PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS

CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON

 

 

Regular Meeting  October 21, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.

 

Present:    Commissioners Larry Baker, Norm Schiferl,

      Karen Mann and Paul Zisla

                   

Absent:     Jim O’Brien, Tom O’Keefe, and Jeff Schopf

 

Also Present:  Patrick Boylan, City Planner ,  Anne Hoffman, City Council Member

                                             

·             Council Action  -   Anne Hoffman, City Council Member,

reported on the following:                     

The Star Trib had reported the City of New Brighton was # 1

among 37 metro cities with 20,000 or more residents, with the top resale value of homes. 

Councilwoman Hoffman reported progress in work on the NW Quadrant.

Mentioned the dedication for the Public Safety Center had been

held and was a successful and moving event.

Also reported the Eagle’s Nest dedication and grand opening had been held. 

                                   

Announcements and Updates:

 

            Minneapolis Water Works Facility – Mr. Boylan, at the direction of the Commission had investigated the progress of the landscaping and fencing around the Minneapolis Water Works project on Stinson Avenue.  He had some correspondence with the project engineer and on driving by Stinson Avenue, there have been approximately 48-50 new trees planted with the remainder to be planted next spring.  They want to get those trees set and get the new fence installed to its proper location and then finish the remaining planting next spring. The City Forester is involved in the specific care the specimens will need. 

 

For the record, Commissioner Schiferl, not present for the informational portion of the meeting, arrived for the business portion of the meeting, making  a quorum.

 

·        Approval of Minutes – September 16, 2003

                                   

·        Agenda Review –  Table action on the Special Use Permit for a sedimentation detention pond on Long Lake Road until the Nov. meeting due to an inadvertent miscommunication in the notification process as well as an identified need for open discussion and questions

 

and concerns aired and addressed by staff and Les Proper, City Engineer. 

 

Public Hearing – Planned Unit Development  - PUD 03-02 - Final Review of Site Plan and Plat for Brighton Village Shopping Center -  KKE Architects / Kraus Anderson, LLC

Consideration of a Planned Unit Development, Final Plat and Final Site Plan Review for a mixed use redevelopment of the existing Brighton Village Shopping Center.  The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing center, subdivide the land and construct a restaurant, drug store, retail and medical buildings.  The existing Champp’s restaurant, bank and Sinclair station are not part of the PUD, but existing shared parking between Champp’s and the bank will be reviewed in the context of meeting overall parking requirements.  The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council in August of 2003, and received preliminary approval with conditions. 

 

Mr. Boylan reviewed the history of the project and code requirements. 

 

Lane Hendel, Director of Real Estate Development for Kraus Anderson, reviewed the master site plan for Commissioners.  He explained the overall goal of the redevelopment of Brighton Village was to bring a town center concept, a pedestrian feeling to an area that right now is a parking lot and a 74,000 foot retail strip center, bringing vitality and

new energy to the area. 

 

He explained the Snyder bankruptcy issue leaves that portion of the project temporarily stalled.  It is the belief of the developers that this portion will go through as planned.

 

Darcey Mohr,  Associate Attorney for Levander, Gillen & Miller, appearing on behalf of Dan Beason, who is the attorney for Sinclair.

She explained their client is very appreciative and mind-

ful of the fact that there would be no condemnation of the Sinclair building as a part of the redevelopment and their client is also supportive of the Kraus Anderson plan to redevelop this area and they see it as an enhancement to the city and they see it as a good move forward.  However, to the extent that  the current proposal  encroaches on Sinclair’s property rights and enjoyment and utility of its property,  they are here to voice their objections to this plan.  Sinclair’s objections are two fold.  First, there is a relaxation of the setback between that 6,000 square foot property to the east of the Sinclair station and the PUD requires  a 30 foot or the height of the building as a setback, whichever is higher, and clearly the building would be taller than twelve feet, given its square footage. This large retail building unnecessarily encroaches on Sinclair’s enjoyment, value and utility of its parcel.  There is no offer justification for the relaxation of the PUD standards.  She states the PUD clearly says there shall be a minimum setback of the height of the building or 30 feet, whichever is greater, from all property lines that form the perimeter of the entire plan of the PUD. 

 

The second objection that Sinclair has to this plan is the taking or loss of Sinclair’s access rights under this proposed plan and PUD.  We previously outlined this at the August presentation.  Kraus Anderson has proposed to close the northeast access on Sinclair’s property.  Sinclair’s customers, its employees, vendors, fuel trucks and the like  have all enjoyed this access for the last twenty years.  Ms. Mohr also stated, that moreover, Kraus Anderson’s proposal involves the taking or closing of Sinclair’s direct access to Pike Lake Drive, with its realignment further to the east.  She notes by looking at the plan under Kraus Anderson’s current proposal, Sinclair is an entirely cut off parcel and has no access to the interior of that development.  This design she explained would be wholly inconsistent with the goal of this redevelopment, which Kraus Anderson stated was synergy among the parcels in this redevelopment.  She states there could not be synergy if one of the parcels has no access to the other development projects within the larger development.  She relayed that currently, as the plan stands, the only access that customers will have to Sinclair is along Silver Lake Road.  They cannot cut through to get to the other buildings in that area, nor can shoppers or other customers in that development access Sinclair unless they go out onto Silver Lake Road which would probably be too much of a hassle.  She further stated this redevelopment plan should benefit all of the businesses and all of them should be able to prosper.  She explained the way it currently stands there will be some winners and some losers and Sinclair would probably be a loser in this plan because of the obstructed access to the parcel.  Sinclair is the only parcel that does not enjoy access to the other tenants or other shopping areas. 

Attorney Mohr states that Sinclair believes it is essential to the highest and best use of

its parcel to have at least one open access.  She explains the combined losses or takings of their access points currently proposed would substantially diminish the value of the Sinclair property.  They feel, and say the tape of the August hearing will bear out that at the preliminary plat and PUD approval, City staff was directed to work with Kraus Anderson and Sinclair to remedy this loss of access.  Ms. Mohr reports that as of this date, neither the City nor Kraus Anderson has resolved this issue by contacting Sinclair.

In fact, upon inquiring about the issue, City staff informed them that it was a private issue. 

 

Attorney Mohr states that Sinclair requests and recommends approval of the final plat of the PUD is conditioned on the following:  First, requiring normal setbacks for that 6,000 square foot property to the east of the Sinclair parcel and additionally, leaving Sinclair’s northeast access open or at least provide access on the east side of the parcel so it aligns up to the newly aligned Pike Lake Drive, or alternatively, providing Sinclair full directional access along the southern edge of its property, so customers coming and going from that property can get access to Pike Lake Drive as it will be realigned further to the east.  They propose that this would be done at Kraus Anderson’s expense.  

 

Nancy Grant , resident of 1100 Robin Court in New Brighton, just behind Brighton Village to the east.  Her concern has to do with access to Silver Lake Road from  the frontage road from Pike Lake Drive.  She expressed concern for pedestrians, bicyclists and people who may be in wheelchairs. 

 

Kathy Anderson with KKE Architects, spoke regarding the access concerns.  She stated they believe these modes of transportation are safest when integrated through the development, as opposed to behind buildings and out of view. 

 

There was  discussion regarding the setback requirements and the access. 

 

Motion by Zisla, second by Baker to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 

 

4 Ayes, 0 Nays, Motion Carried. 

 

Motion by Schiferl, second by Zisla to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING FINAL APPROVAL OF PUD 03-02 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.                  Approval of a permit by the Rice Creek Watershed District. 

2.                  A final utility plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 

3.                  An amended landscape plan is submitted subject to review and approval of the City Planner.

4.                  The City Attorney shall review and approve any cross parking agreements.

5.                  No sign permits shall be issued except under the authority of an approved area of special control sign plan.

6.                  Pike Lake Drive right-of-way is vacated.  A plan is submitted to show placement of street and traffic control signs to be approved by the City Planner. 

7.                  Adequate recycling facilities are provided for each commercial tenant and that sufficient space is set aside for future expansion of materials to be recycled. 

8.                  The applicant shall provide elevation drawings for the restaurant prior to the final submittal to be reviewed by the City Planner prior to constructions which shall be consistent with the design of the other retail buildings. 

 

4 Ayes, 0 Nays,  Motion Carried. 

 

Public Hearing – VN03-01, SP03-08, & LP03-06 – Building Setback and Parking Stall Variance, Special Use Permit for Automotive Repair Use – Lampert Architects and John Oliver & Associates on behalf of Mr. Aleksey Zaytsev

Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate an automobile repair facility and a Variance for a side yard building setback and one stall variance at 13 2nd Avenue Se.  The lot is presently vacant; the applicant wishes to construct a 2,779 square foot building on a 9,184 square foot site.  The proposed building encroaches into the side yard setback and the proposed plan is short one parking stall of the code requirement.  The City would need to approve a one foot setback variance for the building and  a variance for four parking stalls in order for the site plan to be approved and a building permit issues.  The special use permit is requested due to the fact that “automobile repair” is listed as a Special Uses Permitted in the zoning code. 

 

Mr. Boylan reviewed the site plan and the code for the Commissioners. 

 

Mr. Zaytsev was present and answered a few questions for the Commissioners about the type of business and number of employees as well as future implications and plantings.

 

Motion by Zisla, second by Mann to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

 

4 Ayes, 0 Nays,  Motion Carried. 

 

Motion by Schiferl, Second by Zisla to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 

 

1.                  Drainage plans shall be resubmitted and approved by the City Engineer that shows how the surface water will drain around the dumpster enclosure and along the south lot line. 

2.                  The Applicant shall replace the planned 15” HDPE storm sewer pipe with 15” PVC pipe. 

3.                  The Applicant shall substitute the 8” water gate valve with a 6” gate valve.

4.                  Approval of final landscaping plan by the City Forester. 

 

4 Ayes, 0 Nays,  Motion Carried. 

 

Amended Agenda Item from Special Use Permit to Discussion Item on SP 03-12 – City of New Brighton – Sedimentation detention pond on Long Lake Road

Due to many issues raised to staff regarding this item, Planning Commission tabled the item until the November meeting and this will be renotified and republished in the official City newspaper for the November Planning Commission Public Hearing. 

 

The request was for a Special Use Permit to allow a sedimentation basin for controlling stormwater runoff into Long Lake.  The lot is zoned single family residential and is located just north of the 1748 Long Lake Road parcel and south of 18th Street NW. 

 

Originally, the site was a tax forfeit parcel that the City purchased with an eye toward

meeting some or all of the storm water management goals adopted by the City in the year 2000.  This particular site has some storm water detention hardware if you will.  The proposed pond would enlarge the capacity and aid in water clarity that would end up in Long Lake. There is a  proposed 4 to 1 slope on the outside of the pond.  The actual storage area of the pond would be a 3 to 1 slope and a storage volume of 3 feet by the length and width of the pond.  This is zoned single family residential.  The Council can entertain other uses, such as sedimentation basins, provided that a Special Use hearing is called and the special use standards are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing which will be held in November. 

 

Mr. Les Proper, City Engineer reviewed the history of the property and mandates as well as the way the pond would work and the  stark changes to the property.

 

Laura Gleason, of 1736 Long Lake Road, who lives the second house down from the pond, asked if an analysis had been done on the property, determining if the property could handle the volume of water that might come in.  She also asked what percentage it will actually improve the water quality.  Also, what is the long term plan to maintain this as she says New Brighton currently has numerous other ponds and pipes that are not being maintained.and they need maintenance and repair.  Is it really a cost benefit to do this at a cost of $30,000? 

 

Mr. Proper responded the pond would have a 100 year rainfall.  The pond would hold back the flow to the lake.  The cleaning is part of the federal mandate and maintenance plans are being made.  He explained a lot of small projects will be necessary to clean up Long Lake. 

 

Sam Chaplusky spoke, saying the City has a 20 foot easement for the pipe coming down in his yard.  He expressed a lot of frustration with what he called not maintaining what we already have and problems with the pipe on his property. 

 

John Mortenson of 1748 Long Lake Road, adjacent to the proposed pond site spoke against the pond,giving an emotional connection to the property for his family and the neighborhood. 

 

Bill Spitzmueller of 1773 17th Ave, spoke next, owner of one of the properties right behind the pond.  He agreed with John Mortenson on his presentation.  He felt there is a legitimate concern with the watershed and the diminishing property values. He also expressed concern about small children in the neighborhood and the dangers of  a 3 foot unfenced pond.

 

Frank Erkfitz, of 1575 –17th St. NW, spoke next, agreeing with the above speakers.  He does not want to see nature replaced with a sewer basin. He also has some concerns about people driving not slowing down for the curve in the road. 

 

Krista Siem, who lives as 1790 – 17th Ave. NW, which is on the west side of the property.  She wanted to reiterate the above comments and that this property is a neighborhood treasure and the enjoyment she and her husband have had living there and her concern for having children near the proposed pond. 

 

Dennis Denning of 1664 spoke next, stating he thought they should know what the increased quality of the lake versus the decreased quality of the environment was and what the tradeoff would be.

 

After hearing the above comments from residents, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there should be a meeting between City Staff and concerned residents to

gain more information about the project and address concerns.  Residents will be notified when this meeting will occur. 

 

Public Hearing – Parking Setback Variance and Site Plan Review – VN03-02 & LP03-08 – Norm Wells, Architect on behalf of Mark Beisswenger

Consideration of an application for site plan review and front yard parking setback variance to construct a new Beisswenger’s Do It Best Hardware Store.  The proposal shows parking which encroaches into the front yard setback.  A variance of 25 feet is needed for the proposed parking. 

 

Mr. Boylan briefly reviewed the history of the project, the zoning code and parking standards. 

 

Mr. Norm Wells, Architect for Mark Beisswenger, presented information for the parking setback and site plan.  He addressed the number of parking spaces and future considerations of same.  Mr. Wells described the pond and proposed fountains and landscaping.  He stated they are working with Ramsey County and MN DOT on a couple of issues. He reviewed the access to the store.  The space will be a 46,000 sq. ft. hardware store with an outdoor garden shop. 

 

Commissioners asked questions and wanted more information regarding the proposed parking spaces and wanted some data on hardware store parking uses.  Concern was expressed regarding building a new building and using up so much of the front yard setback along old Hwy 8 for parking.   Commissioners asked the question of Mr. Boylan what the next procedure would be when they come back with parking numbers.  Mr. Boylan reported it would probably either be to obtain a variance or change the zoning code for hardware stores.  It was felt a delay of a month would not be too detrimental to the project and would have time to get the information back and also there could be progress in acquiring and assembling of properties that is proposed. 

 

Mr. Boylan will conduct a parking review of other cities and City staff will work with applicant on developing Special Standards for an outdoor garden area from an acceptable aesthetic and retail perspective, balancing the two needs and the intent of redevelopment goals.  Rooftop mechanical screening needs will also be clarified for next month.  It was suggested also that any updated information regarding the staff’s recommended conditions would be helpful for next month. 

 

Motion by Baker, Second by Schiferl, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NOVEMBER MEETING. 

 

4 Ayes, 0 Nays,  Motion Carried. 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 

 

                                                            __________________________________________

                                                                        Patrick Boylan, Intermediate City Planner