05-16-95 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

New Brighton Planning Commission May 16, 1995 Mattila said the it would include both since the expansion was approved in November 1994. The applicant is seeking the new car wash building because the expansion approved in 1994 did not suit their needs. Zisla asked if Amoco has an effective approval for expanding the existing car wash. Mattila answered yes that was part of the November 1994 approval. Mattila said they have until the end of May to pull the permit under the November 1994 approval. Mattila said the structure needs to be set back 25 feet from the north property line by code. Both the existing car wash and the proposed car wash meet that requirement. The nonconformity is the driveway area that has always extended into that 25-foot setback area. The City Council has approved a nonconforming use permit twice before for that driveway; once when the canopy addition was considered and second when on the existing car wash addition was considered. Baker asked how many parking stalls are there in the back of the building. Smith responded 12 or 14 spaces being used. Smith said they were used for service work. Customers for gas pull up to the pumps. Baker asked where will the vehicles go after the expansion. Smith answered the spaces are not all always used. The busiest time is during the day. No one parks there at night and there is always ample parking. Baker said he drove by tonight and there were eleven cars parked in back and two parked on the south side of the building. Under this proposal, where would these cars go? Smith responded many cars are there for only two minutes and then they are gone. Baker asked if the cars behind the building are there only briefly. Smith said yes. Zisla asked if Smith’s employees park in back. Smith responded yes. Zisla asked, should parking become a probelm, could the emplyees park elsewhere? Smith answered that possibly arrangements for parking in the lot at the South China Island Inn could be arranged. Baker asked if the curb cut would be changed. The plan shows the curb curving in. The Planning Commission denied that design. The plan shows parking stalls there. Smith said those parking stalls could be eliminated. Mattila said nine stalls were required by code. Baker said the Planning Commission should have been provided with a current print. Baker said he agreed with Sande that he did not know exactly what the Commission is being asked to approve. Will there be drive-in stalls on the north side of the building? The curbing is incorrect. The expansion to the existing building is unknown. Baker said he was concerned about extending the nonconformities on the site by putting the coin box nine feet from the north property line instead of the required 25 feet and by allowing a trash enclosure 10 feet from the property line instead of the required 25 feet. Another building and another door on the north side would interfere with the 25-foot setback. Larson clarified the plan. Larson said the existing car wash had overhead doors on both ends. Larson said there would be no new doors on the existing car wash. Larson pointed out the electrical box and said it could go inside the existing car wash. Mattila pointed out the proposed expansion of the existing building was approved in November 1994. The owner is not certain whether he will build this approved extension of the existing car wash area. The Planning Commission is considering only the new wash. The existing car wash will no longer function as a car wash. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1995\05-16-95.WPD 3