01-19-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zisla asked the developer, Mr. John Allen of Industrial Equities, about the floor area ratio and the parking requirement. Allen responded Industrial Equities does not look for maximum density, but delivering maximum value. Parking for a high tech environment would be consistent with the other buildings in the Lakeview Business Center. A larger building would be needed if the prospective tenants were distribution type uses. The proposed facility would attract high tech uses. The extra parking would allow the parking capabilities to accommodate those uses. To go to 40 percent site coverage, the parking would be inadequate. Zisla said, then, Allen would rather have parking than building area and would get higher rent per square foot. Allen said that the users who are attracted to the Lakeview Center are technology businesses. Livingston asked if the proposed building had the same brick as the other buildings. Allen said the building would combine the best of all the buildings. Livingston asked whether there would be one or many tenants. Allen responded it would be a multi-tenant facility, although it could be a single tenant. In answer to Livingston’s question, Allen said construction would start this Spring. Zisla asked for Allen’s reaction to the idea of putting up fences. Allen responded he would not like to see fences be a condition of approval. Allen stated he did not feel there is a major crime problem in New Brighton. Allen stated the site is subject to a development agreement. The City has a provision that Industrial Equities build according to the plan. Substitutions would have to be submitted to the City. Allen stated he has invested in New Brighton because there are more development-friendly conditions here than in many other cities. LP-349, Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUBJECT TO ,#7#11. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. CONDITIONS AND DELETING CONDITIONS AND Rezoning/Zoning Ordinance Amendment City of New Brighton Teague reviewed the memo concerning allowing gasoline sales at the northeast corner of the Highway 96 and Old Highway 8 intersection, through a rezoning and/or ordinance amendment to the MX District. Baker asked if it were correct that this is the only property in the MX District where the zoning is not consistent with the lot line. Teague showed the lot line on the plan; there are three separate parcels of record. These parcels are all held in common ownership, but are separate parcels. Baker said that, when the Task Force drafted the original Comprehensive Plan rezoning, it thought rezoning should be done without regard to ownership. After considering the problems that would be created if adjoining properties under a single ownership were zoned differently, the Task Force decided against rezoning without regard to ownership. Baker stated he would not be against leaving this property I-2 because of the common ownership. The language in Option C does not accomplish anything. Teague said the Option C was included in the report because staff fears that since the property is vacant, it could be sold to any industrial user. If the current owners do not see any need to expand in the future, then the property could be developed with any heavy industrial use allowed by City Code. Zisla said he agreed with Teague’s point. The coincidence of ownership without a specific plan may still fit the MX district. Last month, the Commission tried to figure out a way for the US Filter/Johnson Screens facility could expand onto that lot. Another alternative to might be to modify this in the Comprehensive Plan. This is not binding, but is a statement of intent, which does not give anyone any comfort. The argument could I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\01-19-99.WPD 2