Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - January 19, 1999

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, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Norm Schiferl

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 O'Brien, to approve the minutes of the December 15, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Adoption of the 1999 Rules of Procedure

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to adopt the 1999 Rules of Procedure.

Teague said Schiferl suggested adding the clause "or otherwise as determined by the Planning Commission, " under "Special Meetings" after "for the first Tuesday of each month." The motion was so amended. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Elect Vice Chair

Zisla nominated Mike Livingston as Vice Chair. O'Brien seconded the nomination. Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to appoint Mike Livingston Vice Chair. Livingston was elected unanimously.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings - None

General Business

Site Plan Review	Industrial Equities

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning consideration of a site plan for construction of a 48,000 square foot office/warehouse structure located between 8th Avenue SW and Campus Drive, Lakeview Business Center 6. Teague showed slides of the site.

Zisla asked the developer, Mr. John Allen of Industrial Equities, about the floor area ratio and the parking requirement.

Allen responded Industrial Equities does not look for maximum density, but delivering maximum value. Parking for a high tech environment would be consistent with the other buildings in the Lakeview Business Center. A larger building would be needed if the prospective tenants were distribution type uses. The proposed facility would attract high tech uses. The extra parking would allow the parking capabilities to accommodate those uses. To go to 40 percent site coverage, the parking would be inadequate. Zisla said, then, Allen would rather have parking than building area and would get higher rent per square foot. Allen said that the users who are attracted to the Lakeview Center are technology businesses.

Livingston asked if the proposed building had the same brick as the other buildings. Allen said the building would combine the best of all the buildings. Livingston asked whether there would be one or many tenants. Allen responded it would be a multi-tenant facility, although it could be a single tenant. In answer to Livingston's question, Allen said construction would start this Spring.

Zisla asked for Allen's reaction to the idea of putting up fences. Allen responded he would not like to see fences be a condition of approval. Allen stated he did not feel there is a major crime problem in New Brighton.

Allen stated the site is subject to a development agreement. The City has a provision that Industrial Equities build according to the plan. Substitutions would have to be submitted to the City. Allen stated he has invested in New Brighton because there are more development-friendly conditions here than in many other cities.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, to recommend approval of LP-349, subject to conditions, and deleting conditions #7 and #11. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Rezoning/Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the memo concerning allowing gasoline sales at the northeast corner of the Highway 96 and Old Highway 8 intersection, through a rezoning and/or ordinance amendment to the MX District.

Baker asked if it were correct that this is the only property in the MX District where the zoning is not consistent with the lot line. Teague showed the lot line on the plan; there are three separate parcels of record. These parcels are all held in common ownership, but are separate parcels. Baker said that, when the Task Force drafted the original Comprehensive Plan rezoning, it thought rezoning should be done without regard to ownership. After considering the problems that would be created if adjoining properties under a single ownership were zoned differently, the Task Force decided against rezoning without regard to ownership. Baker stated he would not be against leaving this property I-2 because of the common ownership. The language in Option C does not accomplish anything.

Teague said the Option C was included in the report because staff fears that since the property is vacant, it could be sold to any industrial user. If the current owners do not see any need to expand in the future, then the property could be developed with any heavy industrial use allowed by City Code.

Zisla said he agreed with Teague's point. The coincidence of ownership without a specific plan may still fit the MX district. Last month, the Commission tried to figure out a way for the US Filter/Johnson Screens facility could expand onto that lot. Another alternative to might be to modify this in the Comprehensive Plan. This is not binding, but is a statement of intent, which does not give anyone any comfort. The argument could be made that this rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The statement in Option C must be reworded.

Teague stated the current Comprehensive Plan designates this site for industrial uses. The Old Highway 8 Corridor Study, which will be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, calls for office/medium density residential uses on the site. If the Commission feels that industrial is the appropriate use on this site that would have to be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

Zisla stated he did not feel all the industrial uses allowed under I-2 is appropriate, but we are talking about the expansion of US Filter/Johnson Screens. If an expansion is done in a certain fashion, it could be different from a new use on the site.

Teague said staff suggested that we rezone the site and react to a specific proposal when it comes in. Zisla asked how could such a proposal be approved? US Filter/Johnson Screens bought the site for future expansion. There is no real objection to US Filter/Johnson Screens using the site that way.

O'Brien asked if there was a way the City could specify that the site remain industrial until it is sold, then it would go to MX. Zisla said he was not comfortable with a conditional use permit going with a particular user instead of with the land. The City Attorney would have to give the opinion on that.

Robert Norell of US Filter/Johnson Screens said that, in looking at the overall plan of the MX, Mixed Use District, makes sense if the site were under separate ownership. If US Filter had other areas in which to expand, there would be no difficulty. The site is US Filter's only expansion option.

Zisla asked about the procedure to combine the two lots so the lot could not be split off for a separate user. Teague responded it would take a minor subdivision. Teague said the City was asking that the site be rezoned prior to that action. Zisla said combining the lots would prevent selling a part of the site to a new industrial user. Teague said that, if the US Filter combined the two lots making one parcel, it would come back to Baker's point of drawing a line across the property. Zisla said that would not be the case if the entire parcel were zoned so I-2 could only be used for expansion of the US Filter facility. Teague responded that he did not think such a condition could be added.

Baker said that US Filter could put a building on the undeveloped lot and lease it out. Norell said US Filter was not in the leasing business. US Filter would only build on the lot for expansion.

Zisla stated was not comfortable with doing a rezoning just for the sake rezoning as outlined in the City Attorney's letter. Expansion of the current use would probably be acceptable subject to planning criteria. Selling the lot off for separate development would not be acceptable. Rezoning the site to MX makes it difficult for US Filter to expand. If the site is zoned MX, the expansion could be denied.

Norell said an alternative would be to allow US Filters' uses under the MX, Mixed Use District. If metal fabrication were allowed in the MX District, US Filter could expand its plant.

Baker stated he would rather leave the site I-2 . Baker said it would not make sense to allow certain uses one part of the MX District but not in other parts. Baker said he had no problem with I-2. Since US Filter bought the property for expansion, it would not make sense to zone their property in two zones. That would cause a hardship for US Filter. Because US Filter has been a good neighbor, the City should not be concerned that US Filter would put something objectionable on the site. US Filter is probably the highest and best use for the site.

Teague said that, if the property is allowed to remain I-2, US Filter could sell the property and any industrial use could come in under I-2. Baker said he realized that was a risk. How much of the 12 acres is buildable? Teague responded most of the lot is not buildable. Baker said the fact was that the property is more valuable as I-2 rather than MX.

Livingston stated that in the today's business climate where corporations merge and take over other businesses, there is no guarantee that US Filter will remain as it is now. Livingston said he did not think it appropriate to change the MX uses for this site alone. Livingston said maybe the highest and best use of the site is not industrial.

Norell said US Filter had changed ownership about five times and its function remains the same.

Schopf said, regarding the staff recommendation and the City Attorney's opinion, the problem can be considered both ways. Option C makes the most sense though the burden is on US Filter to come to the City. Schopf said that, from his brief experience on the Planning Commission, it seems that New Brighton invites businesses to come forward. It would not be a hardship for US Filter to come to the City.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by O'Brien, to recommend that the US Filter/Johnson Screens continue to be I-2, Heavy Industrial.

Baker stated that, consistent with past actions and that the lots are under one ownership, the site will be developed by either US Filter/Johnson Screens or it will be sold. Any sale would have to be zoned MX and would be addressed then. To take away US Filter/Johnson Screens' ability to expand by coming in for a rezoning, which may or may not be granted, creates a hardship. US Filter/Johnson Screens has been a good citizen. Baker said he agreed with Livingston's motion.

Larson said the motion would provide continuity. Teague said there is a single family home to the north of the undeveloped lot, which is also zoned industrial. The dock doors on the existing facility are actually on the boundary line. It would be difficult for US Filter to expand in that direction. The most logical expansion would be to the north. The single family home property could possibly be acquired in a land trade.

Baker asked for a vote on the motion. 6 Ayes - 1 Nay. Motion Carried.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Gasoline Sales at the NE corner of Highway 96 and Old Highway 8

Teague reviewed the memos concerning the rezoning to allow gasoline sales. Teague said staff was recommending Option B, to rezone the site to B-3. The City could then hold the business to the MX standards as part of the rezoning. The City could then adopt the ordinance amendment making gasoline sales a special use in the B-3 District.

Zisla asked what would happen if DeCoster's business deal with Amoco falls through. Theoretically, a city is not supposed to rezone property for a particular project. However, every community probably does so. B-3 allows many other uses. Rezoning to B-3 brings up the same issues as the previous item.

Baker said he had a problem with rezoning with the idea of making zoning looser for later. That sends the wrong message for the remainder of the MX zoning. If the City wants to allow gasoline sales, Baker said he favored creating the MX-G zoning. Rather than doing a double zoning, the City should address gasoline sales now.

Zisla said the question was what is the appropriate use and development pattern for the general area. The Old Highway 8 Corridor Vision did not include convenience stores/gas stations as part of the vision for that area.

Mark Lambert, representing Doug DeCoster, stated that the issue is that DeCoster has been unable to bring a proposal forward during the moratorium. DeCoster has had a tentative agreement with a convenience store/gas station operator that could not be completed until it could be determined if gasoline sales would be allowed. Lambert said the Planning Commission did not favor DeCoster's proposal and DeCoster took the issue to the City Council. The City Council was more sympathetic to gasoline sales than was the Planning Commission. The City Council approved the MX zoning for DeCoster's site, but asked that the issue be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council again. Lambert said DeCoster was not here tonight to ask the Planning Commission to reconsider its decision. The City Council said that, since the site is visible from I-35W, the site is appropriate for a convenience store/gasoline sales. DeCoster has submitted a site plan for initial consideration. DeCoster is moving forward with the agreement. Lambert stated that in talking with Teague earlier, Teague's preference seemed to be B-3 with a Special Use Permit. Lambert said DeCoster would not be averse to B-3 or an MX-G zoning. Lambert said he hoped the Planning Commission could move forward tonight with a recommendation. If so, it looks like DeCoster can submit a proposal next month.

Zisla said that was the status of DeCoster's business deal. Why would this be a good location for a gas station? Lambert answered that there are no other gasoline sales businesses in the area. The north side of I-694 is a good location for a convenience store/gas station.

Larson said that the City Council felt it would be a good thing if traffic did not move through downtown New Brighton just to purchase gas or milk.

Zisla said there is an Amoco station immediately north of the area. Zisla said he preferred MX-G to B-3.

Baker if the difference between a gas station on this site with an MX-G zoning versus B-3 was landscaping. Teague responded there would be no difference. Under the MX-G zoning the City would be better protected as to future uses.

Schmitz asked Zisla if the Vision designated this area as a gateway to New Brighton. Gas stations seem inconsistent with gateways. Zisla said he could not recall exactly. The issue was raised about convenience stores/gas stations, and it was felt the area should not become just highway-related businesses.

Livingston asked about the size of the site. Teague responded the site is 1.7 acres. The county plans to widen Highway 96 so there will be a land trade. The site is good sized and there should be no trouble with setbacks. Teague showed a sketch submitted a couple of days ago. Teague showed the features of the proposed Amoco convenience store/gas station.

Zisla stated that when Amoco brings in a specific proposal, the Planning Commission can consider it.

Motion by Zisla, second by Livingston to recommend Option C, to create a new MX-G Mixed Use Gasoline zoning district, in which gasoline sales would by allowed by Special Use under certain conditions. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Once the Ordinance is in place, Mr. DeCoster could then petition the City to rezone his site to MX-G to possibly allow gasoline sales on his site under certain conditions.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Industrial Zoning Districts	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed his staff memo regarding a suggested Zoning Ordinance amendment to certain Sections of Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance regulating Industrial land uses.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingstion to recommend that the City Council authorize Staff and the Planning Commission to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to include the following: Examine the appropriate regulations for "truck terminals or yards" within the I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning Districts; To specifically allow Truck and Trailer Repair as a Special Use only within the I-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning District; To place specific regulations on outside storage in the I-1, Light Industrial Zoning District. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates

Adjourn

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner