Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - September 19, 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, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz,

Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Char Samuelson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

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

Report on Council Actions

Samuelson said Council recently approved the variance for the garage expansion at 1706 18th Ave. NW.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Teague presented a request to construct a front entryway addition within the 30 ft. front yard setback at 2190 Lakebrook Dr. City Code allows encroachments within the front yard setback up to six feet subject to special use permit. The addition will use similar siding materials and the roof line will integrate into the existing structure. The applicant intents to construct a second story addition which meets required setbacks. Setbacks to the front of the porch and front steps would be 26 ft. and 24 ft., respectively.

Zisla verified the front steps are not a requirement of the setback provision.

There were no comments from the audience.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schopf, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schmitz, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SP00-12, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

1.	THE PROPOSED ADDITION USES THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE MATERIAL THAT ARE CONSISTENT AND COMPLIMENTARY WITH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORIES.

2.	THE ROOF IS PROPERLY PROPORTIONED TO AND INTEGRATED WITH THE ROOF OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY.

3.	THE BASE OF THE ADDITION IS NOT OPEN AND ITS APPEARANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BASE OF THE BUILDING.

4.	THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 35% OF THE WIDTH OF THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING EXCLUDING THE GARAGE OR SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 FEET IN WIDTH WHICHEVER IS LESS. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague presented a site plan review and amendment to a Planned Residential Development (PRD) to construct a 11.9 x 22 ft. kitchen addition to the existing Brightondale Senior Housing facility at 2700 Rice Creek Road. The proposal involves no change to existing parking areas or landscape plan. The addition would be setback more than 100 feet from any property line, and the mature trees along the west property line provide screening from adjacent properties. There will be no grade changes or additional impervious surfaces. Staff is requiring the applicant submit a plan showing how equipment shall be transported to the construction site so not damage existing trees.

Applicant, Mike Gould, Silver Crest Properties, said the kitchen expansion will provide the needed food preparation area to serve the residents of Brightondale and the adjacent Meadowood Shores Facility.

Ken Norby, NAI Architects, presented illustrations of the expansion.

Ron Olson, 2026 28th Ave. NW, feels the applicant has addressed issues relating to ventilation and construction equipment transportation routes. Olson and his neighbors have concern the applicant has reneged on the promise of no further development and the City continues to allow further expansions.

Doug Johnson, 2025 28th Ave. NW, asked if a future request could involve construction of a new patio to replace the one being removed.

Grace Dedrick, 2023 28th Ave. NW, feels this addition could produce additional backyard drainage and food preparation odors. Zisla said the proposal will not increase the amount of impervious surface, and ventilation would be released out the existing roof area.

Ralph Bookman, 2021 28th Ave. NW, noted the poorly maintained landscaping at Brightondale. Teague will discuss these maintenance issues with Gould.

Baker questioned why Gould did not address the kitchen issue when the Alzheimer's Wing was proposed two years ago. Gould felt the kitchen expansion did not fit within the Meadowood Shores project time frame, and the need became more apparent after construction. Baker feels Gould should have addressed the possibility of an expansion at the time of the Meadowood Shores proposal.

Schiferl asked if the patio area will be expanded or replaced. A Brightondale staff member said the patio is used very infrequently by the residents, and there are no future plans for construction a new patio. Gould said at this time there does not appear to be future additions planned.

Zisla asked if the City Council had taken action on the Alzheimer's wing.

Teague verified the Alzheimer's Wing proposal was withdrawn by the applicant before Council consideration, however, the Planning Commission did recommend denial.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schmitz, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Baker suggested the following conditions be added: the project shall be limited to a one story kitchen addition; and no venting other than plumbing ducts shall be allowed through the roof or walls of the new kitchen addition.

Baker feels this is a minor expansion project, however, the applicant should have expressed its possibility at the time of the Meadowood Shores proposal.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schopf, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRD00-2, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1.	THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A PLAN SHOWING HOW EQUIPMENT MUST BE TRANSPORTED TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. SAID PLAN SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT NO DAMAGE WILL OCCUR TO ANY EXISTING TREES ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.

2.	BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING.

3.	PROJECT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A ONE STORY KITCHEN ADDITION.

4.	NO VENTING OTHER THAN PLUMBING OR HEATING DUCTS BE ALLOWED THROUGH THE ROOF OR WALLS OF THE NEW KITCHEN ADDITION. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague presented a special use permit by the Eclipse Salon and Cheryl Hedrick to perform permanent cosmetic makeup (tattooing) as an accessory use at 2611 North Innsbruck Dr. There are no changes proposed to the existing facility and no outside signage in association with this use. The applicant is a certified permanent cosmetic technician.

The City Attorney's opinion was that since the City does not currently have regulations in place for such a use, an ordinance amendment addressing tattooing and related activities should be created. Such amendment would also address the need for yearly licensing.

Schiferl asked if the tattooing process would involve blood-borne pathogens. Teague believes any health issues would be handled through the licensing process, and the applicant may be asked to submit documentation and agree to a background investigation.

There were no comments from the audience.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schmitz to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague noted another request for a similar use has recently been received.

Motion by Schmitz, seconded by Schiferl, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SP00-13 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1.	THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO APPLY AND OBTAIN A LICENSE THROUGH THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON AND CONTINUE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, ONCE A TATTOOING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE IS ESTABLISHED. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

General Business

Teague presented an Ordinance Amendment regarding accessory structures. On July 25, 2000, Council received a petition pertaining to accessory structures and property maintenance concerns. This relates to a variance request by Mike Prebonich, 1706 18th Ave., to construct a detached garage in the rear yard.

Staff performed a survey of ten surrounding municipalities and found all allowed accessory buildings in some form. New Brighton was the most restrictive in allowing only one building, but Edina, Fridley, and Blaine placed no limitations on the number of buildings. New Brighton was the most restrictive in the maximum size allowed while other cities allowed up to a 1,000 sq. ft accessory building. Five of the cities required some type of conditional use permit. In the last two years, New Brighton issued 33 building permits for accessory buildings, 16 of those were larger than 400 sq. ft. Currently, no building permit is required if the structure is less than 120 sq. ft. Teague suggested an amendment to require buildings larger than 400 sq. ft. to submit a Special Use Permit.

Teague recommended the following ordinance amendment:

When there is an attached garage present, the code allows up to a 600 sq. ft. detached building.

If there is no detached garage present, the code would allow up to a 1,000 sq. ft. detached building.

Any accessory building more than 400 sq. ft. would require a Special Use Permit and public hearing, and would require exterior color and material be similar/compatible to the existing structure, provide screening, and the building could not be used for a home occupation business.

Schiferl asked if the amendment should include a reference to structures less than 120 sq. ft. Teague said the 120 sq. ft. reference is contained within the Uniform Building Code. Teague has not heard any other complaints before the Prebonich situation arose, and generally a homeowner wishes to build a larger building than allowed. Currently there is no limit to the size of an attached garage as long as it does not exceed the 30% FAR.

Schopf asked how the City addresses complaints regarding accessory buildings in poor condition. Teague verified there is an enforcement process to address dilapidated buildings.

A public hearing to discuss an ordinance amendment for accessory buildings will be October 17, 2000.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner