Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - January 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

Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Jim O'Brien

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Approval of Minutes - None

Report on Council Actions

Teague reported the definition of "family" was approved by the Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Adoption of 2000 Rules of Procedure

Adopt 2000 Rules

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt the 2000 Rules of Procedure as written.

6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Elect Vice Chair

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schiferl , to nominate Mike Livingston as Vice-Chair. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Congratulations

Congratulations to Jim O'Brien and Dave Schmitz for being reappointed to the Planning Commission through January 31, 2003, and to Larry Baker for being reappointed as the Planning Commission Chair for 2000.

Public Hearings

Nonconforming Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Building Height Variance - Houman Architects/Mir Ali

Teague reviewed the Planning Report concerning the public hearing to consider a Nonconforming Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Building Height Variance for the purpose of constructing a 50-unit apartment building at 210–221 Old Highway 8 NW.

Teague referred to a letter from a New Brighton resident, which was included in the packet, stating opposition to the request. Mr. Kraus' letter states that New Brighton currently has an too many apartments. Teague stated that one-third of New Brighton residents reside in apartment buildings.

Baker asked why the request was being addressed as a Nonconforming Use Permit. Teague stated the request is a Nonconforming Use because the existing facility contains nonconformities that must be brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The nonconformities include no enclosed parking, no perimeter curbing around the outdoor parking lot, and the individual parking stall are not striped. The applicant is proposing to address each of those items.

Brian Houman of Houman Architects stated his office is across the street from the site. Houman stated his client, Mir Ali, was not in attendance this evening. Houman made a short presentation on the project.

Schiferl asked why the curb cut was not included in the staff recommendation in the planning report. Teague responded it had been his intention to include one curb cut and will add such language to the Council Recommendation.

Schopf asked about No. 9 of the staff recommendation, "The land owner shall be responsible for maintenance of all plant materials shown on the landscape plans dated 1-7-2000. Should any of the plant materials become diseased or die, they must be replaced." Is there any time limit? Who enforces compliance? Teague responded the City Forester checks on landscape plans. The City has not put a time limit on landscape plans in the past. The City has enforced landscape plans when trees or shrubs have died. Schopf asked about the method of enforcement. What happens if an owner refuses to replace a dead tree or puts in another type of tree? Teague responded no one has refused to replace landscape elements. Part of the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan was to adopt an ordinance that addresses these questions. However, the City could say that, if an owner refuses to replace a tree, the owner is in violation of their Special Use or Nonconforming Use Permit. The City could require the owner to come back before the Planning Commission.

Zisla asked Houman about the target market for the apartment units. Houman responded that the price range would be based on the cost of the project and other factors. Zisla stated that he would be interested in knowing the price range of the apartments.

Schiferl asked about No. 2 in the staff recommendation, "Perimeter curbing be installed around all off-
street parking area and drive-aisles (both lots)." Schiferl said he thought the property was technically one lot. Teague responded that Schiferl was correct.

Baker stated he was not opposed to the height variance. Height is another topic that should be defined in the Ordinance. Underground parking seems to be a viable solution to meet the parking requirement. The Commission may want to consider the height requirement later in the year.

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 Schopf, to close the Public Hearing. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schopf , to recommend approval of VN-326, NC-116 & LP-360, amending the curb cut language and subject to conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment regarding Floor Area Ratio	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the Planning Report on the informal consideration of an Ordinance Amendment regarding the City's 30 percent floor area ratio requirement within the R-1 and R-1A Residential Zoning Districts.

Schiferl stated the impervious surface and the building coverage are separate issues and should be considered separately. On the impervious surface, Schiferl said he was comfortable with picking a number out of the planning report.

Baker stated it is appropriate that floor-area ratio be studied. Baker commented that the Wexford area seems to have very large houses on small lots. Teague stated that the houses in the Stony Lake area are right at 30 percent, with unfinished basements. If a resident comes in with a plan to finish the basement, typically the City Planner does not review these plans because it involves remodeling. The Building Official reviews the plans. Teague states he reviews plans for a garage expansion, where the owner wants to convert the original attached garage into living space and builds a detached garage.

Zisla asked if the code reads that the basement accounts for a percentage. Teague responded affirmatively. Zisla said he understood the floor-area ratio was the building whether the basement was finished or unfinished. Whether or not the basement is finished does not make sense. Schopf pointed out that garages are considered in the floor-area ratio.

Zisla stated he would be concerned about the establishment of a floor-area minimum. It is clear that the amendment does not require a minimum. Zisla stated he sees no reason for the current floor-area ratio requirement. Zisla stated the lot coverage would be much easier to enforce.

Baker stated he would be interested in the land area coverage in the Wexford Heights area. Teague responded he would check on it and present it when the Commission considers the subject again. Baker stated that, in Mound, if a site has over a certain percent of impervious surface, Mound allows the owner to put some kind of retainage on the site.

Baker asked if the Commissioners were in general agreement with the proposed amendment. The Commissioners responded affirmatively. Schiferl stated that driveways and driveway turn-arounds should be addressed. Zisla stated the City has not had an indication that there in an issue with impervious surface coverage. Teague stated there has been no issue with impervious surfaces in New Brighton. Arden Hills had an issue concerning impervious surfaces because of the parking ordinance, so residents have been paving their front yards. Arden Hills is planning to consider an impervious surface requirement.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

Motion Livingston, seconded by Schopf to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner