Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - February 15, 2000

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:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Char Samuelson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to approve the minutes of the December 21, 1999, and the January 18, 2000, Planning Commission meetings. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Actions

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

General Business

Site Plan Review (Totem Pole, Sunny Square, Freedom and Hanson Park)	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning site plan review for reconstructing park shelters at Totem Pole, Sunny Square, Freedom and Hanson Parks.

Zisla asked Anderson if it he knew what the school has in mind in the Freedom Park parking lot area. Anderson said that at the easterly end of the existing parking lot is a cul-de-sac that would serve as a student drop-off site. The purpose of the cul-de-sac is to eliminate congestion between busses and cars. The situation is very dangerous now. The City and the school district have almost a symbiotic relationship in that park and school complex.

Zisla asked if the parking lot between the building and the proposed cul-de-sac will be eliminated. Anderson answered negatively; it would be for staff parking.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of LP-361 subject to submittal and review and approval of landscape plans by the City Forester. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. 1 Abstention (O'Brien). Motion Carried.

Public Hearings

Ordinance Amendment to Section 4-040 & 4-140, Regarding Floor Area Ratio	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning an Ordinance Amendment regarding the City's 30 percent floor area ratio requirement within the R-1 and R-1A, Residential Zoning Districts.

Schiferl asked if the impervious surface issue would affect homes, like those along Silver Lake Road, with driveway turnarounds. Teague answered he did not look at those lots specifically, and did not know if that would be an issue for them or not. Schiferl said he would be more comfortable if Teague were to check on these turnarounds. O'Brien stated that lots on busy roads like Silver Lake Road should probably be an exception to the amendment to facilitate turnarounds. Schiferl said that the lots might be big enough and it will not matter.

Baker said the first example in the report would exceed the recommendation. Baker stated that there may be several one-story homes that exceed 25 percent.

Zisla said he understood the building coverage is 25 percent of the lot. However, does this amendment consider one-story homes? Baker wondered how three-season porch additions would affect the proposed amendment. Zisla stated that problem would never be encountered by using 30 percent. Why is the Planning Commission talking about 25 percent? Baker stated not creating nonconforming uses was the reason for the amendment.

Zisla asked what is the significance of the examples of the ordinances of other cities. Baker said he thought 30 percent may be too much when looking at St. Anthony has up to 35 percent. When driving through St. Anthony, the 35 percent does not seem to be a problem.

Teague stated the Commission could recommend that the lot coverage could be changed to 30 percent in the proposed amendment.

Baker said he was not in favor of 25 percent because that would mean many existing homes would be nonconforming. Zisla said the 30 percent rationale was developed on the basis that basements did not count. Baker stated that, if the ordinance goes to 30 percent, the impervious percentage will have to be higher. Five percent is not enough for a driveway. Zisla asked what material supports 35 percent for the impervious surface. Teague responded that impervious surface is not a big issue in New Brighton. New Brighton has a driveway width maximum, so a front yard could not be paved. In a sense, the driveway width takes care of the impervious surface requirement.

Schiferl asked if there is a requirement that applies to turnarounds. Teague responded that a drive would have a maximum width of 36 feet. Baker asked why the City is considering impervious surface requirements. Teague stated because it is part of the lot coverage requirements. Zisla asked if New Brighton currently has a limit. Could a resident pave over the entire lot? Is there anything in the code relating to impervious surfaces? Teague responded negatively. Schiferl asked if four-car garages be allowed. Teague said the driveway with maximum may discourage that. Baker said two-level garages would be discouraged by an impervious surface limit.

Schmitz asked if the City Engineer has had an opportunity to review the item regarding drainage concerns. Teague responded negatively, but that would be a good idea. Schiferl said that input from the City Engineer would be appropriate from a stormwater drainage standpoint.

Zisla stated he was not comfortable picking a percentage for impervious surfaces without facts on which to base it. Why impose a regulation if a problem does not exist? Baker stated he would be concerned about not arriving at an impervious surface percentage. However, it would not be a good thing to set so strict a requirement that most of the homes in the City would be nonconforming.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to continue the public hearing to the March Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Ordinance Amendment to Section 4-040 & 4-140, regarding Front Yard Setback	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning an ordinance amendment regarding the City's 30-foot front yard setback requirement within the R-1 and R-1A, Residential Zoning Districts.

Baker asked if the present ordinance includes front steps in the 30-foot setback. Teague responded negatively. Baker stated it seems the City's intent is to make an added entryway possible. What if an owner wants to add onto the front of the garage? Teague responded such an addition would be limited to 12 feet in width.

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

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment concerning the City's 30-foot front yard setback, reflecting the change in wording to "principal" structure. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Site Plan Review	Bel Air Builders

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning replacing a temporary weigh scale trailer with a permanent structure at Bel Air Builders, 2200 Old Highway 8 NW.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of LP-361 subject to continuing compliance with LP-259 and SP-164. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates

Teague handed out a memo regarding the I-35W Corridor Coalition, which consists of community development directors from the seven community area. The Coalition is suggesting that planning commissions attend a seminar to discuss issues along the Corridor. The seminar is planned for March 29 at the Shoreview City Hall, at 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. Teague asked the Commissioners to check their calendars.

Adjourn

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

The meeting was adjourned.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner