Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - March 21, 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, Norm Schiferl, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Jim O'Brien, David Schmitz,

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Char Samuelson, City Council Liaison

Report on Council Actions

Samuelson reported that the City is moving ahead with park shelters. The shelters will be upgraded to serve more as community centers than shelters.

New Brighton participated in the Housing Fair last weekend. The fair was well-attended. The Town Hall meeting is this coming Saturday, March 25, beginning at 8:30 a.m., at the Family Service Center.

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Agenda Review

Consideration of a letter submitted to the Planning Commission was added to "General Business."

Public Hearings

Planned Residential Development (PRD), Site Plan & Preliminary Plat	Houwman Architects/Mir Ali

Teague stated the applicants have requested that the item be continued to the April 18 Planning Commission meeting. Houwman Architects, on behalf of Mir Ali, is requesting the continuation because their plans are not yet final. Minor adjustments need to be made to the site plan and grading plan. Teague reviewed the history of the item.

Baker asked if anyone would like to speak on this item.

Orville Kraus, 1252 12th Avenue NW, said the current proposal looked better than the original proposal. Kraus said he understood the proposed townhouses would be owner-occupied. Kraus asked the Planning Commission's position on new apartment buildings in the City. Baker responded the Comprehensive Plan outlines the area zoned for multi-family housing. Currently, there are few multi-family vacant lots.

Teague stated the Jones Lake site is zoned for multi-family as is a site on 14th Street, north of the existing apartments north of Pike Lake School. Those two are the only vacant sites in the City zoned for multi-
family. The Northwest Quadrant consists of 100 acres and is zoned for mixed uses--commercial, retail, and residential. Apartments could be an element in that redevelopment area. The area of the Tom Thumb hill is also zoned multi-family.

Kraus thanked the Planning Commission for its time on this project and for the City of New Brighton. New Brighton is a good city and Kraus said he would like to see it stay that way. Kraus said he had talked with residents and the Council concerning the future in New Brighton. The future does not look really good at this point because the schools are being filled and we are seeing low-income housing coming into the City. Some of that housing that was decent is deteriorating. Undesirable people are coming in. Over one-third of New Brighton's housing is apartment and rental properties. When the senior citizens' complex by New Market is complete, and if these other projects are built, one-half of New Brighton could be multi-family. Kraus said that would be a problem for New Brighton. The best apartment building begins to deteriorate after fifteen years. Soon, New Brighton will be like Columbia Heights or Northeast Minneapolis. The City must be very careful with the type of apartments and that the existing apartments will be regulated to protect the citizens of New Brighton. There is a serious problem here, such as police calls and problems at the Family Service Center. The taxpayers should be safe at the Family Service Center. We have more than 1,200 signers to the petition regarding apartments. Kraus asked the Planning Commission to take a very serious look at the type of housing allowed in New Brighton. Kraus stated New Brighton is over its quota of low-income and subsidized housing. New Brighton should not build any more apartments and keep the existing ones regulated. The people in New Brighton do not want any more apartments and are very concerned about what is happening in our schools.

Livingston said he would like to respond to Kraus' comments. Kraus mentioned affordable housing. New Brighton has met the requirement set forth by the Metropolitan Council. New Brighton is lacking high-
end housing and is high in affordable housing. The problem is that the Comprehensive Plan sets the zoning. If a proposal comes to the City and the property is zoned for such a project, the Planning Commission must vote for approval or the applicant can sue the City, which it would likely lose. The Comprehensive Plan has recently been reviewed, rewritten, and adopted by the City and has been submitted to the Met Council. To comply with Kraus' request, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be changed. To change the Comprehensive Plan, Kraus should contact the Council. The Council would have to recommend that the Planning Commission review the Comp Plan.

Kraus responded he has let the Council know about his group's opposition to apartment buildings. Townhouses are not as big a problem. The residents on the south side of New Brighton are feeling insecure about apartments.

Schopf stated that property owners have rights. If a person owns a piece of property and it is zoned appropriate to a proposal, is it not unfair to such owners if there is a groundswell against it? Kraus responded that residents have not paid enough attention to zoning in the past. If a property is zoned mult-
family, not much can be done to block development. However, the property at Tom Thumb or in the Old Highway 8 Corridor has been rezoned. That rezoning is pending. Things have gotten carried away in Columbia Heights. The taxpayers have been paying three ways. First, they pay to develop the properties and to support programs to take care of the people in those multi-family developments. Third, the taxpayers of Columbia Heights have been paying to tear them down. Kraus said he did not want to see that situation here in New Brighton.

Schiferl stated that he wanted the record to show his answers to some of Kraus' issues. Kraus made statements about multi-family housing, "low" housing, and subsidized housing. Kraus also made statements about undesirable people. Schiferl said he disputed statements about rental housing. Schiferl's parents will be going into rental property in the area. There are many situations where rental housing is very desirable. Having an entire community that is only owner-occupied homes does not make sense. Picking on rental housing in general is not fair. Kraus also made a correlation between rental housing and "undesirable" people. Those are blanket statements and, as such, are dangerous statements. To get to the real issues, Kraus should be very specific about what he means.

Kraus said, in answer to the Commissioner's statement that he said there should be no apartments in the City, he did not say that. Kraus said that he had said that there has to be so much low-cost housing in the City. Kraus said there is more call for rental properties today more than ever. Senior citizens are going into rental properties in the senior citizen places.

Baker asked Kraus to make his comments short and not go off on a tangent.

Kraus stated that New Brighton has its quota of low housing and apartments. New Brighton has to look at what type of apartments or houses proposed to be built. There should be regulations on how this is to be handled. It is not a broad statement as to how much multi-family housing or senior housing units that this City can handle. New Brighton should not make a big business of it to see how many rental units we can get in here.

Baker asked if anyone else would like to speak.

Alma Stepanchak, 2180 27th Avenue NW, stated she moved to New Brighton more than twenty years ago because the education in the Mounds View School District was superior. Stepanchak stated her main concern is that the schools remain superior. By overcrowding with more apartment buildings, the schools will go beyond maximum capacity and result in problems. There should be a balance of all kinds of housing and is not an issue for her. Stepanchak said her concern was that the City takes a really close look at our schools and how they are being affected by building. If it takes, rezoning for the future to accommodate that, the City should look at that. The Planning Commission has done a great job in looking at developments. The Planning Commission should look at proposals from the standpoint of education, too.

Melissa Stephenson, a New Brighton resident, asked what would happen to the current structure on the site in question. Baker responded that the structure would remain on the site. Stephenson said she would like an explanation why that property has not been required to meet the codes of apartment living. Baker stated he did not know to what Stephenson referred. Stephenson asked Baker if he had visited the site. Baker responded affirmatively. Stephenson asked how Baker found the structure on the site. Baker responded he had not been in the structure. Stephenson asked how Baker found the exterior of the structure. Baker responded the structure was not the focus of his visit to the property. Stephenson said that, if the present structure remains on the property as-is, how will the new townhouses fit? Stephenson said she drove through the site and could not believe it was in New Brighton.

Stephenson stated she worked with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and said the current structure would never have passed there. Stephenson said there should be some accountability here. The new structures will soon look like the current one. Apartments are needed in the City. New Brighton should accommodate the needs of a whole spectrum of people. New Brighton does not need to tarnish this City with this proposal. Please consider the current condition of this property before any approval is made.

Teague said he could address some of Stephenson's statements. There are some nonconformities on that site. The Planning Commission, Staff, and the Council required them to meet the codes. These are the nonconformities:

Apartment must have one-stall enclosed garages. The applicants would construct detached garages. (Teague showed the location of the garages on the site plan.)

The code requires perimeter curbing around the entire site. The applicant would be bringing the parking lot into conformance with the code by installing curbing.

The code requires each parking stall to be striped.

The applicant will upgrade the landscaping by planting a series of trees and shrubs around the building.

Teague stated that the City Sanitarian has been at this site on numerous occasions. There are some outstanding issues that the owner must address.

Stephenson said the site was an embarrassment to our community. One commissioner said that bringing out these issues was unfair to the owner, but the taxpayers do not deserve to have this happen to our neighborhoods. It is not only an issue for the owner. It should be possible for new screens to be installed. Filling a big hole in the driveway is possible. Or to rake the yard.

Samuelson said that she would like the audience to know that the City Council has directed the Staff to look at the entire picture on this site and report to the Council.

Zisla stated that there seems to be several separate issues here, one of which is the condition of the existing property. Zisla said that was always a legitimate concern about any housing in New Brighton. The City has policies and procedures for inspections so the issue should be dealt with separately. If the issue on this property is that it is not well-maintained, that should be dealt with regardless of the zoning application. Zisla said that the issue brought up by Kraus on the balance between single-family dwellings and apartments. Zisla said he was concerned because he knows there is a need for apartment units, but he does not know what the tools are to make decisions between single-family and multi-family housing on grounds apart from notions about the types of people who may occupy one type or the other. Zisla said he would like to know about the available criteria on which to make the decisions. There is no value in considering this balance idea if there are no criteria on which to base a decision. Should the guideline be 40 or 50 percent? Zisla said he concurred with Mr. Schiferl about being very sensitive about making assumptions about who occupies those units. That is a very dangerous thing to get into.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to continue the public hearing to the April 18, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit & Site Plan Review	Tiro Industries, Inc.

Teague stated the applicant has requested that the application be continued to the April 18 Planning Commission meeting. Apparently, the applicant has not yet moved into the old US West building on Lakeview Point Drive. There may be some changes in the business that will tie to this Special Use Permit.

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

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to continue the public hearing to the April 18, 2000, Planning Commission meeting.

Schiferl asked for clarification on the time period. Teague responded the Planning Commission must act on the application within sixty days from the date of the application. The item can be tabled for one month and still work within the sixty-day timeframe. If the applicant requests another continuation, the Commission would have to extend to 120 days or request the applicant to withdraw the request. Zisla asked if the City asks the applicant to waive the 60-day rule for the period of the extension. Teague responded Staff has not done so routinely, but it might be a good idea to require every applicant to waive the 60-day rule. Zisla stated he would like to recommend that Staff routinely do that whenever an applicant asks for an extension. There may have been certain applicants who have been perceived as high-quality applicants who have tried to take advantage of that. We should preclude that opportunity so an applicant cannot even consider exploiting that rule.

Teague stated he would fully support that idea. The City has the ability on the application form itself to require the applicant to sign the extension at the time of application. Zisla said that the applicant should waive the sixty-day rule if they ask for an extension.

Zisla stated that Teague's report mentioned there is some issue about the tree plan on the Interstate side. Zisla said that the Highway 8 Task Force discussed the appearance of New Brighton as from I-35W. Zisla said he was curious about the status of the operation that is bringing in cars for storage. Is there a landscape plan?

Teague responded Freeway Towing has a landscape plan. They are required to plant a row of pine trees along the freeway. There are so many cars on the site currently because Freeway Towing has a contract with the State. Apparently, the State has been storing cars up at the old Arsenal site. There is some work going on at the Arsenal that required all the cars to be removed and were put on the Freeway Towing site. Freeway Towing is in the process of building the facility and the surface has not be paved yet. Therefore, Freeway Towing is having a difficult time due to these extra cars.

Zisla said he was concerned that the City had made a mistake in not requiring landscaping. Teague said the City will require a landscape plan.

Baker called for a vote on the floor motion. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit & Site Plan Review	Atonement Lutheran Church

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for a Special Use Permit for the purpose of construction an addition to Atonement Lutheran Church located at 1980 Silver Lake Road.

The architect for the proposed addition, David Olds, and Pastor Tim Thompson were present. Olds said they were trying to match the materials for the addition to the current building. If the bids on the addition are low enough, the church may put some new windows on the fellowship hall also. The purpose of the addition is to relocate the kitchen and the choir room.

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

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker commented the project looks very nice. Schiferl asked about the roof drain being connected to the storm sewer as a condition of approval. If the project is approved but not built, how does the tile drain get fixed? Teague responded that the City would not issue a building permit until the repair is done. Olds said the church is trying to get a contractor to take care of this work.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Livingston , to recommend approval of recommending approval of SP00-1 & LP00-4, subject to conditions. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit, Nonconforming Use Permit, & Site Plan Review	School District #621

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for Special Use Permit, Nonconforming Use Permit, Front Yard Setback Variance, and Site Plan Review for the purpose of constructing an addition to Pike Lake School and to reconfigure the parking lot.

Schiferl asked, if the entire school were torn down and rebuilt, would the 30-foot setback be in effect? Teague responded affirmatively.

Doug Pierce, the architect, made a short presentation of the project.

Zisla asked about air quality issues at Pike Lake School. Pierce said the architects are working on the entire building to bring up the air quality. A completely new HVAC system will be installed to serve the entire building.

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

Stepanchak asked if the entire building will be brought up to code as far as air quality. Pierce answered affirmatively. Stepanchak asked how many more children will the addition accommodate. Pierce answered there would be no population increase. The classrooms would replace other rooms and would add a music room and other amenities.

A resident - tape unclear. Something about air quality and some study and guarantees.

Pierce's answer is unclear.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of NC00-2, subject to conditions. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Ordinance Amendment to Section 4-040 and 4-140 - Floor Area Ration	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the report concerning continuing the public hearing for an ordinance amendment regarding the City's 30% floor area ratio requirement within the R-1 and the R-1A, Residential Zoning Districts.

Schiferl asked why the ordinance goes to 55% for impervious surface in the R-1A district. Teague responded that the increase took into consideration the driveway issue.

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

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment.

5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Baker referred to a letter the Commission received requesting that the writer be allowed to have a front porch in the front yard setback. Baker said the Commission had addressed this issue by an ordinance change last month. Baker said he would have a difficult time approving such a request. The Commission has discussed this topic and amended the code. Teague stated the City amended the code to allow a six by twelve-foot entry way addition out into the setback. Mr. Danger's property is a deep lot, 85 feet wide and 300 feet deep. Mr. Danger's house is built right at the 30-foot setback. There is a lot of room in the back, but Mr. Danger would like to build a porch off the front. Teague showed a plan of the porch. Mr. Danger visited a development in Florida where these old-fashioned porches are required on all homes.

Teague stated that here in Minnesota, if the City allowed such porches, it would not be long before people would be enclosing such porches. Schiferl stated that, in the Florida development to which Mr. Danger refers, a picket fence is also required. A six by twelve-foot porch is allowed in the setback.

Announcements and Updates

Baker stated the Town Hall Meeting will be held this Saturday, March 25, at the Family Service Center. The City Manager has asked the commissioners to attend, if possible.

The I-35W Coalition seminar will be held on March 29 at the Shoreview City Hall.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to adjourn the meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

The meeting was adjourned.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner