Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - August 15, 2000

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,

Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Char Samuelson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, to approve the minutes of the JULY 18, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Actions

Samuelson said that at the July 25th Council meeting a petition was received pertaining to accessory structures and property maintenance concerns and the Council delegated it to staff to follow up. Samuelson also mentioned agenda items that were passed.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Teague presented a variance request by Mike Prebonich for a 12.25 foot side street yard setback variance to Section 4-030 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a 15-foot side street yard setback for all structures constructed prior to 1981, within the R-1 Zoning District. The property is located at the intersection of 17th Street North & 18th Avenue at 1706-18th Avenue NW. The variance request was to construct a 14 X 30 (420 square feet) addition to the existing garage. The applicant is requesting this variance for the purpose of adding space to his home for storage of boats and vehicles.

Teague noted that originally the applicant wanted to construct a detached garage in the rear yard, however, due to concerns from adjacent neighbors, Mr. Prebonich and his neighbors went to the Ramsey County Resolution Center and concluded that an attached garage would be a better alternative to constructing a detached garage that met all Code requirements.

Teague shared the following criteria for approving a variance request:

1) An undue hardship would be brought upon the applicant, should the variance be denied.

2) There are unique circumstances related to this site.

3) The request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

4) The variance shall not be detrimental to adjacent property or to the public as a whole.

Teague feels that #1and #2 variance criteria have not been met but #3 and #4 have been met. Despite the fact that the request seems to be an amicable solution with the applicant and the neighbors, using the strictest interpretation of the Code, staff does not feel that the hardship criteria is satisfied, and is concerned that if the City approves the subject variance, it may set a precedent to allow similar requests in the R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District, therefore, staff must recommend denial of the proposed variance request.

Baker asked questions regarding the addition to the back of the house, the size of the addition and any additional costs that may be incurred. Teague said that the addition to the back of the house had been discussed and wasn't thought to be cost effective because of the roof line and the pitch of the roof.

Baker asked if the additional cost was primarily due to the driveway construction. Mike Prebonich, applicant stated the additional cost was due to the removal of the siding, upgrading of the walls to a firewall, removing of a door, installing a fire door, moving of a window, footings attaching to the house, trusses, belly rafters, tying in, etc.

Richard Johnson, 1707 - 19th Avenue NW, noted his favoritism of this plan. He said the other plan would block the view from his house, disrupt the landscaping in the area, and neighbors are concerned that the property values could go down in the neighborhood.

Alice Finley, 1629 - 18th Avenue NW, urged the Planning Commission to accept the request. She commented on the size of the detached garage plan compared to an addition that would fit better into the characteristics of the neighborhood.

Jerry Fuhr, 1899 - 17th Street NW, had a question on controlling the additions of driveways for parking more vehicles, trailers or boats. Teague stated that Mr. Prebonich could apply for a driveway access permit off of 17th Street and it would be permitted. The city code regarding parking cars, boats or trailers on grass was brought up and concerns of expanding the existing driveway were discussed.

Jolene Ormand, 1737 - 17th Avenue NW, had concerns that the addition of the garage would limit vision when at the intersection.

Bill Spitzmueller, 1773 - 17th Avenue NW, voiced his concern about the aesthetics of the Prebonich's property because of all the vehicles he has parked in and around their home.

Carol Johnson, 1707 - 19th Avenue NW, was stunned with the cities zoning laws that would allow for such a huge accessory structure to be built in back yards of the neighborhood. She urged the Planning Commission to approve this request.

No other public comment was received.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried

Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SIDE STREET YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1.	CHANGE #5 OF THE DENIAL RESOLUTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

THE PROPOSED SETBACK OF 2.75 FEET WOULD SLIGHTLY "STICK OUT" WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER HOMES AND GARAGES ALONG 17TH STREET NW, HOWEVER, WOULD GENERALLY BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague presented a request by H. Brooks & Company for a special use permit and site plan review for the purpose of operating a food processing (fruits and vegetables), packaging, warehousing and distribution center out of the existing building located at 600 Lakeview Point (the old US West facility). Activities proposed at the site would include storage of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables including ripening rooms, caramel apple dipping, fruit and vegetable cutting and packaging, distribution of the product, and the office operation. Approximately 130-140 employees will be working on the site over two shifts. Truck traffic generated from the site will be around 285 trips in and out of the facility per day, including weekends. These trips include employees driving to and from the site each day. The company has 20 semi trucks in operation and an additional 15 trailer beds parked on site. An above ground fueling station will be located in the southeast corner of the off-street parking area and shall be well screened. There will be at most, a total of 35 semi trailers on the site at one time. The site contains 16 dock doors, therefore, there will be 19 additional trailers parked away from the dock doors in the parking area. The special use permit is requested for the purpose of allowing the distribution portion of the request, and to install a gasoline fueling area in the future.

The following criteria shall be considered for a special use permit to be issued:

1)	That the establishment, maintenance, or operations of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort of the general public.

2)	That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.

3)	That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.

4)	That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided.

5)	That the special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.

Teague reported that the proposed distribution operation shall not be detrimental to the area, or diminish property value. The use conforms to the regulation of the I-1 Zoning District. The facility will be well screened per the attached landscape plan.

Phil Brooks, President of H. Brooks & Company made introductions, gave a brief history of the company and described some of the operations of their business.

Baker asked if H. Brooks & Company had any plans for the tower on the building. Brooks explained they did not need the tower but it would be expensive to remove it and the company would use it to the best of their ability for now.

Livingston asked where most of the employees had to travel from to get to work and the accessibility of the new location . Brooks replied that most of their employees live north of town.

John Allen, Industrial Equities, spoke regarding the vacancy of the building, traffic problems , noise levels,

and other issues regarding H. Brooks & Company putting their business into that location. Brooks commented on Allen's concerns.

Teague reported on a traffic study based on numbers from the previous use of the site and the consultant did not seem to have a problem with 2000 trips being generated a day. Ray Ralston, Treasurer of H. Brooks & Company, stated that every tractor trailer vehicle that comes into the facility will be staged or unloaded at the docks and will not be parked on the street. Ralston estimated less than 250 trucks will be going in and out of the facility every week. He also explained the hours the employees work, when deliveries would be made and also the route the trucks would take.

Allen talked about the amount of trucks coming in and out of the park in a two week period (maybe 40) compared to the 250 semi-truck trailers coming in and out of just the H. Brooks & Company site and asked in a Light Industrial Zone if there was a limit to the number of truck trips. Teague reported that there were no limits.

O'Brien asked if warehouse wholesale is a permitted use, then how do we get to a special use permit request?

Teague stated it was tied in to the distribution and fueling portion of the business. Livingston asked if H. Brooks & Company would be distributing more goods than U.S. West was. Teague stated he didn't know what U.S. West was distributing. Questions on the fueling portion of the special use permit were asked. Teague stated that the company would be required to obtain an amended special use permit.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by O'Brien, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPOO-11 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND TO CHANGE #3 TO READ AS FOLLOWS):

1)	LANDSCAPING/GREEN AREA BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATED 1-29-1999 AND 3-1-2000. STAFF SHALL INSPECT THE SITE FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTINGS BY THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT ALL PLANTINGS ARE SHOWN IN PLACE.

2)	THE APPLICANT SHALL SEEK APPROVAL FROM RAMSEY COUNTY TO PLANT ADDITIONAL PINE TREES ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING.

3)	THE NUMBER OF TRAILERS UTILIZED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCT SHALL BE LIMITED TO 45 TRAILERS ON SITE. ANY INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TRAILERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH AN AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND NO TRUCKS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE STORED ON SITE.

4)	ANY SIGNAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE PROVISIONS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE SECTIONS 9-010 THROUGH 9-180.

5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague presented a request for a Preliminary & Final Plat to create three (3) lots as part of Brighton Corporate Park IV. The subject property is located south of County Road E2 on 5th Avenue NW. Lot one (1) will be a future expansion site for Donatelle Plastics. Lot two (2) is the Dalco site. Lot three (3) is OU1 (Operable Unit One) and cannot be developed upon.

Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary & Final Plat subject to the conditions as outlined.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schopf, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT OF PL00-8, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1)	ESTABLISHMENT OF A DRIVEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ON LOT 2, TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO LOT 3.

2)	ALL EASEMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.

5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried

Teague presented a request for a Preliminary & Final Plat to create lots for the Main Street Village property located at the northwest corner of County Road E2 and 5th Avenue NW. The specific proposal is to create four (4) lots out of the existing two (2) lots. The applicant is also requesting a vacation of 6th Street NW.

Lots 1 and 2 would be the existing office components currently under construction. Lot 3 is the second stage that was approved last month and Lot 4 is the center building where they might have some retail shops. Teague stated that the proposed subdivision does meet all minimum code requirements for lot size, width and street access.

Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary & Final Plat subject to the conditions as outlined.

Motion by Zisla, seconded by Schopf to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Baker, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT PL00-7, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1)	VACATION OF THE 6TH STREET NW RIGHT-OF-WAY.

2)	THE DEVELOPER/LANDOWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF MAIN STREET.

3)	ALL EASEMENTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.

5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried

General Business

Teague presented a change to the two most western office buildings adjacent to the railroad tracks in Main Street Village. Main Street Village would like to change the originally planned pitched roofs to flat roofs. The Planning Commission approved the change.

Announcements and Updates

None were given.

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner