Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - April 18, 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, Jeff Schopf, and David Schmitz

Absent:	Paul Zisla

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Char Samuelson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to approve the minutes of the MARCH 21, 2000, Planning Commission meeting.

6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

Samuelson announced that Council and staff have reviewed plans and specifications for Project 00-1, Street Reconstruction. This project will include the possible narrowing of 14th St. to a 38 ft. width in the area from Silver Lk. Rd. to Long Lk. Rd. Staff is in the process of analyzing the width issue and also traffic calming methods along this roadway.

Agenda Review - None

Public Hearings

Front Yard Setback Variance - Leo and Rebecca Brabeck, 711 - 9th Ave. NW

Teague explained that the applicants have requested a 4.11 ft. front yard setback variance to construct a 12 x 17 ft. bedroom addition onto the front of the home. The front yard addition is requested because the applicants do not wish to expand into the backyard due to its small size and use as a play area. Also, this request would involve the relocation of an existing sewer line. The applicant feels the hardship is caused by the home's location, small lot size, and inability to construct a second story addition. While the request does seem reasonable, staff has difficultly determining a hardship or unique circumstance. The City has not made practice in granting variances for additions to the front of homes, particularly living spaces, and previously granted front yard variances were for garage additions with unique lot configurations. Teague feels this structure could be located anywhere else on the lot without the need for a variance, and denial would not preclude reasonable use of the property or create a hardship. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance.

Schiferl asked why construction of a second story addition was not considered. Teague said the applicant had concern that the existing structure could not support a second story addition.

Applicant, Rebecca Brabeck, explained that constructing a second story addition is unnecessary being the identified need is for one additional bedroom. She added that constructing a bedroom on the northeast corner of the home would require a hallway and access into an adjacent bedroom, or adding to the side of the home would only allow for a very small room and involve plumbing modifications. She feels this addition would make the home more useful and provide an attractive addition to the neighborhood.

There were no other comments from the audience.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schopf, to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Baker feels that allowing this variance would generally eliminate the City's front yard setback ordinance standards, and a hardship has not been identified for granting the variance.

O'Brien believes the proposed addition would be more functional and attractive if built on the side or back of the home. Also, construction of a second story addition would be another option in this case.

Baker explained that over the last few months, the Planning Commission and Council have worked very hard in developing and eventually approving an ordinance which allows encroachment into the 30 ft. setback for the purpose of porch and entryway additions. Brabeck asked why would the City allow encroachments for garages and porches, and not bedroom additions. Baker explained there needs to be an identifiable unique circumstance and condition which justify such variance. In this case, just about every home in New Brighton would qualify for a variance if this proposal were allowed.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Livingston, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF VN00-2. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Minor Subdivision and Lot Width Variance - Eric Love and Phillip Towner, 2924 16th St. NW

Teague presented a request for a minor subdivision of two lots of records. A 16.82 ft. lot width variance is requested due to the current 58.18 ft. lot width being short of the 75 ft. minimum width requirement. However, both lots would meet the minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. Originally, it appeared that Valerie Ln. was to be extended easterly connecting to 16th Ter., and utility connections were installed for the future construction of a home on the north half of the property. Denial of this request would deny the landowner the use of the property as originally intended.

In 1993, the City vacated the north half of the right-of-way (ROW), however, the documentation was never filed at the County. Also, there is a 30 ft. wide ROW which would provide access to the site. A grading incline of 15 ft. from the curb to the highpoint of the lot has required the applicant to revise the grading and provide driveway access on the west. Staff found the property was never assessed for the original sewer and water utility connections, and if the proposal is approved the applicant would be responsible for those charges. Also, a $750 Park Dedication Fee would be required.

The new structure would meet all minimum required setbacks, and is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

Teague researched and found other recently approved width variances similar to this case. For example, in 1997, a lot width variance was granted on 14th Ave. which created two 69 ft. x 268 ft. width lots. In this case, there were existing lots in surrounding neighborhoods with 40, 50, and 60 ft. width lots which made it common for the area. However, in this request, the majority of the surrounding lot widths are 80-100 ft. with the exception of one 65 ft. width lot (2971 16th St.). Based on the fact the City has allowed lot width variances and utility connections were installed for development of the north half, staff recommends approval of the variance and minor subdivision. However, the Commission has three alternatives; approval, denial, or continuance for additional information.

Baker asked if any portion of the subject property had right-of-way that was vacated. Teague said the property lines have remained as shown, the only portion of the right-of-way that was vacated, was the north half in 1993. It appears the area was developed piecemeal and ROW was taken at various times.

Baker asked who owns the land which will become the future driveway. Teague stated that a title search would have to be done, however, the likely owner would be the lot owner to the east. The City holds the ROW easement and the driveway would be constructed over the ROW. Baker asked if a property owner is allowed to construct private driveways over public right-of-way. Teague noted the following examples: a private driveway access on the south end of 22nd Ave. where a Right-of-way remains, and four lots on Valley View Ln. where a 33 ft. right-of-way area is maintained as a private drive by the property owners. The City has made practice of allowing private driveways over public Right-of-way.

Schiferl asked the sequence of the utility connection installation, and the date of the City's establishment of the standard lot width requirement. Teague said the lot width standards were established in 1980, but this area was platted in the early1960's when the utilities were installed. Schiferl said it appears at that time, this was considered a viable lot width. Teague agreed, but the curious thing is no assessments were applied. Baker questioned if the utility line was intended to travel further down the street or was it for this particular lot. Teague said the size of the utility line was identified to be a single family connection and would have been larger if intended for additional linkage.

Schiferl asked if the home's footprint could be reduced to allow for a wider area between properties. Eric Love, applicant, wishes to do whatever possible to comply with City Code, and acknowledged that adjustments have been made as compromise with an adjacent neighbor. Love's in-laws have provided the lot free of charge which a realtor has estimated to be worth $45,000. Livingston added it would be helpful to review a floor plan to visualize what the property will look like due to the usual situation. Love explained that the floor plans are in rough form anticipating the outcome of the variance.

Jim Lindgren, 1665 Roxanna Ln., submitted a petition signed by 40 surrounding property owners recommending denial of the variance, however, one property owner stated no opposition to the proposal. He added that the right-of-way lot does not fit with the nature and lot width of surrounding properties, contains limited frontage, borders seven properties, creates safety issues associated with the driveway location, and concern of drainage problems. Livingston questioned if the hardship designation would apply to an applicant who is not allowed to build upon a lot valued at $45,000.

Mrs. Lindgren, 1665 Roxanna Ln., feels it is very usual for a home to border seven properties, and heard that a past subdivision request in this area was denied.

Barbara Wojack, 1654 29th Ave., said the City needs to address what type of structure will be built and the driveway surfacing. She added that property owners bought into this neighborhood under the understanding that no lot subdivisions would occur.

George Madison, added that the grading will destroy much natural vegetation, and questioned the accuracy of the property's legal documentation.

Shahin Rezania, 1714 Roxanna, questioned the stated value of the lot, and whether the City would allow a subdivision for the longer lots located along 16th St.

Bob Johnston, 1697 Roxanna Ln, stated difficulties associated with narrower lots. He noted concern the driveway would exacerbate current drainage problems, and recently purchased a sump system to handle standing water. He feels the Right-of-way easement and utility connection was intended for continuation of 16th St., and feels the home was built before 1972. C-verified that the City's lot width requirement standards were 75 ft. in 1972.

John Wojack, 1654 29th Ave., said the very low grades of his lot required modification to the original house plans in order to redirect drainage. This modification allowed Wojack to regain 15 ft. of easement, but he feels the City has been neglectful in filing easement documentation. He previously inquired about purchasing the lot in question, but the owner stated it was unbuildable.

Will Nelson, 2953 Valerie Ln., said the wooded lot enhances the value of the area, and feels the placement of the driveway could present safety concerns.

Wayne Sether, 1743 Roxanna Ln., objects to the lot width.

There were no other comments from the audience.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schopf, to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Baker asked if we are certain that the sewer was intended for the north half of this site. Teague said that finding relates to the size of the pipe being intended to provide hookup for the north half of the property. Baker stated that it is not certain the hookup was intended for this lot or one further down.

Livingston questioned if the City could deny a landowner use of their property for the use originally intended. Baker questioned if this property was intended to be subdivided being there was never a street easement. If the normal 30 ft. street setback was installed, the lot could not be subdivided.

Love is unaware of the property owner's understanding regarding the lot's ability to be subdivided.

Schiferl is troubled by the history of this lot and feels it is not entirely resolved. He acknowledged this is not the most appropriate option match due to the grading and drainage issues, and feels it could become essentially a property rights issue. He suggested that staff and the City Attorney determine the width standard requirements at the time of the development and whether the subdivision could have occurred at that time. He also asked if any neighbor would be interested in purchasing the property.

Teague verified the assessment search found no assessments applied against this property. If assessments had been paid, the owners would have legitimate rights to development of that north half. Teague confirmed that the water connection is possibly a four inch intended for a single hookup.

Baker has great concern if the right to subdivision is determined without a street access or frontage.

Livingston agrees, but the north half vacation and easement appear to be the reason for providing access to the north. Teague verified that the north half vacation was requested by the property owner.

Schmitz believes the 10,000 ft. minimum standard was installed previously to 1980. C- questioned if this property had been allowed the subdivision before enforcement of the 10,000 ft. standard, and asked when the utility connections were installed. Teague is unsure when the utilities were installed, but the plat lists 16A Street which relates to the intention of a further connection to 16th St. C-added that 16A Street would have required a 30 ft. setback.

Baker said that 2971 and 2951 16th St. have very similar, deep lots, and possibly the developer was unsure whether the remainder of these lots were buildable. A resident stated that Mr. Towner told him the lot was unbuildable and allowed the resident to store brush and leaves on the property.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PL00-2 AND VN00-1 TO THE FACT THAT IF VALERIE LANE HAD BEEN EXTENDED TO THE EAST SUCH LOT WOULD NOT HAVE ACCOMMODATED THE 10,000 MINIMUM FOOT REQUIREMENT. 5 Ayes - 1 Nay, Motion Carried.

Site Plan and Special Use Permit - Corporate Express - 600 LakeviewPoint

Teague presented a Special Use Permit request to operate a delivery service out of an existing building and provide on-site parking for 354 company vans and trucks. The zoning ordinance states that Council may permit any use in an industrial district by means of a special use permit not specifically listed. Delivery services are not specifically listed as a permitted use allowable by special use permit. The City would need to make a finding that this use is compatible with surrounding land uses.

The applicant has proposed no exterior modifications or building additions with this request. Based on the facility's square footage, 131 parking stalls are required. The project proposes 265 parking stalls for vans, and 48 stalls for trailers. Six handicapped parking stalls are required, but five are proposed. The applicant states that 345 vehicles would generate 1.6 daily vehicle trips occurring mainly on weekday mornings and afternoons. The semi-trailer truck trips would be minimal at about two per day.

The City Forester reviewed the landscape plan which was determined to be a previously submitted plan. The plan contained plantings labeled existing, never planted by the original tenant, or have died since the original plan was approved. It is recommended that all the plantings shown on the plan be installed and replanted if they have died. Staff recommends 8 ft. high fencing be installed along the east boundary to screen the site from I35W.

Glen Van Wormer, SEH, explained the results of the traffic study. This facility would generate about 2,160 daily vehicle trips. Corporate Express would generate about 220-230 trips during peak hours, and the office/warehouse would generate about 60 trips during peak hours. Campus Dr. will receive the majority of the directional traffic, and in the afternoon there may be some delays with outbound traffic. A traffic signal may assist with traffic flow, however, warranting a signal requires certain standards.

Baker asked if there is a direct correlation associated with waiting time. Van Wormer said occasionally people may try to cross the intersection during breaks in traffic, but Ramsey County would need to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. Currently, the traffic numbers show it to be a low priority signal. If a signal were installed, it may be an actuated signal which would turn green to allow exiting west bound traffic.

Livingston asked if this business could affect traffic levels on I-35W. Van Wormer does not feel this proposal would have a direct impact on I-35W being that Corporate Express employees arrive at random times.

Teague added that the City Engineer and applicant have not had opportunity to review the traffic study.

Larry Griffith, representing Corporate Express, feels the proposal would be an excellent use of the facility and would improve the appearance of the site. He questioned whether the fencing/screening requirement is warranted due to the well discipline parking arrangement Corporate Express maintains.

Duane Krazmarek, Corporate Express, said that currently the company has offices in several locations, and wishes to consolidate to the New Brighton site. This location would be the dispatch center and deliveries are picked up from the customer and delivered to its destination. The majority of their fleet are full size vans, and they do not employ the use of tractor trailers. Because of the staggered shifts, there is never a large wave of employees arriving or leaving at the same times.

Livingston asked the reason for staff recommendation for the screening requirement. Teague explained that because this site is adjacent to I-35W, some type of screening would be required.

Baker explained that because the traffic study has not been reviewed by the applicant, it is proposed the item be deferred to the May Planning Commission. This will also allow staff time to review the transportation study and consider impacts of the proposed use.

Motion by, seconded by, to CONTINUE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CORPORATE EXPRESS TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW TIME TO REVIEW THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY, AND CONSIDER THE IMPACTS THAT THE PROPOSED USE HAS ON TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Totem Pole Park Parking Lot Improvements

Teague explained that with the construction of a new park shelter building at Totem Pole Park, staff is requesting to pave a parking lot near Foss Road. The Rice Creek Watershed District has noted concern regarding the paving as it relates to drainage. Because of the questionable situation, staff recommends the issue be tabled until further notice.

Motion by, seconded by, to CONTINUE THE NONCONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON TO RECONFIGURE THE PARKING LOT AT TOTEM POLE PARK. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

General Business - None

Announcements and Updates

A special Planning Commission meeting will be held May 2 to consider a revised PUD for the Main Street/Ordway Project - Co. Rd. E-2/5th Ave.

Adjourn

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schopf, to ADJOURN THE MEETING. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner