10-20-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Schiferl stated the other option is to redefine the paving. Crushed aggregate could be considered paving. Is there any logic that the City would ever relax curbing and the definition of paving? What is the purpose of the paving requirement? Schiferl said paving looked good and directed stormwater. Baker stated paving defines the parking lot. Livingston asked about the size of the area that would need to be paved. Cook responded the site is 2.1 acres and about 35 percent of the site is currently paved. Cook asked if they could store vehicles on site now without violating the Ordinance. Teague responded they could because it would be a continuation of the use that had gone on before, and no sales take place. Cook asked if the sale of vehicles changes the use on the site. Teague stated that is correct. Cook said the vehicles being stored on the site currently are vehicles on which Holiday does maintenance. These vehicles will be sold. Holiday is not doing any maintenance for Ryder’s lease customers such as Pepsi. The maintenance for Ryder’s leased vehicles is performed at the Roseville facility. Ryder does not intend to maintain any vehicles leased to its customers at the New Brighton location. Baker stated the consensus of the Commission is that paving and curbing would be required. The Commission would not want to set such a precedent. Livingston agreed with Baker. Zisla stated curb, gutter and paving is the standard for developing the property and is imposed on every site in New Brighton. Baker said the only reason this site was not paved now is that it was heavy industrial when it was developed. If this site were developed today, the paving would be required under the existing zoning. Teague said that the parking and paving regulations were adopted in 1988. Cook said Ryder appreciated the Planning Commission’s time and consideration. Concept Plan Review for expansion of the New Brighton Care Center Mike Cheis Teague reviewed his memo on a concept plan to expand the entrance to the New Brighton Care Center. Cheis asked for comments on the required setback on 8th Street NW. The property is in the B-4 District, Downtown Business. The underlying requirement is a 30-foot setback; however, there is some flexibility in the B-4 District. Baker stated Cheis has not provided enough information for the Commission to give an opinion or suggestions. The addition north of the building did not add beds to the nursing home. There should be a way to add this entrance using the existing property since that addition does not provide bed space rather than going to a zero setback. Baker stated Cheis must provide more information. Livingston stated Cheis should have done this when the addition was built. O’Brien stated it looks like there is an entrance at the west end of the new addition. O’Brien said it was unclear why the Care Center needs an entrance on the south side of the building. Teague said the purpose of the proposed entrance is to enclose the area to provide a smoking area for residents. There are three residents who smoke. The facility is nonsmoking. When those residents leave, the space would be used differently. In the short-term the space would be a smoking area for those three residents. After that is no longer necessary, the space would be used differently. Mr. Cheis has not specified what that use would be. Schiferl stated that, if Mr. Cheis could not be present, it is difficult to discuss the issue, additionally, Schiferl did not favor the proposal to add an addition to the facility and decrease the setback on 8th Street NW. Baker and O’Brien concurred with Schiferl. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\10-20-98.WPD 8