Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 01-10 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 10, 1980 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER - 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1979 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Commissioner Theis arrived at 7:32 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 6 , 1979 Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the December 6 , 1979 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis and Lucht. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Malecki , Hawes and Erickson, as they were not at that meeting. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 13 , 1979 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hawes to � approve the minutes of the December 13, 1979 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, and Lucht. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Erickson -as .he was not at that meeting. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT OF 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adjourn the 1979 Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The 1979 Planning Commission adjourned at 7:34 p.m. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary administered the oath of office for Planning Commissioner to Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Hawes who were renewing their term with the Planning Commission for another two years. He also administered the oath to newly appointed Commission- er Mary Simmons. CALL TO ORDER - 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1980 :Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pro Tem William Hawes at 7:37 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro Tem Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. ELECTION OF 1980 Planning Commission Chairman Cc issioner Lucht nominated Chairman Pro Tem William Hawes to be the 1980 Planning Commission Chairman. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Theis. There being no other nominations , a vote 1-10-80 -1- was taken to elect William Hawes as the 1980 Planning -Commission Chairman. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro Tem Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. Commissioner Hawes was elected Planning Commission Chairman for 1980 on a unanimous vote. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN PRO TEM Commissioner Erickson nominated Commissioner George Lucht to be Chairman Pro Tem of the 1980 Planning Commission. Chairman Hawes seconded -the motion. There being no other nominations, a vote was taken for Chairman Pro Tem. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. Commissioner Lucht was elected Chairman Pro Tem for 1980 on a unanimous vote APPLICATION NO. 80001 (DeWitt Enterprises) Following the Chairman' s explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business on the agenda, Application No. 80001 submitted by DeWitt Enterprises for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a tract of land into nine lots to be known as Humboldt Square Estates. The Secretary pointed out that the location of proposed subdivision is west of Humboldt Avenue across. from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center, south of the Humboldt Courts Apartments. He stated that one of the conditions of approval for Application No. 79061 was that the property was subject to platting in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and that this application was in response to that condition. The Secretary stated that the total area of the nine lots is 39,307 square feet, the overall dimensions being roughly 131' x 2991 , * The Sec- retary also explained that the easterly 30 feet of the existing- tract is in the Humboldt Avenue right-of-way and should be formally dedicated through platting to the City. This, he stated, + would be consistent with other dedications along Humboldt Avenue made in recent years. He also explained that there would be eight individual lots serving eight townhouse units and a Lot 9 being a common driving and lawn area. The Secretary pointed out a 10' wide sidewalk easement along the east end of the property and noted that drainage on the site is generally from east to west toward low areas at the northwest and southwest corners of the property. He added that the common areas would be designated in the Homeowners Association documents as a drainage and utility area. The Secretary then pointed out the dimensions of the various lots and stated that no setback deficiencies would result. Commissioner Theis asked what advantage there was to the five foot strip of common area between the individual townhouse lots in the south property line of the complex. The Secretary answered that the common area would be maintained by the Homeowners Association and that it is likely that part of the private lots would also be maintained by the Association. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing. There was a question from Mrs. Ingle of 5313 Emerson Avenue North regarding the parking for the site. The Secretary responded that the transparency of the site represented a lot division and not a 1-10-80 -2- site plan. He explained that the site plan for this development was approved earlier and noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces for each unit and that the site plan shows off-street parking in excess of that amount. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons inquired as to the width of the driving lanes serving the individual townhouse units. The Planning Assistant then showed a transparency of the site plan for the development which indicated 18 foot wide driving lanes. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80001 (DeWitt Enterprises) Pollowing further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 80001, submitted by DeWitt Enterprises for pre- liminary plat approval, to create nine lots on the property immediately south of the Humboldt Courts Apartments abutting Humboldt Avenue North subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat approval is subject to review and t approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat approval is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The Homeowners Association Agreement and bylaws are subject to review and approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 4. The final plat shall indicate the dedication of the easterly 30 feet for right-of-way purposes. Voting„in _favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Simmons. APPLICATION NO. 800-02 (Edwin Kauffmann/Village Builders) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, that of Application No. 80002 submitted by Village Builders for pre- liminary plat approval to create nine lots on a tract of land roughly 132' x 2951 . He stated that the property was located at the�,-southeast corner of 58th and Logan Avenues, on the east side of Logan across from the Northbrook Shopping Center. He explained that the property had been recently rezoned to R3 from Cl under 'Application No. 79055 and a site and building plan had been approved under Application No 79056. As with the fore- gging platting application, the Secretary pointed out, the pro- posed plat provides for eight individual lots for townhouses and one common area. He stated that the total area of the subdivi- sion is 39,052 feet and that the proposed individual interior lots are 34' x 98 ' with two end lots 29 ' x 98` . The Secretary noted that the townhouse units would have separate sewer connections and that the water lines for each two unit structure 1-10-80 -3- will be combined near the property line for a single connection in the street. He noted that the site is fairly level with a slight tendency to drain to the north and south•away "from the' single family homes to the east. He also stated that the common area will be designated in the Homeowners Association documents as a drainage and utility area. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak on the application. Seeing �► one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC' HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis / to close the public hearing. Voting in "favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against.: none. The motion passed. Chairman Hawes asked whether the Planning Commission would r'evi6w a revised site plan if a parking lot were added to the site. The Secretary answered that it would not be necessary since parking lots are generally approved by the City Engineer., The Secretary added that it is not likely that the plan would be revised to include a parking lot since the density credit allowing for eight townhouse units contemplates the use of the tuck under garages and additional off-street `parking is available for each unit on driveways off Logan Avenue. Chairman Hawes asked how much drive way space there was between the townhouse units and the right-of-way. The Secretary stated that the townhouses were set back 35 feet, which is almost two car lengths. The Secretary then discussed the 40' wide driveway opening and explained that the entire opening would be blacktopped since that would make it easier to facilitate traffic movements at these points and that maintenance of landscaped islands between two separate drives (within the right-of-way) would be difficult. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80002 (Edwin Rauffmann/ Village Builders) Following further discussion_ there was a motion -by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 80002 submitted by Village Builders for preliminary plat approval to create nine lots on a tract of land at the southeast corner of 58th and Logan Avenues North, sub- ject of the following conditions: 1. Final plat approval is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2 . Final plat approval is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The Homeowners Association Agreement and bylaws are subject to review and approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed, 1-10-80 -4- APPLICATION NO 80003 (David Larson) The next item of business was Application No. 80003 submitted by David Larson, a preliminary plat and variance request to approve the subdivision of a tract of land 160' x 130 ' located at the southeast corner of 57th Avenue and Girard Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the proposed plat would create two lots, an interior lot 75 ' x 130 ' which meets all ordinance requirements, and a corner lot roughly 85 ' x 130 ' which is substandard as to width by 5 feet. He noted that both lots are served by a 14 ' wide alley along the east property line. The Secretary observed that the site is presently occupied by a house, two garages and a stone fireplace. He noted that the house is located on the proposed Lot 1 and would meet all setback requirements. One garage and the stone fireplace are located properly within required setbacks on the proposed Lot 2 , he said. He pointed out that the other garage straddles the proposed property line dividing the two lots and must be relocated onto Lot' 1 to meet setbacks prior to final approval of the plat. The Secretary pointed out that the site generally drains toward the southeast corner of the proposed Lot 2 and that there is a 5' wide power line easement along the north side of the proposed Lot 1. He added that City water and sewer are available in Girard Avenue for the proposed Lot 2 . Turning to the application for a variance, the Secretary explained that the variance requested was from Section 15-106 g Subsection ff of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a corner lot which is substandard with respect to width, but which meets other ordinance requirements for depth and area. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted no letter explaining the grounds for the variance, but that his argument was fairly simple: namely, that if the variance is not granted, the applicant will be denied the reasonable use of his property. Whether this argument is valid, the Secretary said, amounts to a judgment on the part of the Planning Commission and City Council since the property is already being used for a single family residence. If the Commission deems the lot split to be •a reasonable use of the property, it should make this fact clear in light of the Variance Standards, the Secretary said. The Commission's determination of what makes this variance reasonable to grant will, in essence, establish a precedent which should be narrowly, not broadly, construed when considering other variances in the future, he added. The Secretary explained to the Planning Commission that prior to 1976 the City granted a number of variances for houses to be built on substandard lots, using a "70% rule" to evaluate the extent of the variance. He explained that these cases , however, involved pre-established lots where a property right could be said to already exist. Whether a property right already exists in this case to create an additional lot, is subject to a reasonable interpretation of the circumstances , he said. Since January 1, 1976 , he went on, there has been only one case in which a substandard lot was created by a new plat, that being the property at 810-61st 1-10-80 -5- Avenue North under Application No. 76061. It is questionable, however, whether this serves as a true precedent since the variance application was for subdivision by metes and bounds and the record indicates that the issue of creating a substandard corner lot received little or no attention. He noted that the "70% rule was abolished as an ordinance standard in 1976 by the City Council. The Secretary then reviewed the Standards for a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated that the first standard seems to be met by the fact that the ,existing parcel of land is left over from a previous subdivision in which the property to the east was divided into two lots . He noted that the length of certain blocks in the City almost requires that some lot, often an end lot, be substandard. He stated that the present owner of this property had no control over the creation of other lots on this block and that consequently one of the lots he wishes to create is sub- standard by five feet. He stated that in comparison to these other lots, the creation of an 85 foot corner lot seems reasonable. The Secretary stated that the third standard also seems to be met in that the remaining 85 foot wide corner lot will still be larger than many other corner lots in the neighborhood, notably the corner lots on the northeast and northwest corners of the same inter- section and the corner lot lying to the rear of the subject pro- perty. He noted that the proposed subdivision will also leave the existing house within all the established setbacks, a basic criterion for substandard lots. He added that the applicant has agreed to move the garage which presently straddles the proposed property line to within proper setbacks prior to final plat approval. In addressing the second standard which acknowledges a substantial property right of the petitioner, the Secretary noted that the applicant purchased the property as one lot, not two. The applicant, therefore, has no economic investment in a second lot and no claim of confiscation if the subdivision is denied. He stated, however, that it may be argued in this case that the second standard is met if the first and third standards are met since, to a, large extent, the meeting of the other two standards creates the right to another lot. He stated the fact that the previous owner did not seek to subdivide the property is incon- sequential since the right to do so always existed. Commissioner Theis asked whether the property in question was a lot of record prior to 1976 . The Secretary acknowledged that it was, but added that the provision that Commissioner Theis seems to be referring to applies to substandard lots already in existence. Commissioner Theis commented that if the lot in question had been split prior to 1976, it would be considered buildable under the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary agreed stating that the affect of the 1976 ordinance was to do away with the 70% rule which had encouraged the splitting of lots rather than combinations. Commissioner Simmons noted that although the new corner lot would be substandard, it would still be larger than some other existing corner lots. The Secretary concurred with Commissioner Simmons and also pointed out that there are more 75 foot wide corner lots in the City than 90 foot wide corner lots. He also noted that although the corner lot proposed was 5 ' deficient in width, it met the Ordinance Standards for lot depth and area. Commissioner Erickson stated that the City had been reluctant to grant variances -1-10-80 -6 in the past and noted that this particular case would set a precedent. He asked the Secretary what implications the granting " of a variance in this case would have on future cases. The Secretary answered that other lots have been created which were substandard recently, but the method in which they were created did not create the substandard condition. He concurred with Commissioner Erickson that this variance in effect would create a precedent but that it would not necessarily be an undesireable precedent if it was determined that the Subdivision Ordinance Standards for a Variance were met in all respects and that the variance was minimized as much as possible. He noted that in this case the precedent would be that a 5 ' corner lot width deficiency would be acceptable provided the standards for lot area and depth were met in a neighborhood that would not be ad- versely impacted by the deficiency because other substandard corner lots already exist in the immediate area. He pointed out that if the Commission does not feel the standards were met in all respects, they should not recommend favorably on the request. He reiterated that the standards for variance are the key and that any variance must meet these standards. He advised against setting up a "rule of thumb" like the 70% rule because this then would become the standard for lot divisions. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the proposed corner lot is only 5 feet short of the requirement and that to deny the plat would deny the applicant of an entire lot. The Secretary responded that this is not necessarily the case, unless the standards are met, the right to another lot does not exist. Chairman Hawes stated that he felt a standard was needed to decide variances -of this type. The Secretary again advised the Commission not to set up any standard other than the existing Standards for a Variance and that they should evaluate each case based on the particular circumstances to see if it meets those standards. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for public hearing. Noting that no one was present who wished to speak on the application, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CWSE PUBLIC HEARING MoE,ion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis stated that his principal concern was how the new lot would fit into the neighborhood of which it is a part. He stated that the variance is justifiable in this case. because the new lot would not be smaller than neighboring lots. Commission- er Simmons suggested that the conditions of the surrounding pro- perties should be cited in any approval of the variance. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80003 (David Larson) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to 1-10-80 -7- recommend approval of Application No. 80003 submitted by David Larson for a variance from Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances, to create a lot substandard as to width for the following rea,sons: 1. The particular circumstances pertaining to the property are such that a strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which the property is situated since that neighborhood already contains a number of substandard corner lots. 3. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the petitioner. 4. No other variances are required for the development of the property as it is zoned. 5 . The variance applied for has been- minimized as -far as is possible under the circumstances. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80003 (David Larson) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 80003 submitted by David Larson for preliminary plat approval, to create two lots on the property located at the southeast corner of 57th Avenue and Girard Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat approval is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The garage located on the property line dividing the proposed Lot l and Lot 2 shall be relocated within proper setbacks onto Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80004 (William Norenberg) The next item of consideration was Application No. 80004 sub- mitted by William Norenberg requesting a special use permit for a Home Occupation to build kitchen cabinets in his garage at 5338 Emerson Avenue North. The Secretary pointed out the location of the applicant' s property and stated that the applicant has submitted a letter describing his proposed use which would involve I 1-10-80 -8- i the building of cabinets during the hours of 5 :00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday, and 9 :00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. on Saturdays. The garage in which the activity is to take place has no windows and is insulated and sheetrocked. There would be no retail sales from the premises and machine operation would be involved about 40% of the operating hours. The Secretary stated that the proposed use is subject to special use permit approval because it involves manufacturing with the use of equipment not normally found in a home and because the activity ' is carried on in an accessory structure. He noted that the ordinance permits such activity provided: "it is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential uses of- the premises including the dwelling, and permitted accessory buildings or installations thereon; does not produce light glare , noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not consist of over-the-counter sales of merchandise produced off the premises. " (Section 35-900) The Secretary explained that the provision that the activity be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises has been interpreted in the past to mean that more area in an accessory structure must be devoted to residential than occupational use. The Secretary cited two previous special home occupations in which the use had to allow for the parking of at least one car in the garage. As to the issue of noise, the Secretary stated that the Council has generally considered repeated complaints from surrounding residents to be grounds for denying or refusing to renew a special home occupation permit. He added that typically outside storage of materials pertaining to the home occupation is forbidden. The Secretary explained that the essential purpose of these regulations is to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and to protect against any erosion of the property rights of adjacent property owners. The Secretary stated that the Building Official reviewed the premises on January 4 and reported that the garage is fully sheetrocked and the walls insulated. The report also notes that the double garage has ample room for one car and the applicant' s woodworking equipment, that the insulated walls will provide some sound control; and that there seems to be no apparent conflict between the applicant' s proposed home occupation and the residential use The Secretary stated that the applicant has projected four to six jobs over the coming year at 36 hours per job. Based on this projection, all of the hours approved for operation would not be used. The Secretary also noted that the staff has received a letter and a phone call objecting to the proposed use. Commissioner Malecki questioned whether the applicant could work in his garage in the summer with the door closed and also questioned the enforcibility of the recommended Condition No. 5 in the staff report relating to occupying less than half of the accessory structure for the home occupation. The Secretary answered that the condition was imposed on two similar uses in the past and that all home occupations are subject to periodic review to assure that imposed conditions are being met. Commissioner Theis asked whether there would be adequate room on the applicant' s property 1-10-80 -9- - to provide two parking spaces for cars as required by the ordinance. The Building Official answered that there is a gravel area adjacent to the garage which can accommodate three or four cars in addition to the one space in the garage. Commissioner Theis asked how close the neighbor to the south is to the appli- cant' s garage. The Building Official stated that the applicant' s garage is three feet from his south property line and that the garage of the neighboring property is also three feet from the property line making them six feet apart, the minimum separation required by the Zoning Ordinance for accessory structures. Commissioner Simmons, noting the potential noise problem, asked how often special use permits are renewed. The Secretary answered that they are reviewed yearly by the staff and that a number of verified complaints could require the permit to be again reviewed by the Commission and Council with the possible result of revo- cation. Commissioner Erickson asked whether any complaints had been filed against the applicant. The Secretary answered that it was a complaint about this activity which brought on the applica- tion for a special use permit. Chairman Hawes noted that motor driven equipment such as that used by the applicant can cause interference with TV reception. The Secretary stated that while the ordinance requires that noise or light should not go beyond one' s premises , a reasonable application of the ordinance must be made. He cited instances like lawn mowing which are not considered a nuisance depending upon the time of operation. Chairman Hawes asked whether interference with TV reception would be grounds for revoking the permit. The Secretary answered that it was his understanding that CB radio operators have occasionally been tagged for making such interference . The Secretary urged the Commission to find some kind of compromise between total restriction and total freedom. He noted that a person could have woodworking as a hobby and not be restricted although the impact would be much the same. He pointed out that a number of people who have such a hobby and would make use of the same tools would not be required to seek_a special use permit unless they were making things on a contractual basis for a commercial purpose. He added that even if the permit is denied, the applicant could still do woodworking for his own purposes. The Building Official stated that CB operators are not required to provide filters for surrounding residents as a prerequisite to operating their radios. Chairman Hawes asked whether the applicant would be doing any finishing of the wood. Mr. Norenberg answered that no finishing would be done at his residence, but rather at the job site. Commissioner Lucht asked Mr. Norenberg how long he had been building cabinets in his garage. Mr. Norenberg answered that he had been building cabinets since June 1978. Commissioner Simmons asked whether he was increasing his work load. Mr. Norenberg answered that he was not. In answer to Chairman Hawes, Mr. Noren- berg stated that he kept his garage door closed during the summer when the machinery was running. PUBLIC HEARING Mrs. Forystek of 5332 Emerson Avenue North stated that she wanted to keep the neighborhood residential and expressed concern about a possible fire hazard to her garage from Mr. Norenberg's garage. 1-10-80 -10- She also stated that her husband had asked Mr. Norenberg to stop using his equipment at 11:20 p.m. one evening this summer when they had been unable to get to sleep. A man who lived behind Mr. Norenberg on Dupont Avenue North com- plained that Mr. Norenberg had trucks in the alley to deliver wood and that this congested the alley and presented a danger to youngsters. Mrs. Engstrom of 5319 Dupont Avenue North complained that she could not enjoy her yard in the summer with Mr. Noren- berg's machines running. Chairman Hawes asked Mrs. Engstrom if the garage doors had been opened when the machines were running. Mrs. Engstrom said that she did not know whether the doors were open or closed, but that she could hear the noise anyway. A letter was then presented to the Commission from Lydia Normandin of 5327 Dupont Avenue North in which she stated her opposition to the cabinet making shop because of its traffic and noise impacts. Mr. Norenberg responded that the trucks that deliver his wood are permitted on any street in the area and that they only bring wood three or four times a year. Commissioner Erickson noted a dis- crepancy between Mr. Norenberg and his neighbors over the amount of traffic caused by the cabinet making activity. He also questioned whether the dust could be a fire hazard. Mr. Norenberg stated that he contains all the dust inside his garage and cleans it out when it settles. Mr. Forystek complained that dust can explode with a single spark from one of the machines. In answer to Commissioner Erickson, Mr. Norenberg stated that he did not hire anyone to work with him. A man who lived in the neighborhood com- plained that there is a fire hazard from the staining of the cabinets. Mr. Norenberg stated that he stains the wood outside. In that case, the man said, there is also an odor problem. Commissioner Simmons asked whether a fire extinguisher and any venting would be required. The Building Official answered that an extinguisher would be required, but stated that at the time of his inspection he did not consider dust to be a big problem. He stated that a gas fired heater in the garage meets code. Mr. Forystek warned of additional fire hazard from the gas heater. Commissioner Erickson stated that he did not see that there would be a great deal of annoyance if there were only six jobs a year with 15 hours of machine operation per job. That amounts to about two hours per week, he said, Mrs. Forystek claimed that the machines were operated much more than two hours per week. Mr. Norenberg stated that woodworking is his hobby and that he often runs the machines as part of his hobby when he is not actually performing a job. A brief discussion then ensued over the height of the fence on Mr. Norenberg`s south property line. . CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioner Malecki, Theis , Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons stated that the problems associated with the use sound more like a nuisance problem rather than a permit problem. Commissioner Lucht commented that a special use permit would help to bring the activity under control. Commissioner Malecki noted that denial of the permit would not necessarily end 1-10-80 -11- the complaints. Commissioner Lucht stated that greater regulation of the hours of operation would perhaps reduce complaints. Chair- man Hawes noted that the permit is issued for occupational use and not a hobby. He suggested that Mr. Norenberg might run the machines for hobby purposes after 10 p.m. The Secretary acknow- ledged this, but added that the nuisance ordinance would apply in these cases. He added that practically speaking he did not feel Mr. Norenberg would jeopardize his home occupation permit by operating at hours other than proposed even if he was doing woodworking for other than the commercial purposes. The Secretary stressed the point of reasonableness. He stated that it depends on what time the activity is going on. He observed that a lot of ordinary uses make noise. He stated that one of the purposes of the special use permit is to reach a compromise over these various impacts. He suggested that perhaps the Commission should reduce the number of hours of operation in light of the fact they are not all necessary for the occupational use. Commissioner Simmons stated that she was still concerned about noise impact in the summer time. Commissioner Lucht stated that Mr. Norenberg is likely to limit his private use of his machines so that he would not lose his permit. Commissioner Erickson asked how many complaints would have to be filed before the special use permit would be reviewed. The Secretary stated there was no exact number, that it depended on the seriousness of the complaint. Mrs.Forystek asked why a permit should be issued in the first place when there are already complaints about the activity. Mr. Noren- berg stated that he realized he had disturbed the neighbors in the past and stated he did not wish to, but added that whether his permit is approved or not, he plans to continue with his wood- working hobby. RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80004 (William Norenberg) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Theis to recommend denial of Application No. 80004, submitted by William Norenberg, for a special use permit/home occupation to build cabinets in his garage. Commissioner Simmons wished to know whether the concern of the neighbors was over the spread of a commercial use or over the noise itself. After Mrs. Forystek expressed concern over noise and fire hazard dangers , Commissioner Simmons seconded the motion to deny the special use permit because of, noise and disturbance to neighbors. Voting in favor: Commissioner Theis and Simmons. Voting against: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Lucht and Erickson. The motion failed. Commissioner Malecki observed that the activity would go on even if the permit is denied. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80004 (William Norenberg) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 80004 submitted by William Norenberg for a special use permit for home occupation to build cabinets in the garage at 5338 Emerson Avenue North subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as the one engaging in the activity and is nontransferable. 2. The operation approved by the permit is subject to 1-10-80 12- all applicable codes , ordinances and regulations, including the City' s noise ordinance, and viola- tion thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 5 :00 to 10 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 :00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. Saturday. 4 . There shall be no outside storage of materials related to the home occupation on the premises. S. The activity shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises and shall occupy less than half the area of the accessory structure so that at least one car can be parked there. 6. The applicant shall provide a wall mounted fire extinguisher as approved by the Fire Chief inside the garage and adjacent to the cabinet making operation. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: Commissioners Theis and Simmons. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis stated that he did not see how a permit could be approved for an "incidental" use with 34 hours of operation per week. He considered this to be too much like a full time operation. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10 :01 p.m. and resumed at 10 : 18 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 80005 (Thrifty Scot Motel) Following the recess, the next item of business was Application No. 80005 submitted by Gary Nelson on behalf of Brutger Company for, site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 104 unit transient lodging facility at the southwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and James Circle. The Secretary pointed out that the property is zoned I-1 and that transient lodging, which is a special use in the C-2 zone, is also allowed by a special use permit in this zone as well. He noted that the applicant proposes a resident manager for this facility which would require an amendment to the City ' s Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary reviewed for the Commission the types of commercial uses allowed in the I-1 district and the Standards for a Special Use Permit generally. The Secretary pointed out that the building is L-shaped with one wing along Freeway Boulevard and another along James Circle. The building is set back 50 feet from Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, 70 feet from James Circle and 40 feet from the Budgetel property. He noted that the plan provides for the re- quired 114 parking spaces in a large parking lot covering the southwest portion of the site and a smaller parking area along the east side of the building. The Secretary briefly reviewed the applicant' s landscape plan which proposes three foot high berms in the open green area along Freeway Boulevard and the northwest corner of the site as well as lower berms along the east property line between the two curb cuts. The Secretary stated that the 1-10-80 -13- applicant had been encouraged to mix the species of trees on the site and to add landscaping along Shingle Creek Parkway to provide more screening of the large parking lot. He noted that the appli- cant had so revised the landscaped plan. The Secretary next briefly reviewed the drainage plan and stated that the catch basins serving the site would eventually connect with the 60 inch storm sewer line beneath Freeway Boulevard. He added that the plans indicate cedar shakes and face brick for the external treatment and that the treatment is carried uniformily .around the building. The Secretary reported that the applicant had not submitted a letter addressing the standards for the special use permit, but added that no real conflict with the ordinance standards exists. He commented that the proposed use is highly compatible with surrounding planned uses and should not adversely affect develop- ment of nearby vacant property. Fie also pointed out that the site plan provides for a convenient and orderly traffic flow and that no variances are required. As to the impact on local public facilities, the Secretary stated that the staff had studied the possible impact on the sanitary sewer and concluded that the pro- posed use would not overtax the sanitary sewer even at peak hours. The Secretary explained that the sewer line from Humboldt to Dupont along 65th is an eight inch line and that the line to the west is a ten inch line. He explained that projections had been made as to what the ultimate use of the sewer line would be and that total flow should not exceed 95% of capacity at peak times. He also suggested that available sewer capacity be allocated to permitted uses ahead of special uses. The Secretary stated that both Thrifty Scot and Budgetel Motels have requested the City to consider an ordinance amendment that will allow live-in resident managers at their respective motels. The reasons cited include security and safety as well as better maintenance. The Secretary stated that the Zoning Ordinance currently does not permit residential uses in the commercial and industrial zoning districts. The Secretary noted that the State Building Code, however, considers the occupancy of hotels and motels to be a residential occupancy. He stated that the request for an ordinance change was reviewed with the City Attorney and draft ordinance language had been prepared. Commissioner Theis asked what the elevation of Shingle Creek Parkway is . The Secretary answered that Shingle Creek Parkway is almost level in the area where it abuts the proposed motel with the rise toward the freeway bridge crossing coming toward the south end of the property. The Secretary noted the applicant' s attempt to use landscaping to shield the parking lot from Shingle Creek Parkway. Chairman Hawes asked whether it would be necessary to add the phrase "and family" to the ordinance language providing for a live-in hotel manager. The Secretary answered that he considered that to be implied in the definition. In answer to a question from Commissioner Theis , Mr. Gary Nelson representing Thrifty Scot stated that the area labeled for out- side storage is not meant to suggest storage outside, but rather 1-10-80 -14- storage of yard equipment, etc. within an enclosed area. The Commission briefly discussed with the applicant the exterior treatment of the building and other structural aspects. In answer to a question from Commissioner Theis, Mr. Nelson stated that the managers are usually single or an older couple with no children. In answer to Chairman Hawes, Mr. Nelson stated that he hoped the motel would be open in about a year and also stated that he thought it would be helped by the gasoline shortage since. people who do travel will be looking for an economical place to stay. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Seeing that no one was present to speak on the application he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis , Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80005 (Thrifty Scot) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend approval of Application No. 80005 submitted by Gary Nelson on behalf of the Brutger Company for a site and building plan and special use permit for a 104 room motel at the southwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and James Circle, subject to the following conditions : 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits . 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 5. The permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances, regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring 1-10-80 -15- device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. Smoke detectors shall be installed in all sleeping ` units as per Minnesota Building Code Requirement. 9. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 10. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 11. Plan approval does not include approval for a live-in manager's unit as indicated on the plans; this matter is subject to an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 12 . B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Malecki left the table at 11:08 p.m. The Commission then briefly discussed the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Theis stated that there should be a way to prevent the raising of children without prohibiting couples. , from becoming live-in managers. RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TRANSIENT LODGING AND MOTELS Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding a definition for transient lodging and allowing a live-in resident manager. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Malecki returned at 11:10 p.m. 1980 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Secretary presented to the Commission an updated version of the memorandum of changes to the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it is felt that the memo is now in order and that with the memo the Comprehensive Plan can now be recommended to the City Council. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1980 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEMORANDUM OF CHANGES Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend approval of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan as submitted with the memorandum of changes. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Malecki asked whether anything had been added to the plan concerning neighborhood proposals. The Secretary answered 1-10-80 -16- that the list of neighborhood development proposals had been revised and would be brought back to the Planning Commission for review before being attached. to the Comprehensive Plan, but that it was not necessary for the neighborhood section to be approved at this time for review by neighboring municipalities. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary briefly reviewed the 1980 meeting schedule for the Planning Commission and the need for appointments of Planning Commission liaisons to neighborhood advisory groups. He suggested that Commissioner Simmons become the liaison to the Southeast Neighborhood and that Commissioner Lucht be the liaison for the Southeast to the Southwest Neighborhood to replace Chairman Hawes. Chairman Hawes concurred with this recommendation and by con- census it was adopted. All other neighborhood group liaisons remained the same. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: - Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11: 37 p.m. Chairman 1-10-80 -17-