E2 go through. Teague stated that would be a transportation issue.

Zisla stated that he did not see anything in the Plan that was specific to a particular park. Scheib stated the Park section was included as an appendix. Several Commissioners said it was not included in their copies of the Plan. The Task Force and the Park Board strongly recommended the section be included in the Comprehensive Plan. If the Planning Commission approves the Comprehensive Plan, the appendices are also approved.

Scheib stated that he did not think that making the corrections suggested this evening on the spot was possible. Scheib stated Hoisington would need more time to go back and consider tonight's suggestions and comments. Delaune stated he would be comfortable with Scheib's suggestions. Teague stated the Met Council's deadline is December 31. Delaying approval until the September meeting would be possible.

Zisla stated he may or may not agree with Beach's comments. However, Beach's approach is a fair one. Beach stated there is strong community support for his Plan. Beach should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that support. Once the Comprehensive Plan is approved, Beach's property must then be rezoned. Livingston stated the City has the petition signed by the neighbors. Teague stated there would be a public hearing for a rezoning of Beach's property.

Schopf stated there could be legal significance in the Comprehensive Plan. Was the City Attorney involved in reviewing the Plan? Scheib stated that, regarding the legal significance of the Comprehensive Plan, it is up to the Courts to interpret any legal questions arising from the Plan. According to State Statutes, the Comprehensive Plan is the underlying tool. Baker stated the language should be in the Plan to avoid Court decisions. Zisla stated he did not want to approve a Plan that invites Court decisions. Baker stated there needs to be good language to protect everyone.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to continue the public hearing to the September Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Teague said he would send a copy of the Parks Plan to each of the Planning Commissioners.

Holberg referred to page 2.1, "the goal of having a diverse population." The language excludes race from the profile of diversity. Zisla asked if "race" was left out inadvertently. Scheib stated he considered "ethnic" similar to "race." Holberg stated race and ethnicity are two different things.

General Business - None

Announcements and Updates

Teague stated that he had not heard from Corporate Express, which was continued at the August meeting.

Adjourn

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

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner