Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - February 16, 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 (late), Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf

Absent:	Jim O'Brien, Paul Zisla

Also Present:	Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development

Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Schopf, seconded by Schopf, to approve the minutes of the January 19, 1999, Planning Commission meeting as written. 4 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Action

Larson said the Council was not considering any new items.

Agenda Review

"Conditions of Variances" was added to Announcements and Updates.

Administrative Appeal

Administrative Appeal	Crosson Limited Partnership/Kolstad Company, Inc.

Teague briefly reviewed the planning report concerning an appeal of the administrative determination of City Staff that the applicants' request to construct a 29,171 square foot trailer repair facility, including outside storage of trailers, and to assemble and fabricate special order enclosures, sell trailer parts and equipment, and sell truck equipment and accessories. The applicants feel that the use should be a permitted use within the I-1, Light Industrial Zoning District. The subject property is located at 600 Lakeview Point.

Baker stated that, considering the permitted uses in the I-1 and I-2 District, there is no question that the proposed use would be an I-2 use. Therefore, Baker said he would not support the appeal. Schopf stated staff has done a good job of interpreting the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant does not have reasonable grounds for this appeal.

Baker asked if the applicant wished to speak. Chris Barnes, an attorney representing Crosson Limited Partnership, the contract purchaser, said the president of Kolstad Company Inc., the user, was also present. Barnes said the applicant wanted to be sure it had adequately communicated the proposed use, especially pertaining to fabrication. Barnes said his client's tenant did not assemble boxes. The boxes are already manufactured when they come to the site. The tenant then modifies them. The description, "fabrication," probably is inadequate and incomplete. The boxes are manufactured before they come to the site. Barnes said his client only added lubricant on the boxes. Barnes said the applicant was not asking for outside storage. Once Kolstad modifies the boxes, the boxes are immediately taken from the premises. The actual assembly and fabrication are modification processes of an existing product.

Baker stated he appreciated Barnes' clarification.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf , to deny the appeal. 4 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Public Hearings

Minor Subdivision	Richard Brickner

Teague outlined the planning report concerning a request for a minor subdivision to divide property located between Long Lake Road and 12th Avenue NW into two lots of record. Teague showed photos of the site.

Baker asked the applicant if he had anything to add to Teague's comments. Rick Brickner, the applicant, answered he had nothing to add. Brickner said the staff's conditions were acceptable.

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 Baker, seconded by Schmitz, to close the Public Hearing. 4 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Schopf, seconded by Schmitz, to recommend approval of PL-249, subject to conditions. 4 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit & Site Plan Review	Hiawatha Oil (Phillips 66)

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for a special use permit and site plan review to tear down the existing Tank-n-Tummy and construct a new convenience gasoline facility with a canopy, car wash, and office space. The subject property is located at 201 County Road E2. Teague showed photos of the site.

Schiferl asked about Teague's reaction to the letter requesting that the exit door be open during the drying cycle. Teague answered he just received the letter and had not had a chance to review it. Teague said, however, that staff would be concerned that this request may generate the same problems as the car wash on Silver Lake Road and Mississippi Street. The complaints generated from the Silver Lake Road car wash concerned vacuum cleaner noise.

Teague stated that the applicant was proposing that the car wash be closed from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Teague said staff was proposing the shut down hours conform with the City's noise ordinance, which would prohibit operation of the car wash between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Baker asked Richmond if he had reviewed staff's recommendation. Richmond stated he had done so. Baker asked if he agreed with the recommendation. Richmond responded that closing the door during the drying cycle would not be possible. Baker asked Richmond to explain why closing the door would not be possible.

Richmond responded that closing the door is possible, but the car wash time would have to be increased by two minutes per car. Baker asked if the applicant could lengthen the car wash building. Richmond replied the site is not big enough to make the building 25 feet longer. Richmond stated that, at most car washes, opening the door signals to the driver to move out of the carwash. Customers could just sit there and not proceed through the dryer phase. The radius for entering and exiting the car wash is tight.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

Jim Petroske stated he and his neighbors are against the proposal. The facility would generate too much noise. The neighbors oppose not only the car wash, but also the 24-hour operation. The neighbors have had their sleep disturbed by the noise from the cars, the horns, and squealing tires at night. The whole works should be closed from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Now that Tank-n-Tummy has closed, the neighbors realize how much noise Tank-n-Tummy caused. After it opens again, the neighbors will have the same aggravations again.

Tim Anderson, a resident living across the street from the Tank-n-Tummy, stated he was concerned about other issues than the noise. Regarding the noise, it is like a different neighborhood since Tank-n- Tummy closed. Anderson said his concern was parking. The City has posted County Road E2 "No Parking Anytime" along Anderson's property. Anderson stated semi trucks constantly park on both sides of E2. Anderson said his children cannot see oncoming traffic when they try to cross the street because of the truck parking. In the summer, Anderson said it seemed his home is located in the middle of a truck stop. The trucks sit out there idling all night. Even without the car wash, if the applicant does not widen the entrance to Tank-n-Tummy so semi trucks can get off the road, what will be done to enforce the no parking zone?

Baker asked Anderson if the trucks are parking in the existing Tank-n-Tummy lot. Anderson answered that the trucks cannot make the turn into Tank-n-Tummy so they are parking on both sides of E2. Baker said then the truck parking has nothing to do with the use. Anderson responded that the trucks went into Tank-n-Tummy to buy groceries and use the phone and would sit on E2 waiting to be dispatched to the next load.

Baker asked Teague if the neighbors had notified the Police Department about the parking problem. Teague responded the Police Department reviewed the plans and did not indicate any concerns about parking. Teague said the Police Department enforced parking limits. Teague said he would notify the Police Department to enforce the no parking zone.

Anderson said that trucks had blocked his driveway so he could not get his car out. Squad cars go by and do not say anything to the truck drivers. Anderson said that he called the Police Department, but forty- five minutes later when a squad arrives, the truck is gone. The Police Department has said that County Road E2 is a county road so the Ramsey County Sheriff should be contacted to enforce the no parking zone.

Baker asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one responded.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker said he was concerned about the car wash. Baker said he was not convinced that the blower will not create a noise problem if the door is open. Schiferl said he shared Baker's concern about the open doors. Schiferl said that if there were a reasonable way to develop performance standards, instead of just saying the door will be closed, that may work. What would happen if the applicant replaced the equipment after developing some sort of performance standards for the old equipment?

Baker asked the applicant what would happen if the City accepted the veracity of the statements in the letter and then the City found the statement only applied to the equipment when it was new. How would staff handle measuring the noise level at the site? Teague said the City would have to get a state agency involved to measure the levels to see if the noise levels constitute noise pollution.

Corrine Thomson, an attorney from the City Attorney's office, suggested the Commission accept the letter as a condition of approval, with the provision that the dryer system meets the noise standard.

Baker stated there is plenty of room on the site to add length to the building. If the applicant does not want to add to the building, they should add to the cycle time. Baker said he could not approve the proposed car wash unless the doors remain closed during the drying cycle. Schiferl asked if there was a way to move the car wash on the site.

Richmond said that stacking room for cars must be considered when designing a car wash. A left turn into the car wash is advantageous so drivers are aware of the location of the curb cuts. Schiferl stated that turning the car wash 90 degrees would still fit Richmond's design concerns. Richmond responded that would put the car wash on the south property line. The 30-foot setback would not allow turning the car wash 90 degrees. Turning the building and maintaining the setback would greatly reduce the space in front of the facility.

Baker agreed that, in looking at the building drawings, there is room to extend the car wash 25 feet.

Richmond stated the applicant wants the cars to enter the car wash straight, not by turning to approach the car wash. Schopf asked if Richmond had considered a moving as opposed to a fixed car wash. Richmond stated that using that type of car wash equipment would add two minutes to the car wash cycle. Most people drive through during the drying cycle. With the door closed, every car would have to sit there during the drying cycle.

Schiferl asked if Tank-n-Tummy was a 24-hour operation in the past. Anderson responded that when Shell Oil operated the gas station it was open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. When Tank-n-Tummy took the station more than fifteen years ago, the station began twenty-four hour operation.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker stated he could not approve the proposed car wash/gas station if the doors of the car wash remain open during the operation of the car wash because it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Baker said staff recommended adding Condition #13, "The car wash operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. only." Teague said he was suggesting that condition if the doors remain open.

Schopf asked about the actions the neighbors could take regarding the truck parking. Who enforces the parking restrictions, the City or the county? Teague responded the New Brighton Police Department would enforce the no parking zone along E2. Schopf asked if the area was prominently posted "No Parking." Anderson responded the signs are easy to see and the trucks park right in front of the signs. Schopf asked if the neighbors had spoken to Chief Kelley about this situation. Anderson answered he had not spoken with the Chief, but had talked to several people in the Police Department. Schopf asked if there was a neighborhood Crime Watch group. Crime Watch groups have a police liaison assigned to each Crime Watch area.

Larson stated the City Council addressed the parking issue about six years ago. The Council heard the same complaints that were expressed tonight. After studying the issue, the Council determined the truck parking posed a safety concern and also a health concern. Larson said, unfortunately, the neighbors had not called the Council with these parking complaints recently. Larson stated that if a neighbor called him, he would talk to the Police Department about the complaint. Larson asked the neighbors to call him anytime and their complaints will be addressed.

Schiferl asked what recourse do the residents have, given the fact the site is zoned Industrial. Teague responded the Police Department would have to address the parking violations. Teague said enforcing the parking restrictions are difficult because the police officers must catch the offenders in the act. Baker asked, if parking violators become a nuisance, can the City revoke the Special Use Permit? Teague responded that nuisance conditions occurring off the site on County Road E2 would not be part of the Special Use Permit. Baker stated he understood some noise was created on the site. Anderson said there is truck noise on the site itself. After the bars close at 1:00 p.m., there have been fights at Tank-n- Tummy. The police have been kept busy at Tank-n-Tummy after closing time dealing with fights and drunk drivers.

Baker asked if there were operating hour limits for the other gas stations in New Brighton. Teague responded he did not believe so.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schopf , to recommend approval of LP -351 and SP-210 subject to conditions listed in the planning report, adding Condition #13, "The car wash operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. only." and changing #8 to read, "the car wash exit door must be closed during the operation of the car wash blower." 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Nonconforming Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Variance	AAA Cooper

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a nonconforming use permit, site plan and variance to install a fuel facility and increase the drive-aisle width on the east side of the building to provide extra maneuvering space for trucks on the site. The subject property is located at 50 - 14th Street NW. Teague showed photos of the site.

Baker asked if Teague's recommendation was to recommend approval of the fueling station, but denial of the variance. Teague responded affirmatively. Teague said that currently the setback was 20 feet; the code allows a 20-foot setback by a Special Use Permit. Therefore, in a sense, it is conforming. To increase the setback to 10 feet, as proposed, requires a variance.

Baker said that reviewing a car wash and a truck wash in the same area was unusual. Baker asked if the City Engineer had reviewed the impact both these washing facilities would have on the drainage in the area. Teague said he understood the request was just for a fueling island. Baker pointed out the plan specifies there is a truck wash. Teague said the applicant did not specify there would be a truck wash in their request.

Ted Kuerschen of AAA Cooper said the plan should show a fueling station only. Kuerschen stated AAA Cooper will correct the plan. Baker stated he has a problem with the fact the proposal expands the nonconformity. The plan improves the landscaping, but it does nothing to improve the nonconformity. Baker said the trucks could drive around the back of the building.

Tom Johnson, an attorney representing AAA Cooper, stated AAA Cooper has signed a purchase agreement. AAA Cooper has not decided to purchase the property. AAA Cooper intended to make certain site improvements to the property. AAA Cooper then discovered the property would be rezoned to MX, which could interfere with the improvements AAA Cooper intended to make. AAA Cooper appeared before the Planning Commission in December to ask the City to defer the effective date for the rezoning for this parcel to allow time for AAA Cooper to come the City with a site plan. The City Council suggested changes to the site plan, including putting the canopy on the south side of the maintenance garage. Currently, the property is unsightly. The applicant is prepared to change the appearance of the property dramatically. AAA Cooper is planning to spend $200,000 on the improvements, which would be consistent with New Brighton's Comprehensive Plan. The addition would be a significant improvement to the property. The property is unique in shape, surrounded by highways on most sides.

Johnson said the entrance, which is currently on 14th Avenue, would be moved to 14th Street. The entrance that goes to the employee parking lot would be moved to the east on 14th Street, making two entrances on either side of the building on 14th Street. Moving the entrances would allow the area in front of the building to become greenspace. The corner of 14th Street NW and 1st Avenue NW could become greenspace. In the future, there could be more greenspace to the west of the building. By making these improvements, AAA Cooper is trying to achieve the City's goals of more landscaping and greenspace and allow better movement around the building. These improvements are contingent on moving the fence approximately two feet closer to 1st Avenue NW. The distance from the curbline to the fence is 24 feet 8 inches. AAA Cooper proposes to move the fence 15 feet in from the curbline. The property line is roughly 6 feet in from the curbline, or 9 feet between the property line and the new fence location. Shrubs would be put in front of the fence. Besides the shrubs, there would be coniferous and deciduous trees. The landscaping would be carried along the entire property line.

Johnson stated that AAA Cooper is prepared to put curbing around the entire perimeter of the parking lot if the City specifies that curbing. AAA Cooper suggests that, if the curbing would just be for aesthetic purposes, it would not be visible in any case because there would be a hedge around the parking lot. Instead of spending money on the curbing, putting a sidewalk along Old Highway 8 would be a better investment. About creating an undue hardship by denying the variance, the City granted permits for the fence, which was built in 1970 and 1971. In the early 70's, the average truck trailer was 38 feet long; the average truck trailer is now 53 feet long. If the fence is moved 10 feet farther toward the curb line, the distance between the terminal and the fence would be 110 feet. In other locations, AAA Cooper has a minimum of 135 feet. It is necessary, if you want a well-maintained fence. Currently, as seen in the photos, trucks are damaging the fence. If AAA Cooper does not move the fence, it must constantly repair the fence. The trucks will also sustain damage. AAA Cooper feels moving the fence that distance would be a good investment and would remove the hardship of having to constantly maintain the fence. The existing front setback requirement is 40 feet. The alternative would allow AAA Cooper to move the 40 foot-setback. If AAA Cooper has the two entrances off 14th, it can meet the 14-foot setback in the front. Is 1st Ave NW a street or a side setback requirement? If it is a street, then the setback would be 40 feet, or 20 feet with a Special Use Permit. If it is the side, the setback requirement is only 15 feet. It would depend upon the designation for that street. The issue may be a designation issue. Considering the unique nature of 1st Avenue NW, the variance makes sense. The choice is between granting the variance and getting $200,000 worth of landscaping or having a fence that trucks are constantly damaging.

Schiferl asked Teague which street is considered the front of the building. Teague responded that either side requires a 40-foot setback. The setback could be reduced to 20 feet by a Special Use Permit. The front was chosen to be off 14th Street and that is the address. The offices overlooks 14th Street. Johnson stated AAA Cooper does not dispute the designation of 14th Street as the front. AAA Cooper is suggesting an alternative that would allow the site to come into conformance with the setback requirement on 14th Street. AAA Cooper is only suggesting that, rather than designating 1st Ave NW as a street setback, it could be designated as a side setback. Old Highway 8 could have been designated as the side of the building that required to meet the street setback.

Teague answered that would only be the case if this were not a public driveway. Then, a side setback of 5 feet would be required.

Baker stated that whether the street front is 14th or 1st, the setback is 40 feet. Regarding the longer trailer length, Baker said it appears that double bottom trailers, which are shorter, are stored on the east side of the building. The shorter distance is adequate for them. The longer trailers are stored on the west side of the building and the space is adequate for them. It is just a matter of how the building is used. Baker said he had a real problem with decreasing the green area, which is contrary to past City practices. The proposal the Planning Commission is considering this evening does not address the nonconformity as far green area. Baker stated he would like to have seen a print showing the front area and doing something to dress up this building so it conforms with City standards.

Kuerschen stated AAA Cooper runs 48 and 53 foot trailers. The trailers Mr. Baker saw belong to the present tenant.

Schiferl stated he understood variances apply to the land. That could potentially make a difference on how we treat this issue. Having reasonable use of the land does not mean that the existing building must be exactly where it is. Is a variance a land issue as opposed to a land and building issue?

Thomson stated a variance does go with the land, but the Planning Commission has the latitude to interpret it in either fashion. For instance, the land could have a reasonable use even if it makes the use of a particular building somewhat more limited. Or the Commission would have the latitude to take both the land and the building into account.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

Johnson stated that, in a Court of Appeals decision, the court said that the definition of undue hardship is showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that the ordinance has prohibited. AAA Cooper proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, much more reasonable than having the fence in a place where trucks will always damage it. That would comply with the Court of Appeals' definition of an undue hardship.

Kuerschen reviewed AAA Cooper's proposal. Baker asked about the proposed location of employee parking. Kuerschen said there is some parking by the office now. Kuerschen pointed out where the office employees park. Kuerschen showed the proposed areas for parking. Baker asked about the location of the handicap parking. Kuerschen said they would like direction from the Commission.

Baker stated his understanding of Kuerschen's description of the proposed parking was that putting two truck driveways would eliminate all of the potential employee parking by the building. Why not put a truck driveway off 1st Avenue NW? Kuerschen responded that he would have to think about Baker's suggestion. Baker stated that his point was that there is a use for that area, although it may not be compatible with larger trailers. That is a disadvantage of using the existing building. To say that the trailers are longer and will not fit on the site does not constitute a hardship. There is a use for the building. Shorter trailers can be parked on the east side and longer trailers can be parked on the west side. Therefore, there is no hardship.

Baker said the Commission needs more information to make a decision. The errors on the print need to be corrected and the landscaping needs to be shown on the print.

Schiferl said he agreed with Baker. The Commission should have a complete site plan on which to base its decision. Baker said locating the handicap parking on the hill is not acceptable.

Johnson stated that the issue is that the MX zoning goes into effect March 1. Our concern is the effect the zoning would have on the possibility of making any of these changes. Johnson asked the City Planner or the City Attorney to address that issue.

Thomson said she understood the property would be included in the rezoning change effective March 1. The issue is how the MX zoning would change the performance standards for the property. Thomson stated she did not know the answer to that question. Teague said that, as of March 1, the use itself becomes nonconforming. Under the current zoning, the Planning Commission can grant the Type IV Nonconforming Use. As of March 1, it becomes a Type II Nonconforming Use. That would mean the current use is not allowed and the Planning Commission could not grant a nonconforming use permit. Whether the effective date of the rezoning could be changed would have to be determined by legal counsel.

Thomson responded the City would have to adopt an ordinance, assuming the ordinance that will take effect March 1 has been published.

Locke stated the Planning Commission can recommend approval or denial of any or all of the actions being considered this evening. The Council could decide whether to approve or deny the requests. In the interim between this meeting and the City Council meeting, AAA Cooper could respond to the issues raised tonight. If the Planning Commission continues the hearing, the MX zoning would go into effect before the Council would have an opportunity to approve or deny the request. Or the Commission could continue the public hearing and recommend that the Council adopt an ordinance extending the time period in which the MX zoning would take effect.

Thomson stated that, in terms of options, the Commission could continue the hearing. The problem would be that the MX zoning would take effect March 1. Therefore, continuing the public hearing would be the same as a denial of the request. The Commission could send the item to the Council with no recommendation and simply outline the Commission's concerns and the lack of information provided by AAA Cooper. Or the Commission could recommend approval or denial based on the information available. The planning staff could provide information specified by the Planning Commission to the Council.

Baker asked if anyone else would like to speak on the issue.

Eric Galetz, of Bebet Realty Company, the current owner of property. Gallick asked the Commission to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit and recommend approval of the variance, subject to satisfaction of the Commission's concerns prior to the City Council meeting.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schmitz, to close the Public Hearing.

Livingston stated that, if the Planning Commission closes the public hearing, the item cannot be continued. Livingston asked Baker if that were his intention. Baker responded that continuing the public hearing would be the same as a denial because the MX zoning takes effect March 1.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Baker said he would favor recommending denial. If the applicant can come up with an acceptable site plan, the Commission could move denial and send the Council a list of the Commission's concerns. Baker stated the following should be addressed:

14th Street needs to be addressed

Handicap parking and handicap access to the building needs to be shown on the print

Landscaping must be shown

Baker stated there are actions that could make the proposal more acceptable. Providing the Commission with a print that shows features and details that are not on the site is unacceptable. Saying that this is AAA Cooper's standard print is unacceptable.

Schiferl stated that, since a variance is predicated on a site plan, the Commission has no other option than to recommend denial. Teague said that staff recommended approval of the site plan and nonconforming use and denial of the variance. The Commission could add conditions to the nonconforming use permit to address the issues brought forward this evening. Baker stated he had a problem with the site plan. The plan should address screening and setbacks.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf, to recommend denial VN-321, due to lack of hardship, and NC-113 because the applicant did not adequately address the nonconforming use of the site. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Special Use Permit & Site Plan	Crosson Limited Partnership/Kolstad Company, Inc.

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning the item. Teague showed photos of the site.

Livingston asked if Kolstad would demolish the tower for the automated inventory system. Teague stated the tower is not being used at this point and the Kolstad Company does not have a use for the tower. Teague asked the applicant to address the use of the tower. Chris Barnes, an attorney representing Crosson Limited Partnership, said Paula Dunn of Kolstad and Jerry Vogel, the project architect, were present. Kolstad intends the tower to remain available to other tenants of the property. Kolstad would not use the tower, but a future tenant might use it.

Livingston asked if the site was vacant now. Barnes responded it was vacant and his client intends to purchase the site and lease it to one of its companies, Kolstad Company. They would lease about 75 percent of the existing building to other tenants. These tenants could take advantage of the automated inventory system and the warehouse facility.

Schiferl said the applicant stressed the similarity between the proposed use and the US West use. Was the outdoor storage allowed in the US West approval? Teague said he thought the outdoor storage was an accessory use that went along with the approval. The landscaping around the perimeter was probably required because of the outdoor storage on the site.

Barnes stated the picture of the property displayed in the City Hall atrium depicts the site well. The picture shows an eleven-acre site filled with cables and trucks. To take advantage of the site, outdoor storage is necessary. When Crosson first reviewed the property and looked at the permitted uses, the site consisted of a truck terminal and truck yard. Had Crosson been aware of the ordinance amendment under consideration, it would have used different language in its application. Barnes stated Crosson's position is that those are permitted uses now. All the uses anticipated by Kolstad would be done indoors. In fact, the property would be more aesthetically pleasing than when US West occupied the site. An 11-acre site would attract users with trucks and accessory outdoor storage. It is our position that we have addressed the concerns of the City's staff. Frankly, Crosson/Kolstad feels that, had there not been an amendment consideration for changing the current Zoning Code, the use it anticipates for the site is well designed and well suited to Barnes' clients' purposes. Therefore, Barnes stated he disagreed with staff on a number of points. Please consider the application and recommend approval of Special Use Permit.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

John Allen, managing partner of Industrial Equities, stated he developed the business park in question. Allen stated he had 250,000 feet contiguous to the proposed facility. To say that the proposal is consistent with the current uses is a vast overstatement. What Crosson/Kolstad is proposing is a truck terminal. The proposal would have an adverse environmental impact on Jones Lake. Allen stated that, when he platted his development, he gave the City enough land around the perimeter to have a parkway for a running path on one side of the lake. Putting a truck terminal on the shores of Jones Lake, would be an environmental hazard and an aesthetic blight. Trucks would be coming and going constantly. This proposal is for a truck terminal and that is precisely what the City said it did not want when we developed the park seven years ago. The City wanted an upscale business park. The proposed use is inconsistent with that desire. The spools US West stored on the site were not as visible as the proposed use would be. The applicant would either store or repair the trucks on the site. The use would have a detrimental impact on the value of the contiguous properties. Allen said he owned all the contiguous properties. Allen repeated he was opposed to the application for environmental, safety, and aesthetic reasons. Allen stated he was putting the Planning Commission and the City Council on notice that he would intervene legally if the City grants these amendments. The proposed use is not an I-1, Light Industrial use. The use is the same type of use cities such as Roseville is trying to get rid of. The proposed use is inconsistent with anything we have anticipated doing in this park. Allen thanks the Commission for hearing him.

Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

Paul O'Brien, the president of Kolstad Companies, said that in answer to the environmental issues, Kolstad does not work on trucks at all. Kolstad does not perform engine work, oil changes or anything concerning truck tractors. Kolstad deals with trailers. Kolstad is in the "box" business. Kolstad fixes over-the-road trailer boxes. In the case of a van body, Kolstad puts it on a chassis. Kolstad also puts tool boxes on trailers. The only fabricating Kolstad does is fabricating tool boxes. The tool boxes are approximately 48 inches wide by 24 or 36 inches deep. Kolstad bends aluminum and steel in the fabrication part of its business. Anything larger than that is built at a remote location and comes to Kolstad as a box such as a van body. Kolstad puts a door on it or a louver. The only use Kolstad would have on the outside would be boxes. The boxes would be aesthetically pleasing. Kolstad does not have wrecks in its yards. Kolstad plans to use a good deal of inside storage. Kolstad would have its parts, which it currently stores outside, inside the building.

Baker stated the proposed use is a classic I-2, Heavy Industrial use. For that reason, the proposed use cannot operate in an I-1, Light Industrial area.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Schopf, seconded by Schmitz, to recommend denial of LP-352 & SP-211. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to move on to the General Business item and resume the public hearings after the General Business item. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Concept Plan	David Schell

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning consideration of a concept plan to divide the property located at the corner of 14th Street NW and Silver Lake Road (1390 Silver Lake Road) into three lots of record. Teague showed photos of the site.

David Schell stated the planning report was complete and had no further comments.

Donald E. Sroca, 1375 26th Avenue NW, stated his property is directly west of the existing home. Sroca stated he objected to the driveway. Sroca said he considered the projected driveway a road not a driveway. The driveway would be more than 260 feet long. Sroca said his home overlooked the street. Garbage trucks, UPS trucks, snow removal, and service trucks would contribute to the traffic on this driveway/street.

Baker asked about the setbacks on such a driveway. Teague responded a five-foot paved surface setback would be required. Baker asked for clarification of "paved surface." Teague responded the paved surface of the driveway has to be setback at least 5 feet from the property line. Teague said the City would definitely require a paved surface. To comply with the 10-foot utility easements along the side property line, the driveway would likely be setback 15 feet off the property line. Baker asked about the drainage and utility easements. Teague stated any drainage or utility easements would be platted along the property line, which would be 10 feet centered the shared property line.

Baker asked how far would the driveway be from the west property line. Teague replied the drive would have to be a minimum of 10 feet from the west property line.

Mrs. Cunningham, 1347 26th Avenue NW, stated she was concerned that the driveway is actually a street. Cunningham was concerned about the traffic. Cunningham said the left-hand turn lane was a concern. Even with the left-hand turn, that is a dangerous place, especially during the evening rush hour. Cunningham stated she was concerned about leaving the house that is currently on the property. The house needs repair. What will the new houses be like? Will the new houses be like the other houses in the neighborhood? Will the lots sell with the old house remaining on the property?

David Schell, the applicant, said he would address the condition of the existing house. The house is an eyesore, but will be corrected. The house would be owner occupied. Schell said he was doing repair work and remodeling on the house. Schell stated he discussed having the driveway easement off 14th rather than Silver Lake Road with Mr. Teague. We agreed that 14th was a better location than putting a curb cut on Silver Lake Road.

In response to a question from Sroca, Schell stated he would sell the lots. The buyers would determine the type of home they want to build on the lots. Considering the frontage on Silver Lake Road, the homes may not be comparable to many homes in the area. However, that is difficult to predict before the lots are sold. The new homes would not compare with the old house because that house is old and has not been maintained. Schell said he was trying to clean up the property.

Marlys Sroca, 1375 26th Avenue NW, stated their property was directly behind the house being repaired. Mrs. Sroca stated that Larson stated the county may take property when Silver Lake Road is reconstructed. If the property were taken on the west side, not the park side, would the proposed lots be large enough on which to construct houses. Is Schell counting the drainage area. Does anyone know how much property would the County take?

Teague stated staff called the County to make them aware that there may be a subdivision of this property. The County will let us know then how much additional right-of-way it needs. That would get incorporated into the plat. The lots could decrease five, ten, or twenty feet. The reduced size of the lots may require adjustments to the lot lines to insure that each lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size.

Mrs. Sroca stated she was also concerned about the proposed driveway, which would service three homes. Sroca suggested using the Silver Lake Road curb cut for the driveways for two of the lots and 14th for one lot. Schell stated the concern was having people stop on Silver Lake Road before making the turn into the driveway. Sroca said she was concerned about three homes going in there when she had understood there was room for only two.

A resident on 14th Street NW stated the traffic has increased significantly since she moved in twenty-one years ago. The resident said just turning into her driveway is dangerous. Schell responded stated that, since he has been working on the old house, he has observed very little traffic on 14th Street.

Donald Sroca showed a configuration for the driveways on the plan. Baker asked if a curb cut would be allowed in the area Sroca suggested. Teague answered a curb cut there would be subject to comment from Ramsey County. Teague pointed out the current access.

Baker stated that the proposed private driveway is detrimental to the lots. Baker stated the proposal is unique in that the private driveway is parallel to the street. Schell stated there may be another way to access the three lots. Schell demonstrated the suggestion on the plan showing where a frontage road could be placed. The only inconvenience then would be to the residents of the proposed lots. Baker said he was comfortable with that plan.

Livingston asked Schell, if the driveway were to go along the back, would he be willing to put in landscaping or fences along the west side. Schell answered affirmatively, but he said he did not think the neighbors want the driveway back there. Livingston asked about the anticipated selling price of the lots. Schell stated he assumed the lots would sell in the high $30,000's or low $40's.

Connie Kelvig, 2550 14th Street NW, stated she lives across from the stucco house. Kelvig said she had a day care in her home and does not want more traffic congestion.

Schiferl said he had a problem with having driveways off Silver Lake Road and adding more traffic on Silver Lake Road. Schiferl said he understood the concerns of the neighbors about the easement. There may be a viable way of handling the easement, perhaps with landscaping or creating two lots. Two lots seem reasonable. Schiferl said he was very concerned about traffic on Silver Lake Road.

Livingston suggested that the applicant call the county to find out if he could put a driveway there. Baker stated the curb cut is already there and the county cannot deny use of it. Livingston said that, according to Schell's lot cost estimate, the houses that would be built on the lots would have to between $150,000 and $200,000.

Baker asked Schell if the concept review gives him direction on his proposal. Schell answered affirmatively. Teague stated that he talked with the City Engineer about the county issues and the City Engineer recommended the drive off 14th. The applicant must talk with the City Engineer and with the County to discuss the entrance off Silver Lake Road.

Public Hearings

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague stated the City Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission, directed staff to draft an ordinance to create a new zoning district to be called MX-G, Mixed Use-Gasoline. Teague directed the Commission's attention to the draft ordinance. Teague noted that the intent of the MX District remains the same, with the exception of adding convenience gasoline establishments to the uses allowed by special permit. Teague outlined the conditions that would have to be met to put that type facility in the MX District.

Livingston suggested that Teague add language clarifying the canopy requirements. Baker asked why do we assume that a gas station would always have a car wash? Baker stated that he did not think a car wash was compatible with the uses in the MX District. If car washes are allowed, the City should put stringent restrictions on the requirement. Teague responded there are noise issues inherent in a car wash operation. Baker stated there are also problems created by vehicles backing up and vehicle stacking areas.

Schopf stated that he talked to Howie Hermann; Mobil Oil would have pulled his franchise if he did not install a car wash. Therefore, if the City does not allow car washes, there would be few gas stations that would meet the suggested requirements. Baker stated that the PDQ station was built without a car wash.

Schiferl stated that, when developing the Highway 8 Corridor Vision, there was a general feeling that gas stations were not consistent with the Vision. The committee felt the only the only appropriate location for a gas station would be a site visible from I-694. Schiferl said that he did not feel gas stations are consistent with the Vision. No matter how much brick is used on the facade, it is still a gas station.

Baker pointed out this is not a rezoning request. Schiferl stated that, by allowing the area to be rezoned, we are essentially saying that at least one of those two corners will be a gas station.. The county would probably not allow an entrance off Highway 96. Teague stated the site does border on two arterial roadways and the intent of the criteria would be to allow gas stations on those two sites. However, if the county denied access to 96, the site could not be developed.

Livingston stated that, in the future, there may be residents on the east side of Long Lake because of a new mixed use development. A gas station might be appropriate for the area. Schiferl said, if that were to happen, a convenience store/gas station may be a good thing. Schopf agreed with Schiferl. The intent of the change focuses on something the MX District was not intended to do. We may be missing a good opportunity to take advantage of the gateway area if we adopt the amendment. As the area develops, this amendment may be more appropriate. Schopf said that this amendment took the focus of trying to do something different in this part of the City. Schopf asked if traffic counts on that intersection are available. Is the area truly a gateway? Or is it a minor entry to New Brighton?

Teague stated there are traffic counts, but he did not have them tonight. Locke stated the amendment would not allow gas stations on a particular site. The amendment only sets out conditions under which a gas station would be allowed.

Baker asked if the City wants to allow car washes in the MX District. If we allow gas stations, what is the Commission's thinking on car washes? Schiferl stated the amendment must make it clear that, if gas station are allowed, that does not guarantee that a car wash would be allowed. Schopf stated that would entail requiring Special Use Permits for gas stations and separate Special Use Permits for car washes. Baker stated, in Schopf's example a stand alone car wash would be allowed.

Baker suggested having different setback requirements for gas stations if they were to be allowed. Teague stated that, as the amendment was written, the setback standards would be the same as the MX District. Baker stated that when using the MX-G zoning, the City must be very specific about what it would allow. Baker said the language must be more specific. Livingston stated there may be confusion about setbacks in the amendment. The Commission discussed how the amendment would work in some scenarios.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to continue the public hearing on a zoning ordinance amendment to create a new zoning district to be called MX-G, Mixed Use Gasoline.

Baker said continuing the public hearing will give staff more time to address the Commission's concerns. In answer to a question from Schiferl, Teague responded that the intent of these two districts would be the same.

Baker called for a vote on the motion. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague explained the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding regulations with the I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning Districts.

Baker stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment seems to be to define a truck yard. Baker suggested that, under Section 630, I-2 District, #6, the word "oleomargarine" be changed to "margarine."

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 Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending certain sections of Chapter VI regarding Industrial Zoning Districts. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schmitz, to continue the public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to outside storage to allow staff to conduct research. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

The Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish gasoline sales as a use permitted by Special Use Permit within the B-3, General Business Zoning District.

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 Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish gasoline sales as a use permitted by Special Use Permit within the B-3, General Business Zoning Districts. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Announcements and Updates

Conditions of Variances

Baker commented that he drove by Brightondale every day. Often, cars are parked in front of the driveway. Has Brightondale changed its parking yet to allow visitor parking underground? Brightondale has big signs specifying that overflow parking use shopping center parking lot. On the front of the Brightondale building, there is an illegal sign.

Teague responded staff has addressed the sign issue. Brightondale allows visitors to park underground. Baker said the sign, however, directs visitors to use the Rice Creek Center lot. Baker stated many cars park in front of the door every day.

Teague stated that currently it is difficult to track all of the conditions for approved plans. Teague suggested establishing a data base of approved plans such as nonconforming use permits and special use permits. Then, six months after approval, staff could verify the plans to ensure compliance. Baker agreed that using computer technology to track these plans would be the way to monitor these approved plans.

Schiferl stated we should monitor the Minneapolis Water Works site for compliance with the approved landscape plan. Teague said the project was not finished. The neighbors are closely watching the progress and will certainly let staff know about any concerns.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded Schopf, to Adjourn the meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner