New Brighton Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2006

1. New BrightonPlanning Commission MeetingJune 20, 2006 Public Hearing Continuation: Site Plan, Special Use Permits, and Variances for 13 2nd Avenue SE to allow automotive repair and sales

5. Background • Original approval in October of 2003 – expired • Re-applied with a slightly different plan, including a Special Use Permit for automotive sales, and was heard at the May PC meeting – tabled for revisions • That application was tabled due to the following staff concerns: • Automotive sales was not included in the 2003 approval • Site isn’t large enough to accommodate adequate parking with the two similar uses • Concern with the amount of time in-operable vehicles will be stored on such a small site • Potential fire and safety hazards with storing in-operable vehicles in such close quarters on site

6. Revised Plan • The applicant submitted a revised plan • 27’ x 50’ garage (former size was 27’ x 60’) • Shows 13 exterior parking stalls & 3 interior = 16 stalls • More realistically only 12 exterior parking stalls (when a scale it applied to the plan) = 15 stalls • Provides one additional parking stall & with the elimination of the overhead door eliminates the parking stall variance • Drive-aisles widths remain less than required by code • Doesn’t address staff’s concern with the functionality of the parking stalls

8. Staff Plan A • Staff prepared two additional plans to help facilitate discussion with regard to further plan revisions • Staff Plan A is almost identical to the applicants revised plan, except that the building is pushed to the front yard setback in an effort to gain additional drive-aisle width for the parking stalls at the rear of the site. • 12 exterior stalls & 3 interior stalls = 15 total stalls (same # of stalls as applicant’s revised plan) • Parking stalls in rear become more functional

10. Staff Plan B • 2nd plan drafted by staff • Reduces the building to 39’ x 25’ or only two over-head garage doors • Eliminates the need for all variances (southerly building setback, front yard parking setback, and # of required stalls) • 11 exterior parking stalls & 2 interior = 13 total stalls • Main entrance is shifted to rear of building

12. Variance Analysis • Issues remain the same with regard to the reduction in the lot area due to the ROW vacation and subsequent easement dedication – this took away nearly 43% of the original lot’s area • Variance issues do not apply to Staff Plan B • Staff would still recommend against approving variances beyond what was approved in 2003 – this would mean denial of the southerly building setback variance to allow the building to be located 13’ from the lot line where the 2003 approval was for 14’ (15’ is required).

13. Special Use Permit Analysis • Staff remains concerned with the two uses of repair and sales operating out of the same site • The applicant’s main purpose is to purchase salvaged vehicles, repair them on site, and sell them on the internet. • With this proposed use staff is concerned with the amount of in-operable vehicles that will be stored on the property and the length of time those vehicles will be stored on the property. • Staff concerns directly relate to the following: • Small site • Functional drive-aisle widths & functional parking stalls • # & location of salvaged & in-operable vehicles stored on-site

14. Conclusions • How should the required amount of parking be calculated? • How functional should the parking lot be for the applicant’s intended use of the property? • Should there be concern about the # of salvaged or in-operable vehicles stored on the property? • What about safety and fire hazards associated with storage of salvaged or in-operable vehicles on a site where the drive-aisle widths are substandard?

15. Staff Recommendation • Staff is recommending the following: • Approval of the Site Plan application • Approval of the SUP for automotive repair • Denial of the SUP for automotive sales • Approval of the following variances: • Southerly building setback of 14’ where 15’ is normally required and 13’ has been proposed, • Front yard parking setback variance to allow the parking lot to be setback 36.5’ from the ROW where 40’ is required. • Required # of parking stalls allowing for 14 where 16 is required.

16. Staff Recommendation (cont.) • The approval is conditioned upon the following: • A 6’ fence w/gate is constructed as easterly as possible within the required 40’ front yard to provide for screening of vehicles as viewed from the street. • Applicant provides exterior building materials list complying with Section 6-390 (12). • Applicant shall replace the planned 15” HDPE storm sewer pipe with 15” PVC pipe. • Applicant shall substitute the 8” water gate valve w/a 6” gate valve. • Relocation of water main if necessary (as noted in resolution). • Sanitary hook-up plans acceptable to Director of Public Works. • Sign permits are obtained for any signage. • Submission of Rice Creek Watershed District Permit.

17. Attached Resolutions • There are two resolutions attached to your packets • The first resolution is consistent with the staff recommendation, which is to deny the Special Use Permit for automotive sales and basically re-approve the 2003 plan. • The second resolution approves the Special Use Permit for automotive sales and suggests the following additional conditions: • Vehicles can only be parking/stored in designated parking stalls • Parking or storage of vehicles in drive-aisles is prohibited • No more than 5 vehicles for sale at one time is permitted on site

20. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit to amend the General Development Plan for Main Street Village allowing for a drive-thru for the existing coffee shop known as Limu Coffee

24. Request & Background • Applicant requests a Special Use Permit in order to construct a drive-thru lane at the west end of the retail building located within Main Street Village • The property is zoned B-4, which required approval of a General Development Plan. The B-4 guidelines indicate that when that plan is proposed to be modified a Special Use Permit shall be processed. • The drive-thru will be associated with the recently opened Limu Coffee, which occupies the most westerly retail space • This retail building in question is part of Main Street Village, which was designed to achieve a pedestrian-oriented environment with a mix of uses.

25. Proposed Plan (s): • The applicant has proposed 6 plans, one being the preferred plan of the applicants the others being alternatives. • The plans differ with the following characteristics: • Curb-cut onto County Road E2 Extension or a turn-around option • # of parking spaces (lost and gained) • Closure of existing southerly access to site • Re-location of trash enclosure

26. Site Plan Analysis • There were two primary issues reviewed in terms of analyzing the proposed plans: • Section 11-020 (8) (E): Driveway and Curb-Cut Standards – 50’ of separation • Section 11-020 (10): Stacking Lanes – 6 stacking spaces must be provided, minimum stacking lane width of 12’, stacking cannot extend beyond the street right-of-way line, and cannot interfere with primary driving and parking facilities • Also, the parking ratio of 5.5 stalls / 1,000 s.f. for mixed-use commercial facilities (this requires 72 stalls for the entire retail building)

27. Existing Site Plan

28. Applicant’s Preferred Site Plan

29. Alternate Plan 1

30. Alternate Plan 2

31. Alternate Plan 3

32. Alternate Plan 4

33. Alternate Plan 5

34. Departmental Considerations • Public Works/Engineering: Concerned with any plan that proposes a curb-cut onto County RD E2. This is a locally owned portion of E2 and the curb-cut location does not meet the 50’ of required separation, as measured from the internal private street known as Main Street. Engineering has also noted concern with vehicle stacking interfering with vehicle movements with respect to the southerly access to the site. • Public Safety: Requested that any new curb-cut onto County Road E2 or Main Street be avoided. • Fire Marshall: Concerned with the plans that propose closure of the southerly access to the parking lot - this would result in a single access for the entire retail building and all its parking.

35. Special Use Permit Analysis • Section 8-130 of the Zoning Code provides for 5 findings in order to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit. • Those findings relate to the use not negatively impacting public health, safety & general welfare, the use not being injurious to enjoyment of other property, the use not impeding development, having adequate utilities, access, etc. and that the use conforms to all other applicable regulations of the Zoning Code. • With respect to the applicant’s preferred plan, staff finds the special use standards are not met due to the negative impacts that arise out of not meeting the 50’ of required separation and the vehicle stacking limitations. • Conditions could be placed on the preferred plan to help limit the negative impacts but not fully resolving the issues.

36. Staff Recommendation • Based on the Special Use criteria staff would recommend approval of Alternate Plan 3 based on the following: • The turn-around option addresses safety concerns with respect to not meeting the 50’ of required driveway separation • The trash enclosure remains closest to the two most frequent users • Under the shared parking arrangements, adequate parking is still provided • The southerly access remains open per the Fire Marshall’s recommendations • Any potential traffic conflicts that arise out of limited stacking space is contained within the property and doesn’t filter out onto public roadways

37. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit in order to amend the Comprehensive Sign Plan governing allowed signage within Main Street Village

41. Request & Background • A Comprehensive Sign Plan currently exists that governs allowed signage within Main Street Village • Any time an alteration to that sign plan is proposed, an amendment must be processed in the form of a Special Use Permit • It has been anticipated all along that as full build-out approaches, amendments to the sign plan would be processed to address needs as they arise • The original Comprehensive Sign Plan was approved on May 22, 2001 with the most recent amendment being approved on January 25, 2005.

42. Proposed Changes • The applicant has proposed 2 minor changes to existing language and one somewhat major change to allowed signage within the retail building known as Building E. • The first minor change deals with signs allowed above windows within Building C. The current language allows a tenant to have a sign above their window where the proposed language would allow for signs above windows in general. This change would represent what is currently displayed above windows. • The second minor change deals with Temporary Sign Permits for window signage in Building E. The applicant indicates it was never the intention to require permits for these signs. • Staff would support both minor changes.

43. Proposed Changes (cont.) • The most prominent change to the sign plan deals with directory type signs for the tenants that occupy the east/west wing of Building E. • The applicant has expressed a desire to allow these teants directory style signs on the SE Diagonal of the building and the North Face of the building. • These signs would allow for 5th Avenue NW exposure for the existing tenants of Jimmy Johns and Limu Coffee. • The sizes proposed for these directory style signs would match the size signs already displayed on the building (28 s.f.)

46. Staff Recommendation • Approve the changes as requested.

47. Item 6C (No Public Hearing Required): Site Plan review in order to construct an additional drive-thru lane within the McDonald’s site located on Silver Lake Road