Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - September 21, 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, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Jeff Schopf

Also Present:	Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development

Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, to approve the minutes of the August 17, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Agenda Review

Baker commented the agenda had been amended prior to the meeting.

Public Hearings

Comprehensive Plan Amendment (continued)	City of New Brighton

Teague suggested the Commission review the items on which the Planning Commission suggested changes. Teague stated that the Planning Commission's goal for this meeting was to recommend that the City Council approve the plan. The formal presentation of the Plan will be made at the next Council meeting.

Teague referred to the agenda packet and reviewed the changes to the Plan. Zisla referred to Page 5.13, Policy #5. The language is uncertain and unclear. The wording should be changed to "encourage." Page 5.16, Policy #1, refers to "alternative" energy sources–alternative to what? The policy should be rewritten and made clearer. Teague stated the intent of the language was to encourage solar energy. The policy is a requirement of the Met Council. Zisla asked if Statute required such language. Teague responded negatively. The policy in the Met Council Planning Handbook states that cities should consider solar access. It is not mandated that cities must pass an ordinance to ensure solar access. Zisla said the City could consider the policy and decide against it. Baker suggested that Policy #2 should also be changed to "encourage."

Schiferl referred to Page 5.13. Schiferl stated the City should not be involved in encouraging compliance with Met Council regulations. Schiferl said he felt that language should be eliminated; "encourage" is too weak a word. Schiferl referred to the discussion from the August meeting on 5.12, Policy 2. Schiferl stated the policy should stand. Schiferl commented that the definition of "spot zoning" could have been the reason the Commission had a problem with the policy. Schiferl stated he liked the concept of that item. Baker stated he liked the idea of discouraging "spot zoning." The wording was "disallow," which implies a direct and specific action. The term "discourage" would give the City some leeway. Baker stated the word "disallow" was the basis for the discussion at the August meeting. Zisla stated his objection was to the term "spot zoning," which is an undefined term. How big is a spot?

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

Jerry Hartlaub, 2133 Erin Court, asked how many Commission members have read the detail. Hartlaub said he assumed the Commission worked on a policy level and not the detail. Baker responded he had read the details of the Comprehensive Plan. Baker stated he was involved in framing the first Comprehensive Plan and was knowledgeable about the Plan. Hartlaub asked if the document showed traceability to citizen input. Baker stated the new Comprehensive Plan was predicated on input from the neighborhood meetings. Hartlaub stated he attended a couple meetings where notes were taken. Baker said he could not respond to that.

Teague stated the consultant and the staff took notes. The consultant used much of that input to formulate the policies. Hartlaub stated his point was that, if the City is creating the Plan based on citizen input, the City should refer to the input in the Plan. Baker stated that citizen input was not the only consideration upon which the Plan is based. Hartlaub stated that a record of all the meetings held and the notes should be made available. Baker cited the example of public hearings; the testimony of the public is not the only basis for the Planning Commission's decision. Hartlaub stated that conclusions were reached at the neighborhood and public meetings and the reader cannot tell whether these conclusions were used in the Comprehensive Plan.

Teague stated the consultant created a summary of the comments from the neighborhood events and included them in a summary document that the Task Force reviewed in detail. That material is on file and is available for review by Mr. Hartlaub. Hartlaub said holding meetings is very easy; was this detail used in the Comprehensive Plan?

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

Motion by Zisla to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update with the inclusion of the three changes outlined by the City Planner.

In response to a request from Zisla, Teague reviewed the three changes. In response to Baker's request for a second to the floor motion, Livingston so moved.

Zisla asked that the record show that he read the plan and the detail. Zisla stated he was puzzled about the question on the handling of the citizens' input. Specific issues or problems with a point in the Plan should be articulated and addressed as part of the planning process. The reason for this public hearing is to deal with specific problems. Not hearing any specific problems, Zisla said he was inclined to vote for approval.

Livingston stated he has been involved in the process for three Comprehensive Plans. Livingston said he was also involved with the park planning hearing. Many neighbors attended that meeting and their comments were entered in the record. Citizen comment is definitely reflected in the Plan.

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

Nonconforming Use Permit & Site Plan Review (continued)	Houman Architects/Mir Ali

Teague stated the applicant has requested that their proposal be continued until the October Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has signed an extension to extend the request to 120 days. Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak during the public hearing for this item. No one responded.

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

Minor Subdivision	Beverly Foster

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request to divide an existing parcel located at 2679 15th Street NW into two parcels. Schiferl asked whether one or two new homes would be constructed. Teague responded one new home would be constructed.

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

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

Motion by Livingston, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend approval of PL-255, subject to conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Front Yard Setback Variance	Keith and Kristine Tussing

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for a front yard setback variance to construct a front entry way at 2046 Mississippi Circle. Baker asked if the applicant wished to talk about his request.

Keith Tussing directed attention to the picture of the present home and a sketch of the proposed addition. Tussing described the current floor plan and the proposed floor plan. Tussing also explained the new entry would solve heating and heat loss problems. Tussing submitted a petition signed by the neighbors supporting the Tussings' proposal. Tussing stated that precedents have been set that would allow for this addition. Tussing stated such variance requests will increase as the City's housing stock ages. Tussing thanked Teague and the Commission for their consideration.

Baker stated that, at first glance, a 1.13 foot variance seems insignificant. Regarding setting a precedent, hundreds of homes in New Brighton have the same type of setback. Any homeowner who wants to add to their entry would require a variance. Baker stated he sympathized with the homeowner's point of view, but he leaned more toward staff's recommendation for denial.

Schiferl stated that he completely agreed with staff's opinion. Mr. Tussing's presentation brought up several issues. Clearly, the City should reconsider the 30-foot setback. Would a 25-foot setback be as acceptable as the 30-foot setback? Updating the housing stock in New Brighton is very important. Schiferl stated he would deny the Tussings' variance request, but would ask the City Council to direct the Planning Commission to reconsider setbacks.

Zisla said he could not see any reason from the public's point of view why a 30-foot setback is the correct number. The precedent goes both ways. Zisla said he would not be concerned with setting a precedent if it reflects a good policy decision. Many homes like the Tussings were built in New Brighton, which suggests that something is wrong with the setback requirement. The Planning Commission has always supported residents' efforts to upgrade their property.

Baker said that his home was near in the Tussings and was built further back than the front yard setback. Public testimony at many public hearings would support adhering to the setback requirement. Schiferl stated that becomes a philosophical argument. There is a fine line between some degree of consistency and the broader issue of allowing residents to update their homes. Zisla said he agreed with Schiferl that the setback requirement should be reconsidered. The problem for the Tussings is that, in the meantime, their project cannot proceed.

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

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

Livingston said the City would have a problem in the future with the 30-foot setback because few residents can remodel the front of their homes. Livingston asked Tussing about the cost of the proposed entry. Tussing responded he had spent more than $2,000 to date for the architect; the project will cost $25,000. Livingston said, speaking as an appraiser, the Tussings house will not appreciate by $25,000. The improvement will make the home more saleable and will add to the appearance. Livingston stated he was willing to recommend approval of the variance, although such approval may set a precedent. Zisla said, if the Commission recommends approval, the eaves should be included.

Zisla asked for staff comments regarding design characteristics in an older community. Teague responded the 30-foot setback is standard throughout the area. Some special zoning districts with smaller lots may have a 25-foot setback. New Brighton is lenient about side yard and rear setbacks, which provides opportunities for additions to be built on the sides and rear. Schiferl commented in some areas of the City the houses are not aligned perfectly. Zisla asked Schiferl if the variance should be granted on those grounds. Schiferl responded he had difficulty with the variance, but he felt bad for the applicants.

Zisla commented that the City must support its own standard. Baker stated that the City changed the corner side yard setback a few years ago. Baker stated he would support asking the Council to direct the Commission to reconsider setbacks. Livingston stated that is an issue separate from the Tussings' request.

O'Brien said the entry could be designed so the foundation does not exceed the setback by cantilevering it. Baker stated the Tussing addition may not conform to the ordinance if the eaves were taken into consideration. The Commissioners looked at the eaves on the plan. O'Brien stated the addition would probably conform with the requirement for the eaves.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of VN-235.

Zisla stated that Condition #6 should be changed to make it stronger. The precedent issue is relevant because the Commission must have legally supportable findings upon which to base its decisions. The decision cannot be based upon the applicant's presentation. Zisla asked if a reasonable use of the property means the ability to add a working front entryway. O'Brien answered affirmatively. Zisla stated the Tussings' request constitutes a reasonable use of their property. Livingston stated that the Tussings' addition would be an improvement to the overall neighborhood. Baker stated that argument could be applied to any request for an addition to a home. Zisla stated a functioning entryway can be considered an important element for a viable home. The terms of the ordinance should be modified to allow functioning entryways.

Baker stated Condition #7 of the resolution should be changed. After a brief discussion, the Commission changed Condition #7 to read:

"An entry way onto a home is a reasonable use of property, and if the City were to deny the request, that reasonable use would be denied, therefore, a hardship would be brought upon the applicant should the variance be denied."

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 4 Ayes - 2 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit	Keith McDonald/Brighton East LLC

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning consideration of constructing the parking lot for Ken's Market/office building with a 15-foot setback from a side street right-of-way.

Schiferl stated that, if the requirements in Section 8-130 are met, the City cannot deny the request. Teague answered affirmatively.

Livingston asked the applicant to explain the change. Keith McDonald, the applicant, responded the site would gain four more parking stalls and access to the lot would be easier. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

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

Baker stated the request would improve the entire property. Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend approval of SP-216, subject to conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Council Action

Council member Larson's report was deferred from the beginning of the meeting due to a plumbing problem in City Hall. Council member Larson and staff worked together to "stem the tide."

Larson reported that filings are closed for the City offices; the election will be November 2. Two candidates filed for the two-year Council position, created by the death of George Gregori. Ann Hoffman filled the seat after Gregori's death. According to the Statute, the person elected to that seat will take office November 3. Dan Dahms and Kim Moore-Sykes have filed for this Council seat. Three people have filed for the two four-year Council terms–Arly Gunderman, Ann Hoffman, and Walt Witzke. Three candidates have filed for Mayor- Dennis Guldan, Steve Larson and -Buck Tereau.

General Business

Zoning Ordinance Amendments	City of New Brighton

Teague stated the item was for general discussion. The goal is to consider the definition of "family" and to amend the section concerning lighting of off-street parking lots. Teague reviewed the planning report on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments.

Baker asked about the City's concern about too much light in the street from a parking lot. Have there been complaints about this? Teague responded the item comes from the Hollywood Video discussion. Baker stated he could not understand why the City would want to restrict lighting onto a public street. Teague responded Baker's point is correct; the City could only regulate lighting onto adjacent residential property. As noted in the survey of other cities, some cities only regulate lighting adjacent to residential property. Baker commented that this amendment required that lights be left on in a parking lot all the time.

Zisla stated that documenting the reasons for adopting a standard is appropriate. However, adopting a standard to be like other cities is not a good idea. Getting the opinions of the Police Department, architects, and other concerned people, would be appropriate.

Baker said that security lighting does not need to be as bright as lighting for a retail store. Concerning parking lots, Baker said he was concerned about the light going onto residential property. O'Brien stated staff should consult the State Energy Code about the maximum lighting allowed.

Zisla said there are compelling arguments for changing the definition of "family." Teague stated he would come back next month with information on the energy code and on the definition of "family."

Livingston asked Teague if he had a chance to research the requirements for the location of churches in other cities. Teague said he would do so as soon as possible. Livingston said the Planning Commission study requiring one parking space in a garage for each bedroom in apartment buildings to encourage quality new construction. Livingston asked the Commission for their thoughts. O'Brien replied that the environmental impact of requiring garages should be considered. Having vehicles on a property without a garage is not necessarily bad. Baker said one garage per unit was now required. Schiferl stated the Comp Plan identifies the need for higher-end apartment buildings. Would that be accomplished by requiring garages or by other means? Baker stated higher-end apartment buildings have more garages.

Zisla stated requiring underground parking is very expensive and is preventing development of housing downtown. Livingston stated that requiring more covered parking would increase the quality of construction. New Brighton has enough low-end units now. Livingston stated that is why he would recommend more covered parking.

Baker asked Teague to bring some background material on parking for apartment buildings to the Commission next month.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

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

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner