Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting

May 16, 1995

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Larry Baker, Chair.

Roll Call

Present:	Larry Baker, Roger Blomquist, Mike Livingston, Joann Knuth, Virginia Sande, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Steve Jensen

Also Present:	Erny Mattila, City Planner

Roger Williams, Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to approve the minutes of the March 21, 1995, Planning Commission meeting.

6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report of Council Action

Williams said the Council approved the special use permit for the New Brighton Care Center. Baker asked what was done about the lower windows. Williams replied the Care Center redesigned the north face of the building. Mattila said lower windows were added to the north face. A double window was added on top at the east face and on the bottom of the east face, where the door was, they added a window beside the door to match the upper window. Williams said construction should start in about a month.

Williams reported the Council approved development of plans and specs for the landscaping on 5th Avenue and 10th Street NW at a public hearing. The Council also approved acquisition of some land between 8th Street and 5th Street where Old Highway 8 comes in. The public hearing had a good turnout. Mostly, the public supported continuing the street trees and lighting fixtures and street improvements all the way down to that area of town. Planting should begin this summer.

Fridley, Mounds View, and Spring Lake Park have decided they are no longer interested in the joint senior center project. Mike Gould, the developer for the proposed senior center project, and the owners of the Rice Creek Center could not agree on a purchase price. The Church Upon the Rock, the owners of Rice Creek Center, have indicated they have two other buyers interested in the property.

The City Council held a joint meeting with the Park Board and some area seniors. Commissioner Livingston attended as a resident. Some seniors' activities can be held at the Family Service Center. The Council will continue to consider how to serve area seniors now that the three-city project is no longer an option.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

7:40– p.m.	LP-302/NC-99	New Brighton Amoco

Mattila reviewed the case report concerning an application for site plan review and a nonconforming use permit to construct a car wash addition onto an existing service station. Mattila showed slides of the site.

Robert Smith, owner of New Brighton Amoco, and Richard Larson, a representative of Amoco, were present.

Baker asked why New Brighton Amoco wanted to build a new car wash building rather than expand the existing car wash stall.

Larson said the existing car wash stall cannot hold the new "touchless" car wash equipment. The present car wash area would be used for storage.

Baker asked if the existing building would be expanded. Larson responded they would like to square off the building, depending upon the cost.

Sande asked if the new car wash would be taller than the existing car wash. Larson answered the car wash would be 15' high with a flat roof.

Blomquist asked what would happen to the old car wash. Larson replied it would remain there as a bay for the equipment that runs the car wash and for storage.

Baker asked for clarification about whether or not the present car wash area would be extended.

Larson answered affirmatively. The drawing shows the extension, but the extension depends upon the cost to build it.

Sande asked how the Planning Commission can approve the plans if Amoco is not sure what they are going to build. Sande said Amoco was saying they really do not know what the building will look like since how much of the proposed building they will actually build depends on the cost.

Larson said that was true in a sense. The site will look like it does now with the addition of the free- standing car wash next to the existing car wash.

Sande asked if the car wash is completely freestanding and not anchored to the existing building. Larson said there would be footings under the freestanding car wash and it would butt up against the existing building.

Zisla asked Mattila if the approval would include just the new building or would it include the new building plus the possible expansion of the existing car wash area.

Mattila said the it would include both since the expansion was approved in November 1994. The applicant is seeking the new car wash building because the expansion approved in 1994 did not suit their needs.

Zisla asked if Amoco has an effective approval for expanding the existing car wash. Mattila answered yes that was part of the November 1994 approval. Mattila said they have until the end of May to pull the permit under the November 1994 approval.

Mattila said the structure needs to be set back 25 feet from the north property line by code. Both the existing car wash and the proposed car wash meet that requirement. The nonconformity is the driveway area that has always extended into that 25-foot setback area. The City Council has approved a nonconforming use permit twice before for that driveway; once when the canopy addition was considered and second when on the existing car wash addition was considered.

Baker asked how many parking stalls are there in the back of the building. Smith responded 12 or 14 spaces being used. Smith said they were used for service work. Customers for gas pull up to the pumps.

Baker asked where will the vehicles go after the expansion. Smith answered the spaces are not all always used. The busiest time is during the day. No one parks there at night and there is always ample parking.

Baker said he drove by tonight and there were eleven cars parked in back and two parked on the south side of the building. Under this proposal, where would these cars go? Smith responded many cars are there for only two minutes and then they are gone.

Baker asked if the cars behind the building are there only briefly. Smith said yes.

Zisla asked if Smith's employees park in back. Smith responded yes. Zisla asked, should parking become a probelm, could the emplyees park elsewhere? Smith answered that possibly arrangements for parking in the lot at the South China Island Inn could be arranged.

Baker asked if the curb cut would be changed. The plan shows the curb curving in. The Planning Commission denied that design. The plan shows parking stalls there. Smith said those parking stalls could be eliminated.

Mattila said nine stalls were required by code. Baker said the Planning Commission should have been provided with a current print. Baker said he agreed with Sande that he did not know exactly what the Commission is being asked to approve. Will there be drive-in stalls on the north side of the building? The curbing is incorrect. The expansion to the existing building is unknown. Baker said he was concerned about extending the nonconformities on the site by putting the coin box nine feet from the north property line instead of the required 25 feet and by allowing a trash enclosure 10 feet from the property line instead of the required 25 feet. Another building and another door on the north side would interfere with the 25-foot setback.

Larson clarified the plan. Larson said the existing car wash had overhead doors on both ends. Larson said there would be no new doors on the existing car wash. Larson pointed out the electrical box and said it could go inside the existing car wash.

Mattila pointed out the proposed expansion of the existing building was approved in November 1994. The owner is not certain whether he will build this approved extension of the existing car wash area. The Planning Commission is considering only the new wash. The existing car wash will no longer function as a car wash.

Blomquist said he was concerned that Amoco would not go through with the expansion approved in 1994. Then, there would be a new building next to a partial building with two nonworking overhead doors.

Knuth said the new plan seemed better than the plan approved in November 1994.

Larson asked Mattila to run slides of the site again. Larson reviewed the proposal as the slides were shown.

Baker said his concern was about the traffic and parking. The location of the coin box is a concern. Mattila suggested the coin box be moved back.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston to close the public hearing.

6 Ayes - O Nays. Motion carried.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Sande to adopt the resolution recommending approval of NC-99 and LP-302.

5 Ayes - 1 Nay (Baker). Motion carried.

General Business - None

Announcements and Updates

Direction/signage for Certain Highway 8 Business Locations

Mattila said he had been approached by several business owners who have properties located some distance back from Old Highway 8. These business owners include Chuck Stark from New Brighton Lumber, Mark Murlowski from Belair Builders, and several others. These business owners say they cannot get any identity or visibility from Old Highway 8 without using some kind of off-premises directional signs on Old Highway 8. Mattila told them he would ask the Planning Commission for their ideas. Mattila said one alternative was to continue to prohibit such signs on Old Highway 8, which is the current code. Another alternative would be for the City and business owners to work with the City's landscape/streetscape consultants to design a sign frame or monument that would be consistent and complimentary throughout the Old Highway 8 Corridor. The signs that would go into the monument would be consistent. Mattila asked for ideas from the Planning Commission.

Baker said he thought working with the landscape/streetscape consultant would be a good idea.

Blomquist said that if these signs were allowed that it is important they be consistent.

Mattila thanked the Commission for their direction. Mattila said he would talk with Kevin Locke and Matt Fulton about setting up a meeting with the consultant.

Housing Committee

Baker asked about the Housing Committee. Mattila said the first Housing Committee meeting would be set up for June. Mattila suggested the Housing Committee meet either before or after the regular Planning Commission meeting.

Zisla said he would prefer the meeting be at 7:00 p.m. before the regular Planning Commission meeting on June 20. The Planning Commission approved of the time. Mattila said he would send out an agenda.

Adjournment

Motion by Blomquist, seconded by Livingston, to Adjourn the Meeting.

6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

________________________________

Erny Mattila, City Planner