Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />5. There are no unique circumstances to support allowing an active patio area within 10 to 20 <br />feet of an anticipated future roadway. <br />Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola explained the Commission could <br />deny the requested patio but allow for a sidewalk on the side of the building, or a patio on the front <br />of the building. <br />Commissioner Allen asked why the applicant wanted to build onto the side of the building versus the <br />front. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola explained the cafeteria was <br />right off of the side door, which made the proposed location convenient. <br />Commissioner Biedenfeld asked what the variance would be if only the sidewalk were approved. <br />Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola estimated this would require a five <br />foot setback. <br />Commissioner Frischman requested clarification on how the City defines a permanent structure <br />versus a temporary structure. She questioned if a seasonal tent could be considered to allow the <br />applicant to have a patio space. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola <br />commented he could not speak to what code says regarding those features within this zoning <br />district. He stated he has not explored this option with the applicant. He reported he could <br />investigate code further with the applicant if the variance was denied. <br />Commissioner Nelsen requested further information regarding the Murlowski roadway. Assistant <br />Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola discussed the Murlowski request, how the <br />legal descriptions were addressed and how a future roadway would run along the applicant’s <br />property. He stated staff was not aware of when this roadway would be completed. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. <br />Tim Kraft, WilsonWolf representative, thanked the Commission for their consideration. He noted <br />WilsonWolf has been in New Brighton for almost 20 years. He discussed how his company moved to <br />a new state of the art facility with zoom rooms, clean rooms, etc. He explained the proposed patio <br />would provide employees with a nice open area for dining. He indicated the future roadway was not <br />on his radar when WilsonWolf purchased the site. He stated this would be the most convenient <br />space for the patio. He commented he would be willing to consider a non-permanent structure. He <br />stated the front of the building could not support a patio because this would not fit the company’s <br />professional manufacturing vision. He discussed the potential roadway and noted a buffer could be <br />put in place to separate the patio from the asphalt. In addition, this roadway may never be <br />completed. He requested WilsonWolf be allowed to install some sort of patio within reason. <br />Jeff Gears, BDH & Young, explained a patio on the front of the building would still be in conflict with <br />city code. He stated the aesthetics of the building were still being addressed and the front façade <br />could not support a patio. He reported the proposed location of the patio was adjacent to the <br />breakroom/cafeteria. He indicated if the patio were to locate at the front of the building there <br />would be privacy issues. He commented the side of the building would be a better location for the <br />patio for safety and privacy purposes.