Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - March 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, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Paul Zisla

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 February 16, 1999, Planning Commission meeting as amended. Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Nonconforming Use Permit, Site Plan, Variance	Greg Arnold, Dairy Queen

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for a nonconforming use permit, site plan, and variance to install a drive-through window and remodel and expand the Dairy Queen at 409 Old Highway 8.

Schiferl asked about the proposed parking. Teague showed the parking spaces on the site plan. Schiferl asked about 4th Street NW, a street the City owns, but does not maintain. Schiferl said he would be more comfortable if the City vacated this street. Schiferl stated he was concerned about setting a precedent by ignoring the street. Teague responded he was not aware of another paved street in New Brighton that the City does not maintain. Schiferl asked how this unusual situation evolved. Teague answered he did not have the history regarding 4th Street.

Baker asked if the applicant were present. Greg Arnold, the applicant, stated he had nothing to add. Livingston asked Arnold how many parking spaces were on the site previously. Arnold answered, seven parking spaces were in the back, making a total of eighteen parking spaces.

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 Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to close the Public Hearing. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Livingston asked Arnold about giving up parking spaces for the drive-through window. Will most of the customers use the drive-through and not come into the store? Arnold answered affirmatively. Arnold said he had checked with other Dairy Queens and a good portion of their business has shifted to windows. Arnold stated that is why he has concentrated on making the drive-through as efficient as possible.

Schiferl asked for clarification of the code requirement for drive aisles. Teague stated the code requires one-way drive aisles to be 14 feet wide. The proposed drive aisle is 14 feet wide. Teague said there may be a problem at only one point on the proposed aisle, where it narrows to 12.5 feet. Along the east and north property lines, the drive aisle is 14 feet wide. Teague showed the drive aisle widths on the site plan.

Baker asked Arnold if putting the ordering station back farther would give more make up time. Arnold responded the make up time would be adequate.

Schiferl referred to the resolution, #5, "In this instance the undue hardship or a unique circumstance is caused by the small size of the site coupled with the restrictive setback off a side street that is not maintained by the City." Schiferl stated he did not have a problem with saying a hardship is created by the side street not being maintained by the City. Schiferl stated he was concerned about saying the small size of the site is considered a unique circumstance because that could set a precedent. Teague stated Schiferl's point was a good one.

The Commission reviewed the proposed resolutions. Teague showed the proposed changes on the site plan.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schopf, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of NC-114. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schopf, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of VN-322, changing Item #five to read, "In this instance the undue hardship or unique circumstance is caused by the restrictive setback off a right-of-way that is not maintained by the City." 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the memo and handout regarding consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a new zoning district to be called MX-G, Mixed Use Gasoline. Teague asked the Commission to review the two alternatives and make a recommendation to the City Council.

Baker asked about the location of car washes in the Alternative #1. Teague responded a car wash can only be located in the rear or side yard, as outlined in Item C.

Schiferl asked about Item G, "Access must be available off two different arterial roadways." Schiferl stated only two possible sites could be zoned MX-G. Teague stated the provision is incorporated in the ordinance. Schiferl asked why, if the Council wants the flexibility to have a gas station north of I-694, does it have to be on those two corners. What was the intent of the Old Highway 8 Corridor Study? Schiferl stated that, if flexibility is the goal, he would prefer omitting the language specifying two arterials.

Teague stated staff has agreed with Schiferl's point. If the City is creating this district, the Planning Commission and the City Council still have the discretion to grant the rezoning to allow those uses. If a request for rezoning to MX-G came in for a location that the City deemed undesirable, the Council would be able to deny the request.

Baker stated he agreed that language referring to two arterials should be removed. Teague stated that, because of the reconstruction of Highway 96 and the bridge improvements, such access would not be allowed. Baker stated that, since gasoline sales require a Special Use Permit, we do not need to say that canopies will be on the rear or side. A proposal could come in where placing the pumps on the street side could make sense. Since gasoline sales would only be permitted under a Special Use Permit, the City has some control over the plans. Teague responded that the Planning Commission could specify that canopies cannot be located in the front yard. Baker stated he was not comfortable with the proposed amendment. Something is missing.

Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. No one responded.

Teague stated he spoke with Mark Lambert, the attorney for Doug DeCoster. One of Lambert's concerns was not allowing a canopy on a side street yard. Lambert was unable to attend tonight's meeting.

Baker asked for the Commission's opinions about the provision for car washes. Should car washes be allowed? Livingston had no objections to car washes if the doors remain closed. Baker stated has a problem with car washes. Car washes require larger sites than what the City envisioned when it created the MX District.

Schiferl asked Larson about the Council's ideas on convenience/gasoline establishments when it gave direction to draft the amendment. Schiferl stated he thought car washes were implied as part of convenience/gasoline establishments. Larson stated the Council is looking at providing a service to the surrounding businesses and other uses that may be in that area in five or ten years. The Council does not see the issue as just a gas station, but providing more services to the mixed use area. The vision for the MX District is that it should become a place where services are available for people who use the area. Larson stated that the Council looks at gas stations more as convenience centers. A convenience center offers the opportunity to buy a cup of coffee or deli items. The Council hopes that someday people could walk to the convenience center for a sandwich and perhaps walk to the park to eat it. In other words, the area would become a place for people, not just cars. Larson stated the Council would like the services in the MX area to cut down on the traffic on Old Highway 8. Regarding car washes, some service stations say they cannot make it without a car wash. Others, such as Super America, do not care if they have a car wash.

Baker asked if gas stations had lot size restrictions. How large can a gas station be? If the Commission recommends allowing convenience/gasoline establishments, how many pumps would be allowed? Teague responded that point was not addressed in the amendment, but perhaps should be. Baker stated, in his opinion, car washes should not be allowed. Car washes go beyond convenience. Baker said he agreed with Larson's explanation of the vision for the MX District. The goal should be to encourage a retail atmosphere, but discourage the atmosphere of vehicle servicing centers.

O'Brien asked Larson if the Council has expressed any preference for the two properties flanking Highway 96 along I-35W, the so-called northeast gateway to New Brighton. Larson stated he thought the Council preferred a convenience center for the parcel to the north. The property to the south would likely be an office site. Larson stated the Council does not want convenience centers on both properties.

Baker said the item should be continued so staff can investigate how other cities regulate pump islands. References to the size of other convenience centers in the City would be helpful. Teague stated the existing convenience centers are all less than one acre in size. The DeCoster site is almost two acres. Baker said he was not as concerned about the building size as the number of gas pumps. For a true convenience center, perhaps a coffee shop should be combined with a gas station. Larson commented that Baker's concern was that a "super station" may be built in the MX-G District. Baker agreed. Teague stated the City could put a cap on the number of gas pumps allowed. Baker said four pumps would be about right.

Teague stated that the minimum lot size for stand-alone commercial would be five acres. The Commission discussed the lot size that would be allowed for a convenience center in the MX-G District. Baker asked if the consensus was that car washes not be allowed. Schiferl said he did not see car washes as the essential issue. Schiferl said a car wash could be considered a service.

Baker suggested the Zoning Ordinance Amendment be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to give staff time to research additional information. The Commission needs information on the lot sizes of current convenience centers to formulate an appropriate size restriction.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to continue consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a MX-G, Mixed Use-Gasoline Zoning District. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed his memo on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding regulations on outside storage within the I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts. The item was continued from the February Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to investigate linking outside storage to a percentage of the existing building area.

John Lewman, said he and his partner Larry Chevalier, represented US West. Lewman stated he was in attendance regarding the US West facility on Lakeview Point. That facility is now empty. It was built four years ago for approximately for $12 million. Mr. Crosson, the purchaser, has some specific uses for the building. The building was purchased on July 1, when outside storage was a permitted use. US West is concerned that the ordinance would change the outside storage on the site from a permitted use to a conditional use. The site has held a considerable amount of outside storage in the past. Most of the site is concrete hard surfaces and is fenced. The site itself is fairly secluded. On behalf of US West, Lewman said it wished to object to changing the outside storage standard for the former US West site.

Bob Crosson, the contract purchaser, stated that, when he entered the contract agreement with US West, he had intended the uses for the property would be consistent with the previous uses. If the use is no longer a permitted use, Crosson stated he cannot use the property as intended at the time of purchase. Crosson stated he is deeply concerned that he has made sizable financial commitment to US West and now there is a possibility that he cannot market the property as he intended.

Schiferl stated he understood Crosson's concerns. Schiferl asked Crosson if the uses for the proposed site would adversely affect the adjacent land uses, such as causing unsightliness, noise, odor, dust or smoke, air pollution, excessive or heavy vehicular traffic, or fire and safety hazard. Lewman answered that would be a matter of opinion.

Schiferl stated Light Industrial clearly means not Heavy Industrial. There are restrictions in any zoning district. Lewman stated he could not give an example of a use that would be objectionable.

Lewman stated that the Commission knows what the use was on the site previously. The aerial view clearly shows that property's use. If someone comes in with a similar use, would it be approved or rejected? Baker stated he assumed it would be approved, if the use were the same. Lewman asked Baker if that type of storage would be an approved use? What would be an unpermitted use? Baker stated he had no way of knowing the answer to that. Baker stated that the proposed amendment could increase the value of the property by keeping objectionable uses from going in next door. Lewman stated he did not see that as an issue. Baker stated the ordinance amendment would not apply only to the US West property.

Lewman answered the only properties adjacent to the property in question would be the freeway, Jones Lake, or the Allen property. The use of Allen's property would not be drastically changed. Therefore, the only property affected is the US West site. Lewman said an appraiser would see this amendment as a detriment and lower the value of a property. Baker stated he questioned that it would lower the value, but may have the reverse effect. Lewman stated court cases prove that the values are lowered.

Baker stated he would not like to see a percentage restriction added to the amendment. Baker stated outside storage should be a special use.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend adoption of the Ordinance Amendment that would allow outside storage as a Special Use Permit in the I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial districts. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Livingston stated he is an appraiser, and to make a point, industrial land is not as valuable as commercial property. Industrial property would not necessarily be worth more than property with certain restrictions. Lewman stated that approximately 7 acres of the 11.5 acre site is available for outside storage. Restricting the storage would lower the value of the site. Livingston stated that the building could be expanded and the property would be worth more. Baker said the building could be expanded or another building could be added to the site.

Report on Council Action

Larson said the administrative appeal was the first appeal the Council had ever considered. The appeal was denied, as was the Kolstad request.

Tank and Tummy miraculously found a car wash that keeps the door closed while the dryer is operating. Semi parking was still an issue for that site. The Council is working with the neighbors to solve that problem.

The Council passed a site plan for AAA Cooper with a single entrance off 14th, as well as leaving and possibly expanding the existing entrance on 1st. There will be greenspace on the east end of the building and handicap parking. The employees' parking lot will be accessed off 14th. The variance was denied for decreasing the setback. The greenspace will be put in place plus enhanced plantings around the perimeter. The fence will be repaired.

Baker stated the plan submitted by AAA Cooper was incomplete and poorly done. The Planning Commission is supposed to have detailed plans to consider. It seems that AAA Cooper misled either the Commission or the Council. Teague stated that was a big problem for the Planning Commission. AAA Cooper's plan designers were in Alabama. Their attorneys were in Minnesota. The site plan people should have been available to meet with staff. Baker stated that, if AAA Cooper's time limit was so short, they should have provided a workable site plan. Teague said AAA Cooper evidently took note of Baker's comments, because they incorporated the Commission's suggestions in the plan they took to the Council.

Larson stated the Town Hall meeting was a success and the turnout was excellent. Larson said the NOP meetings have involved more people in City issues and could have been a factor in the success of the Town Hall meeting.

Announcements and Updates

Baker asked for an update on the parking at Brightondale. The sign is still in the front and cars are still parking everywhere. Teague stated he had contacted them, but G & P has not taken any action yet. Baker asked if they had pulled a building permit for their new project. Baker stated G & P's building permit should be held until they resolve the parking problems at Brightondale. There is an illegal sign on the site. Teague said he would look at the sign and the parking again.

Year End Report

Teague summarized the Commission's actions in 1998.

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to adjourn the meeting. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner