04-20-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mixed Use allowed the completion of any approved site plan under the old zoning designation of I-3, Limited Industrial. Mark Beisswenger, the owner, was present. Baker stated he did not know how to look at a plan that has more on it than the original application. This is, in effect, a new site plan. Baker stated the new site plan should go under the MX District. Beisswenger stated that the Commission is looking at the old plan with the 12,000 additional square feet of building space. In talking with the City, Beisswenger said he understood there is a possibility of revising a few of the ordinances so the green area to the north would be available for nursery stock. The area would be fenced and would be a green area right up against the property line. This area would still be open area. The difficulty with the old plan is that the business has changed in the last twelve years. Beisswenger said too much outdoor storage was on the site now. Beisswenger’s is renting space in a facility where access is difficult. The proposed 4,000 square foot outside storage is a minimum; more space for outside storage would be better. Beisswenger’s would propose that half the 12,000 additional square feet would be a second story. This second storage could be storage space. Beisswenger stated that Beisswenger’s would like to enlarge the sales area by 12,000 square feet. Part of the 12,000 square feet would be a permanent greenhouse on the north side of the site with grass area. The greenhouse would hold nursery stock. In the winter the area could be used for Christmas trees. The 4,000 square feet of outside storage would have to remain. There is no other way to store equipment. The proposed expansion would be the maximum in New Brighton. Beisswenger said he would like to construct the 4,000 square foot storage area first. Beisswenger’s has not studied the financial end of the proposed building expansion. Beisswenger wanted to have the Planning Commission review the proposal before proceeding. Zisla asked how these plans differ from the 1987 plans. Beisswenger responded the 4,000 square feet storage area and the additional 6,000 square feet to the second level. Livingston asked about parking. The plans show parking stalls in the back. How will people using those stalls enter the building? Beisswenger stated the rear parking would be for employees. Thirty employees park cars daily. The store needs additional parking. The parking is inadequate for only three weeks in May. During May, the employees try to use alternative parking. Livingston asked if Beisswenger’s had more parking spaces than currently. Beisswenger answered that they have 50 spaces and will go to 120. Zisla stated that, regarding the 25-foot setback on the special use permit, the staff explanation seemed appropriate. If the proposal fits the long term vision of linking Beisswenger’s to the park and the sidewalk, Zisla said he would be amenable to it. O’Brien asked about the overhead doors. Beisswenger said the glazed overhead doors in front would be to an open area before the building proper. In the summer, potting soils and landscape material would be protected and out in the open. In the winter, the doors would be closed and the area used for other materials. This is only a concept plan. Beisswenger stated he did not know if he could financially add the second story. Economically, the 4,000 square feet of outside storage and the 12,000 square foot expansion are probably feasible. Beisswenger’s did not build big enough last time. Beisswenger’s needs more space. The big issue would be the storage area in the back, whether it is 4,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet. Beisswenger’s is having a security problem in the outside area. Zisla said that, before the proposal comes before the Commission for formal review, it would be appropriate to have a comment from the City Attorney on the issue of the divergence from the approved 1987 plan. Teague stated he asked the City Attorney that question today. The City Attorney stated the City does not have to be concerned about setting a precedent in that this is the only site plan approved during the time frame that was set apart. The City did put the specific condition in the MX Ordinance that an approved site plan should be constructed to the approved plan. The City Attorney was not really comfortable with it, but felt that, if the I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\04-20-99.WPD 6