08-19-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

General Business LP-328 Remmele Engineering Mattila introduced Tom Terry who has been working with City Staff this summer. Mattila said Terry would do the next two presentations on the agenda. Terry reviewed the case report concerning a request for site plan review to construct two additions, a 21,740 square foot addition and a 32,610 square foot addition, to the existing Remmele Engineering building. Chet Harrison of Clark Engineering stated that, when Remmele constructed its building, Remmele thought it had approval for these additions. This process adds 30 to 45 days before they can construct these additions. Remmele wants to meet all the requirements, but Remmele needs approval to finish this project within the next five years. Mattila stated, when this project was first proposed in 1992, it was only a site plan proposal. Site plan proposals do not require public hearings. Mattila stated he walked 13th Avenue Friday evening and met with some neighbors to let them know what would be happening on the Remmele site. Mattila said this was a courtesy the City provided to the residents. If Remmele builds an addition in five years, Mattila said they should again bring it before the Planning Commission and the City Council so we can advise the neighbors of the development. In five years time, homes may be bought and sold, and the new residents may have no idea of what is happening. Baker asked if an approval expires within a certain time if no building permit is issued. Mattila said the approval expired in six months. They labeled the area on the site plan “future expansion” and the Planning Commission or the City Council anticipated any plans for such expansion would come before them in the future. Baker said he felt we should review the site before they construct any addition. Livingston agreed with Baker. If the applicant wanted to start this project, they should have allowed time for this review. Schmitz asked if approval could be tied to the building being retained in Remmele’s ownership. Remmele has been a good neighbor in New Brighton and Schmitz felt they should be given every consideration possible. Schiferl stated conditions can change over a five-year period. Mattila stated that is why it is a good idea to review any new additions. Baker commented the addition would be a real asset to the City. Baker remarked this was not a public hearing since site plan review does not require a public hearing, but asked if anyone wished to speak on the application. Craig Walker, 116 13th Avenue SW, asked Terry to interpret the site plan. Terry did so. Walker said the addition would be very close to other neighbors’ homes. Remmele is a pleasing building, but they should consider the homeowners. Perhaps the Councilmembers should walk in their back yards and look. Something should be done to buffer the building from the homes. Mattila stated that in 1992, when the building outlined in purple on the site plan came before the Planning Commission, a big issue was the buffering and screening. Remmele installed the trees and privacy fence. Mattila said he had worked with all the neighbors bordering the site and everyone who wanted a fence got one. The issue was addressed at that point. Walker said the neighbors might want a better buffer. Jim Schreyer, 13 13th Avenue SW, asked why Remmele is not expanding to the vacant area to the north or to the southwest where there are a holding pond and a railroad track. 6 I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\08-19-97.WPD