Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 04-10 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 April 10, 1980 CITY HALL CALt TO ORDER The Panning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Erickson and Simmons . Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross and Engineering Assistant Jim Grube. The Secretary noted for the record that Commissioner Lucht had contacted him prior to the meeting saying that he would be unable to be at the April 10 meeting because of a death in the family. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 13, 1980 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1980 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,- Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. .80010 (Janice Howell) Following the Chairman's exp anation, the first item of business was a request for a special home occupation permit by Janice Howell of 6840 Colfax-Avenue North to teach art lessons in her home to classes of up to four students : The Secretary reviewed Staff Report No. 80010. (See. Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80010 attached). The Secretary added to the prepared report that the Building Official had inspected the premises -and found that the driveway was capable of accommodating three cars besides that of the applicant. Also, a fire extinguisher has been installed in the basement near the area where art classes will be taught. Following the Secretary's presentation, the Commission deliberated for some time over the restriction on the hours of operation for the proposed home occupation. Commissioner Simmons suggested that the total number of hours of instruction be limited to a specific amount with flexibility given to the applicant to allocate those hours between the various days of. the week at her convenience. 'The Secret- ary responded that this would be a very difficult prpVision to enforce. In ;:.' response to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding City liability, the Secretary explained that the City would not be held liable for damages resulting from the home occupation simply because it issued a special use permit. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak to the issue of hours of operation. Janice Howell stated that she intended to teach a maximum of five classes during the week. Asked by Chairman Hawes what days she would not wish- to teach any art classes. Mrs. Howell stated that she would not plan teaching any lessons on Friday or Sunday. The. Commissioners then gave their respective views on the question of hours of !operation. Commissioner Simmons stated that the applicant is uncertain at this time as to when clients will want classes and that to restrict her. now would be unnecessarily burdensome. Commissioner Theis stated that he� preferred to re- spond to complaints concerning the home occupation, rather than limit the hours of operation. 4-10-80 -1- Commissioner Erickson, however, preferred a restriction on the hours of operation with the initial issuance of the special use permit with the option of liberal- izing these hours at a later time. Commissioners Malecki and Manson agreed with Commissioner Erickson and stated that they would prefer not to get complaints in the first place. Chairman Hawes stated that he also preferred some restriction since the operation would otherwise be free to expand into all hours seven days a week which he`did not feel was acceptable for a home occupation. After further discussion with the applicant, it was determined that hours of operation would be limited to no more than two classes per day and no more than five days a week. The Commission also recommended that the classes be no longer than 22 hours in duration and should begin no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and end no later than 9:30 p.m. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes inquired whether anyone present wished to speak to the application. Seeing that there was no one to comment on the proposed home occupation, he called for a vote to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Erickson and Simmons, Voting against: none. The motion passed. Regarding restrictions on parking, the Secretary stated that the record should indicate that the Planning Commission encourages carpooling and parking off street to limit the annoyance of the home occupation to traffic in the public right-of-ways. Chairman Hawes asked whether Mrs. Howell would be storing flammable fluids in large containers. Mrs. Howell stated that she would only have small containers for such things as paint thinners. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80010 (Janice Howell ) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 80010 submitted by Janice Howell for a special use permit to teach art classes in the basement of her home at 6840 Colfax Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours..of operation shall be limited to no more than two classes per day and no more than five days per week excluding Sunday. The class will be no longer than 22 hours in duration and shall begin no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and end no later than 9:30 p.m. 4. The permit is subject to the provisions of Section 35-900 of the City Ordinances with respect to parking, number of students and the general nature of the home occupation as incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. 5. Any signery associated with the home occupation shall be subject to the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. 4-10-80 -2- 6. The applicant will install a fire extinguisher in the basement close to the area used for art instruction. 1. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on- site whenever possible and parking on street will not exceed two vehicles at any one time. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Erickson and- Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80008 (Jerry Harrington on behalf of Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company) The Secretary intr duced the next item of usiness, a request for a special use permit by Jerry Harrington on behalf of the Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company to operate a satellite office and storage facility for the dispersal of school buses in one of three 20,000 sq. ft. buildings to be built on the site commonly known as 4455 - 68th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed Staff Report No. 80008 A. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80008 A attached) . Following the presentation of the written report, the Secretary stated that the applicant has indicated there will be revisions to the original site plan. He suggested, therefore, that the Planning Commission table the application, but to make a recommendation on proposed ordinance language allowing school bus garage facilities in the C2 zone by a special use permit. Chairman Hawes recognized Mr. Regan, owner of the Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company, who stated that the Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company would be an asset to Brooklyn Center. He added that the name of the company, which includes the word 'Brooklyn; would be placed on the building to identify it and added that he might move an office for the bus company to this site. He briefly described the operation of the school bus leasing arrangement with the Osseo School District. Commissioner Simmons questioned whether any buses are stored outside as part of his operation in Osseo. Mr. Regan answered that the buses are not normally outside, that they are parked three deep inside the garage and must follow a rotating schedule. The Secretary stated that along with changes to the site plan, the City may lift its covenant on the middle building of the original site plan since the proposed use would make such a covenant unnecessary. Commissioner Theis asked whether freeway abutment would be included as abutment to a residential district at a street line. The Secretary stated that it has not been interpreted as such. He also pointed out that there would be noise walls in the area of the proposed bus garage and that there are almost no other C2 properties in the City which do not abut any residential district. He further noted that .outside storage would not be allowed under the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Erickson asked whether outside storage would be prohibited only at night or also during the day. The Secretary stated that there would be certain minor instances where buses would be parked outside for a very short time. Overnight, or lengthy daytime parking of buses, or storage of materials outside, however,. would be strictly prohibited. In response to a question from Commissioner Erickson, the Secretary stated that minor service of, buses; as provided in the proposed ordinance amendment, would include things-.such as oil changes and a wash, but not major mechanical overhaul .' verhaul Commissioner"Erickso.n asked why ..,_. NSP is allowed to store its equipment outside in full view of freeway passersby, while the proposed bus garage is not allowed any outside storage. The Secretary explained that the NSP use was approved under a previous B3 zoning district which was less restrictive than the current C2 district. Under the current 4-10-30 -3- Zoning Ordinance, the Secretary stated, NSP would probably be allowed, but outside storage might be prohibited in that particular case. ACTION RECOMMENDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER :35 REGARDING SCHOOL BUS GARAGES (copy attached Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding school bus garages. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 80008 (Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company) Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 80008, submitted by Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company for a special use permit to operate a bus garage facility on the property known as 4455 - 68th Avenue .North, until revised plans for such use are submitted to the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary informed the Planning Commission that he had received conceptual plans for the CEAP Building proposed for the property north of Shingle Creek and west of Brooklyn Boulevard and plans for a remodeling of the Earle Brown Farm horse barn and hippodrome building to a restaurant/night club with live enter- tainment. He asked the Commission to consider these two business items on its study meeting April 24 and if plans were forthcoming from the Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company to consider that application on the April 24 meeting as well . The Com- mission agreed to this suggestion by consensus. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:51 ._p.m. and resumed at 9:21 p.m. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM REPORT Following the recess, the Planning Assistant reported to the Commission on two aspects of the City's Capital Improvements Program: fiscal policies, and back- ground financial information. He reviewed at some length the fiscal policies which could govern the selection of Capital Improvement projects for budget authorization. He stated that there were three types of policies: 1 . Those dealing with the overall size of the Capital Improvements Program and the level of debt resulting from it; 2. The allocation of available funds to competing Capital Improve- ment projects; 3. The impact of projects on operating and maintenance costs. The Planning Assistant reviewed for the Commission a diagram used in the Minneapolis Comprehensive• Plan Implementation Section. The diagram showed how projects within different priority groups would receive preference in funding. Within each priority group, he said, projects would be selected on the basis of cost effectiveness if that can be measured in reliable terms. The Secretary pointed out that while the cost evaluation of each project on the basis of both its priority ranking and its cost effectiveness would disallow some cost effective projects, it would also allow projects in the lower priority groups to compete for funds with projects in hither priority groups. -4- 4-10-80 a The Planning Assistant then reviewed for the Commission a capsule analysis of the City's financial situation. He reviewed data on expenditures, revenue, tax base and bonded indebtedness over the previous five years and projected what the data might look like in 1985. The data showed that the City's tax base and level of general expenditures over the past five years have increased at a rate slightly faster than inflation, but that operating revenues have not quite kept pace with inflation due largely to the state imposed levy limit on local property taxes. He projected that the next five years would see increased capital expenditures and increased borrowing if the Capital Improvements Program, as drafted, is implemented. He also projected substantial real increases in the City's tax base because of three main factors: 1 . Property values generally are expected by the Assessor to increase at a rate faster than that of inflation. 2. The locational value of property within Brooklyn Center, partic- ularly commercial and industrial property, will increase in real terms because of the completion of Interstate 94 connecting 694 with downtown Minneapolis. 3. New construction, also primarily commercial and industrial , will add to the total physical wealth of the City. The Planning Assistant concluded his remarks by reviewing a brief picture of what the City's debt level may look like in the year 1985 if the Capital Improve- ment Projects are implemented. He stated that overall debt would rise substant- ially over its present level , but would not be much greater than it was in the earlier 1970's, and would be lower in real terms. He noted that, as presently projected, the City's general obligation debt would be far below the projected general obligation debt ceiling. On that basis, he suggested it might be wise to increase•the general obligation share of funding for local street improvement projects, because of the natural opposition to high special assessments and also the fact that there are income tax advantages with general obligation financing. Commissioner Theis asked the Planning Assistant to clarify what he meant by "increased general obligation financing". The Planning Assitant replied that the current assumption in the Draft Capital Improvements Program is a breakdown of 75% special assessment financing and 25% general obligation financing for local street improvement projects. He explained that assessments cannot legally be greater than the increase in property values resulting from the Capital Improvement. While the installation of curb and gutter would represent a real improvement to abutting property, he said, resurfacing of an existing street would probably not raise property values by an amount equal to the cost of construction. He suggested, therefore, that general obligation financing might pick up a greater share of the street resurfacing costs, but that the total general obligation contribution to local street projects would not likely exceed 50% in any case. Commissioner Theis questioned whether the intention of switching to general obligation financing was to borrow up to the debt ceiling. The Plan- ning Assistant responded that the level of debt was a .matter which would have to be decided by the City Council in its approval of projects and in its approval of fiscal policies relating to the overall. debt level for the City. He explained that his recommendation of increased general obligation financing for local street projects was based on the feeling that it was a better financing alter- native, not an opportunity for increased borrowing. He also pointed out that a policy of subsidizing local street reconstruction projects with general obligation financing would ultimately benefit all properties within the City. 4-10-80 -5- Commissioner Theis asked whether any sewer reconstruction projects were included in the Draft Capital Improvements Program. The Planning .Assistant replied that there would be one such project on James Avenue between 53rd and 55th Avenues North. He added that this project would be financed primarily with general obligation funds. He added it is failing now as a result of design problems, not because of usage. Commissioner Theis disagreed with spreading the costs of the project over the entire City. The Planning Assistant countered that financing such a project with special assessments would be difficult from a legal standpoint since an assessment cannot be greater than the benefit to abutting properties. The Secretary commented that the City has a responsibility to maintain the public facilities it has built in the past, and that a Capital Improvements Program is a management tool for setting priorities and scheduling projects. In response to a question from Commissioner Manson, the Planning Assistant stated that the Capital Improvements Program would have to be approved as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, but that such approval would not constitute an author- ization to proceed with each project in the plan, that the program would serve as a guide to the work schedule of the Public Works and Parks Departments. Commissioner Theis asked the Engineering Assistant a number of questions relating to the difference of hot mix and cold mix streets. The Engineering Assistant answered that hot mix has better structural integrity and binding capacity than cold mix and that cold mix would tend to break up more and require seal coating more often than hot mix. He also stated that while cold mix streets are somewhat cheaper than hot mix streets, it is more difficult to get bids for a cold mix street because most contractors are building hot mix streets these days. Chairman Hawes stated that he hoped the Capital Improvements Program would prevent the waste of tearing up a recently paved street after one or two years in order to make sewer or other utility repairs. The Planning Assistant stated that one possible benefit of the Capital Improvements Program would be to help coordinate planning with private utilities. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commission- ers Malecki , Theis, Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:38 p.m. TALA� C Chailrmaef a 4-10-80 -6-