Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - October 20, 1998

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

Larry Baker, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Present:	Larry Baker, Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	None

Also Present:	Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development

Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schopf, to approve the minutes of the September 16, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

Larson reported that the new McDonald's on Silver Lake Road is progressing according to McDonald's whirlwind schedule and should reopen in about thirty days.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Nonconforming use Permit	Minar Ford

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request to remodel the existing Minar Ford showroom and service garage.

Zisla asked Teague to explain how the parking was computed. Teague stated the Code does not have a specific requirement for parking for car dealers. The City based the number of required parking spaces on the number of employees, the number of service bays, and the square footage of the building. Therefore, parking includes employee parking, customer parking, and parking for cars waiting to be serviced or picked up. One hundred thirty-two spaces are provided for the service portion of the business. The square footage of the building determined the number of customers that can be handled (116). Zisla asked if Teague had checked with other communities about their parking requirements for car dealers. Teague responded he had not done so. Zisla said that many Minar employees parked on the street. The parking allotted to employees on the site is not being used by employees. Zisla stated he did not like the idea of building the ability to shift designated parking to uses for which it was not intended. The present practice of shifting employee parking has led to a problem that should not be encouraged.

Teague said Zisla was correct in that adequate parking was allotted for the employees, customers, and service customers. Posting Service Drive "No Parking" on both sides may be the answer to the problem. Zisla asked about the size of the inventory. Teague responded that he understood that, if Minar had 292 available parking spaces, they would have 292 cars. Part of the 116 spaces needed for customers could be used for inventory.

Schiferl stated that there seems to be flexibility in terms of interpretation of the parking requirements. Assuming there is no parking on Service Drive, what is the maximum number of parking spaces Minar wants? Less parking and more green space on the site might be considered in the public interest.

David Phillips, the architect representing Minar Ford, responded that the parking requirements far exceed the needs of a car dealer. Ford Motor Company recommends thirty-five customer parking spaces, besides spaces for service customers and employees. Phillips said Minar had 110 employees on a shift. Only fifteen or twenty employees park on Service Drive. U-Haul employees also park on Service Drive.

Zisla asked Bob Lewis, the manager of Minar Ford, if Minar would ever have more than 292 cars in inventory. Lewis responded affirmatively. Zisla stated Minar should have adequate parking on its site so employees will not park on the street. Lewis stated that Mr. Minar did not want employees parking on Service Drive, but Minar could not stop the employees from doing so because it is a public street.

Baker asked why the interior parking spaces, which are shop bays, are on the parking list submitted by the applicant. Teague said he did not use the interior stalls in the parking calculation. Lewis said Minar could accommodate 180 service customers on the site.

Schiferl stated the number of parking spaces is far more than required in other cities. Schiferl asked Lewis what he would like to see regarding parking. Lewis responded he would like 378 spaces for inventory, 110 spaces for employees, 120 spaces for service parking, and 60 spaces for customers.

Baker asked if the service bays were used in calculating the handicap stalls. Teague responded the handicap parking is calculated based on the number of spaces required under the Code. Therefore, the handicap parking is based on the 358 parking stalls. Baker said the service stalls were not regular parking spaces. The service spaces are used for cars serviced or waiting for service. Teague said that, since these spaces are not customer spaces, he would have no problem with recalculating the handicap parking.

Schiferl asked about the lack of landscaping on the north side of Service Drive. Teague said overhead power lines would restrict tall growth. Schiferl asked whether the area was City property or Minar's property. Teague responded that most of it is right-of-way, 30 feet of the grass area belongs to the City, and 20 feet belongs to Minar.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. No one responded.

Phillips stated Minar had no objections to the staff recommendation regarding landscaping. Minar would like to request a change in signage. Minar would like the logos on the building to be interpreted as architectural features and not signage.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to close the Public Hearing. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Livingston to recommend approval of SP-208, NC-112, and LP-347, subject to conditions (eliminating Condition No. 4). There was no second to the motion.

Baker amended the motion, adding:

8.	All employee and customer parking shall be single-depth parking.

9.	Adequate employee and customer parking will be maintained on site.

Baker asked Teague if such an condition could be enforced. Teague responded affirmatively; that is the reason for the condition that all the parking be striped. Baker asked how customer cars could be distinguished from inventory cars. Zisla asked what Baker wanted to accomplish by his amended motion. Baker said he wanted to eliminate parking on Service Drive.

Livingston seconded the amended motion.

Livingston suggested that, if Minar cannot stop employees from parking on Service Drive, the City could post the street "2-hour parking."

Baker called for a vote on the amendment to the motion. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Schiferl stated Service Drive is unsightly and parking should not be allowed on Service Drive. Larson said the City could post Service Drive "No Parking." Schiferl said that would make Minar's site look better. Schiferl said a business could prohibit its employees from parking on the street. Larson stated Service Drive is a public street and, therefore, Minar cannot prohibit its employees from parking on it.

Baker called for a vote on the amended motion. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Ordinance Amendment - Section 5-140

Teague reviewed his memo relating to repealing gasoline and ice sales in the B-2 Zoning District.

Zisla stated that, considering policies in the Comprehensive Plan, some uses north of Freedom Park would not fit with the narrow definition of the ordinance amendment. Broadway Pizza and the driving school do not fit the definition. Generally, the negative effects of a gasoline station apply in the same manner to a high density residential community. Zisla said the argument for this amendment was inconsistent. We may be treating single family residential and multi-family much differently.

Teague stated some of these B-2 areas are adjacent to higher density areas. For example, an area on Silver Lake Road is adjacent to multiple family housing. Zisla said that certain uses were incompatible with residential uses.

Baker asked if any gas stations will be made nonconforming because of the proposed amendment. Teague responded negatively. Baker asked about the statement that gasoline stations create fumes that detract from the enjoyment and use of residential property. Baker asked if the fumes would be from the gasoline. Teague responded affirmatively. Baker stated he had difficulty believing that statement. Baker said that, if the statement were true, New Brighton has some serious problems with air pollution.

Schiferl said he agreed with Baker. Schiferl asked if Tank and Tummy was in a B-3 district. Teague responded affirmatively, and Tank and Tummy is adjacent to industrial uses.

Schiferl stated that the concept plan for the area north of Donatelle showed a gasoline station. Teague stated a gas station in the Donatelle area would be adjacent to residential and industrial. Baker asked what the anticipated zoning is for that area by Donatelle. Teague responded it is industrial. Baker asked if the intent is to keep it industrial if the proposed development is built. Teague said that issue had yet to be resolved. However, the area would be developed under a Planned Unit Development. The underlying zoning for that development is industrial.

Teague stated that each individual property owner within the B-2 District was notified of the ordinance amendment.

Baker asked about the zoning of the China Island Inn. Teague responded it is B-3. Baker asked if gas stations are allowed in the B-3 District as a special use. Teague responded affirmatively. Schiferl stated gas stations serve the needs of residential neighborhoods. Zisla said gas stations were becoming less neighborhood-oriented and really serve the traffic coming through and a broader service area. Zisla stated gas stations are much larger than in the past.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. No one responded.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to close the Public Hearing. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment to Section 5-140, which eliminates gasoline and ice sales as a use allowed by special permit in the B-2 Zoning District. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Site Plan Review	US West

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a revised landscape plan for screening for US West.

Schiferl asked about the gap on the plan. Teague responded that is the location of an underground gas line. Schiferl asked why low evergreens are not used in the plan. Schiferl stated crab apple trees only screen four months of the year and the landscape plan does not provide much screening. Teague responded pine trees could be planted in the area to which Schiferl referred, but the City Forester recommended pine trees not be used due to visibility concerns for cars entering on to Cleveland Avenue. Schiferl said he was confused about the City Forester's recommendation. Teague showed the location of the fiber optics line. Baker stated the fiber optics line is a good distance below grade. Schiferl stated shrubs can be planted over the fiber optics line.

Zisla stated that, at September's meeting, he suggested that a reasonable compromise be reached. The pole is virtually not buffered. Zisla said that, had he known what the project would look like, he would not have voted for approval of the project. The drawing submitted by US West does not show how US West intends to buffer the monopole.

Conlin stated she understood in conversations with the City Forester and Cary Teague that US West understands that it must mask the perimeter of the fence as completely as possible. The gas line puts restrictions on what US West can do. US West is suggesting a solid wood fence.

Baker asked why US West cannot plant above the gas line. Baker said a gas line was small in diameter. The corner of the building has an island that could be used as a greenspace. Conlin replied that a good amount of that space is fiber optics. Baker said the island could be changed to evergreens, which would mask the pole from the street. Conlin responded there is not enough space for an evergreen. The area is about 2 feet wide.

Teague stated that the reason for the five to six-foot tree was to address the issue of providing a better screen for the fence.

Baker said the plan showed that the island is separate and a driveway is next to the building. Conlin stated that there is a sidewalk in front of the building. There is a doorway about half the way to the south, which is the front doorway. Schiferl suggested some changes and pointed them out on the plan. Conlin responded the gas line would still be an issue. Baker said the easement for the gas line is huge; a gas line is only 1 inch in diameter. Conlin responded Minnegasco requires a foot and a half on either side of the line. Baker said that did not mean the easement cannot be planted. It only means the gas company can tear up the planting to service the gas line. The chances of that are remote. If two more Juniper Trees were planted in that area, the plan would be something with which the Commission could live. Schopf asked, when vehicles are parked there, how much of the lower landscape will be seen. Schiferl said that in the evening and in the summer it will look a little better.

Zisla asked about the plan US West originally submitted. Conlin responded that plan was only an example to be superimposed on the site and then modified. For example, the trees are so close to the building that they had no room to grow. Larson stated there is room for one more juniper. Tearing up the sidewalk on the corner would make room for another tree to screen from the street. Conlin said that, from a point directly across the street from the ingress and egress, there are a good number of mature trees screening the site. Schiferl said that statement was untrue.

Larson stated his concern was the view from Cleveland Avenue or from the homes across the street. Larson stated more junipers will help screen the fence. Conlin said she agreed that would work well. Baker said that originally the landscaping was supposed to be closer to the equipment building. Now the fence would be farther from the equipment building. However, the fence could be moved farther west on the east side of the equipment building, which would result in another four feet in which to put landscaping. A double row of landscaping could go in that area.

Schiferl showed the location where a Black Hills Spruce could be planted on the plan. There are many variations that would improve the proposed landscape plan. Baker said he was disappointed that the City Forester has been on the site a number of times, but he has not come up with a plan the Commission can send to the Council.

Baker asked if a revised plan could be available for the City Council meeting. Baker suggested the Commission recommend approval contingent upon having additional landscaping to the east of the equipment building, even if that means moving the fence farther west. Also, one parking space can be used for a double row of shrubs. Teague stated the Planning Commission could add specific conditions such as planting a Black Hills Spruce, moving the chain link fence closer to the posts, and adding an additional row of Junipers, and adding one Juniper to the originally proposed row of Junipers. The wood fence then could go closer to the equipment building.

Conlin asked if the Commission wanted US West to take out the bollards. Baker said the bollards should stay. Conlin asked Baker to clarify the Commission's requirements. Baker said there would be approximately eleven or twelve feet from the edge of the fence to the next parking stall. That should allow for two staggered rows of shrubs (Juniper Trees). Conlin responded the landscaping has to stay outside the bollards to access the equipment.

Schiferl said he did not care if the fence is closer to the bollards or not. The reality is that US West is perfectly willing to use two and a half parking spaces to put in a monopole. They may have to use another space or two for planting. Conlin said it did not matter to US West. US West was only trying to comply with the City's parking code.

Zisla stated the general consensus is that staff's recommendation will not be approved tonight. Zisla asked Teague to review the specific points suggested in tonight's meeting.

Teague said he understood the points of the discussion were the addition of a second row of junipers whether the fence is moved in or not, and the addition of a Black Hills Spruce. Baker stated the City Forester should look at that area again. Baker said he did not want to overrule the Forester if it would create a safety hazard. Zisla said those points would be in addition to the points outlined in Teague's planning report.

Conlin asked if the Commission if the double row of junipers would be on the east side, not the north. Baker asked if Conlin was amenable to the compromise. Conlin said it was a reasonable compromise.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to recommend approval of the US West site plan subject to the addition of "The addition of a second row of junipers" to condition No. 2. The addition of Condition #3, "The addition of a Black Hills Spruce on the east side of the fence."

7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Concept Plan for Ryder Truck

Teague stated that Ryder Transportation is requesting the Planning Commission informally comment on their proposal to operate the former Townhome Maintenance facility on Old Highway 8 as a used vehicle sales lot adjacent to the railroad tracks at the back of the building. Teague pointed out the proposed sales area on the concept plan. The existing area is gravel. The Code requires that off-street parking and drive aisles be paved. Ryder was requesting that the area remain unpaved. Initially, Ryder planned to apply for a Special Use Permit. Teague said he told Ryder that paving would be required as part of that permit. Rather than making a formal application, Ryder decided to come before the Planning Commission for the Commission's comments about the paving. The staff recommendation would be that the area be paved and striped, the same as any other auto dealer would be required to do. Also to install permanent curbing and meet the required setbacks.

Teague introduced Mr. Cook of Ryder. Baker asked what the use of the property is currently. Cook responded the site is currently used by Townhome Maintenance, who actually does maintenance on Ryder's vehicles. Cook said it was not Ryder's intention to operate a used vehicle retail center on the scale of Minar Ford. Ryder is a commercial vehicle rental and leasing firm that leases vehicles to commercial fleet users such as McGlynn Bakeries and Pepsi. When those vehicles come off long term rental or lease, Ryder markets those vehicles through industry trade publications. Ryder proposes to use the proposed facility as a vehicle staging area. The traffic into the facility would not be the same as a retail facility. Customers call the 800 number listed in the ads in the trade publications. Ryder does not do any local advertising or radio and television advertising. Ryder is marketing to specific commercial users with specific needs. Cook stated Ryder would demolish the quonset building on the site. Ryder showed Ryder's proposal on the site plan. The lot is currently used for commercial vehicle parking because the present owner is operating a commercial vehicle maintenance facility. Commercial vehicles are currently parked on that site. Approximately 35 percent of the property is covered with bituminous pavement. The back portion of the site is gravel and it is Ryder's intention to regrade that area and cover it with crushed aggregate. The back area is not visible from Old Highway 8. The building screens the back of the lot.

Schiferl asked Teague about the Code. According to the Code, the lot should be paved. Therefore, why was the Commission even considering this proposal? Teague responded that it is clear the use is vehicle sales no matter how the vehicles are advertised. Teague said the Code was clear that bituminous paving and curbing are required.

Cook answered that the lot is currently not paved. The surrounding properties are industrial uses and are currently not paved as well. This small one-acre parcel is surrounded by other unpaved commercial properties. Schiferl stated he understood Cook's point. However, the City requires nonconforming uses to be brought into compliance at the time of any change of use or site improvement.

Teague responded the existing use can continue until the use changes. Ryder is introducing a new use in vehicle sales and as such a Special Use Permit is required. As part of the review for the Special Use Permit, the City would require the paving and curbing, landscaping, and setback per the City Code.

Cook said vehicle sales take place there now as part of the current business. Townhome Maintenance is no longer there. That property was sold by the owner, Joe Noonan, to Ken Beach, who owns Holiday Truck Equipment. Holiday Truck Equipment does heavy duty truck and tractor repair. Most of the vehicles serviced by Holiday Truck Equipment belong to Ryder. The sales aspect of Ryder is commercial customers to commercial customers. Ryder customers are not walk-in customers. However, the public would not be prohibited from coming in to buy a truck for a personal use. Ninety-five percent of Ryder's customers are responding to information advertised in trade publications. Ryder's current location in Roseville does not generate much traffic. Ryder would work closely with the maintenance provider before selling the vehicles. Approximately twenty-eight vehicles would be for sale, parked in the back and left side of the site. The entire right side of the site is used for vehicles waiting to have maintenance done. When Ryder sells a vehicle, it is maintained to DOT standards.

The front part of the property is paved where the customers would enter the building.

Cook said Ryder's use would be commercial sales to commercial end users. Cook asked if the proposed use should be classified as vehicle sales. Was that the intent of the Ordinance when it was drafted? Under State and Federal reporting, Ryder's classification is vehicle rental and leasing, not vehicle sales. Is there a way to classify the proposed use as something other than vehicle sales? The lot does need maintenance and upgrading. Ryder intends to do so. Ryder is image conscious and that is the reason Ryder would demolish the quonset building. The lot has not been maintained and work needs to be done. Ryder wants to improve the site. However, the economics of paving did not make sense to Ryder.

Schopf asked Teague if Ryder was going to use the site only for vehicle leasing, would they still need a Special Use Permit. Teague responded affirmatively. Leasing would still be a new use being introduced to this site.

Schiferl stated maintenance is occurring on the site, but if Ryder parked the vehicles somewhere else before making arrangements to sell them. Then, Ryder would not be selling them on the site. Cook said Ryder is actually staging the vehicles at its Roseville site. Schiferl stated he was trying to see if there were any way Ryder could continue as a nonconforming use.

Teague said the sale of vehicles could not take place on the site without getting a Special Use Permit. Schiferl stated Ryder would have to move the vehicles to their other location to sell them.

Cook stated Ryder appreciates the opportunity to have this informal discussion with the Planning Commission. Ryder does not intend to bypass the City Code. Since Holiday is presently doing Ryder's vehicle maintenance, which consists of removing decals, body touch up, cleaning the interiors and preparing the vehicles for sale. Ryder's primary maintenance is done at its Roseville location.

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.

Announcements and Update - None

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf, to adjourn the meeting. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner