Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 06-25 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 STUDY SESSION JUNE 25 , 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7 :33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman William Hawes , Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, George Lucht, Mary Simmons and Lowell Ainas . Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, Building Official Will Dahn and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Hawes noted that Commissioner Manson had indicated previously that she would be unable to attend this evening's meeting and was, therefore, excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 11, 1981 Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the June 11, 1981 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Com- missioners Lucht and Ainas abstained as they were not at that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 81038 (Brooklyn Development Company) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval for a 77,700 sq. ft. office-warehouse to be known as Shingle Creek Plaza II at the northeast corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Freeway Boulevard. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81038 attached) . The Secretary added that the berms along Freeway Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North should be increased slightly to 2h feet to 3 feet in height. Commissioner Malecki expressed her concern about traffic on Xerxes Avenue North at the intersection with Shingle Creek Parkway and the effect that truck traffic might have in that area. The Assistant City Engineer explained that a traffic signal is not yet warranted by the traffic volumes at Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North, but that the City is planning on them in the future by in- stalling conduit for electrical service to proposed signal locations. _ He also acknowledged that it is a rather large intersection which may have some visibility problems because of the bridge over Shingle Creek. He explained that the access from the site onto Xerxes Avenue North should be an adequate distance from the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes if traffic heading north on Xerxes is travel- ing at the proper speeds. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes, the Assistant City Engineer explained that Shingle Creek Parkway should be the major traffic carrier in that section of the Industrial Park. In answer to another question from Chairman Hawes , the Assistant City Engineer stated that the City's sidewalk plan for that area shows sidewalk located on the west side of Xerxes only. 6-25-81 -1- In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding the holding pond to the rear of the proposed industrial building, the Assistant City Engineer explained that rain and snow falling over the seasons will carry pollutants into the pond. The use of a skimmer at the point where the pond drains into Shingle Creek will allow these pollutants and other materials lighter than water to be caught before entering the Creek. He noted that the use of a skimmer is new within the Industrial Park area, although holding ponds are not. There followed a brief discussion of the purpose and workings of the hold- ing pond and skimmer. Commissioner Theis inquired as to the effect on drainage of berming along the Creek. The Assistant City Engineer answered that it would impede overland drainage to the Creek in certain areas , but that water would flow to lower areas. Commissioner Theis pointed out that trucks would be parked in back of the building and would be visible from the trailway along Shingle Creek unless berms were installed to screen the back of the building from the trailway. He suggested that the ' berms be at least four feet above the elevation of the walkway. Chairman Hawes suggested that the driving lane along the north side of the building could perhaps be made one way as a means of dis- couraging semis from taking the northern roadway. Commissioner Simmons stated her concern that there could be a traffic problem in this area as a result of the proposed development. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the volume of traffic for this type of development (light industrial) is less than the traffic gener- ated by almost any other type of development in the City. Commissioner Simmons stated that she was concerned over the semis that would be coming to the site and the visibility problems that they could cause along with the impatience of drivers using Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway as well as Freeway Boulevard. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Al Beisner, representing Brooklyn Development Company, stated that the proposed site plan shows a maximum number of tenant spaces in the building of 21. He stated that he expected about 15 tenants to occupy the build- ing on the average. He noted that each tenant space can be served by a loading dock which allows for efficient use of building area. He added that the building will be lower than most of the other industrial buildings in the industrial park and should not attract many semis . He stated that this would be because the tenants wishing to locate in the building would probably be smaller businesses , such as manufac- turers' representatives which would make less intense use of the loading and unloading facilities . Commissioner Simmons asked whether the skimmer serving the holding pond would retain any oil spill on the blacktop, preventing the oil from entering Shingle Creek. Mr. Beisner stated that that was one possibility, but that the purpose of the skimmer is to catch any substance lighter than water and prevent -it from entering the Creek. Commissioner Simmons suggested that perhaps skimmers should be re- quired at other locations with holding ponds. Mr. Beisner assured the Commission that the presence of the skimmer did not suggest that the uses entering the building would be dangerous. On the contrary, he said, the tenants in the proposed building should be cleaner uses than generally occupy other buildings in the Industrial Park. 6-25-81 -2- Chairman Hawes asked Mr. Beisner regarding the heating and cooling units and trash disposal. Mr. Beisner stated that each individual space would be served by its own beating and cooling units and that these would be rooftop units . He also stated that each tenant would be responsible for his own trash disposal. He stated that tenants would probably hold their trash inside, rather than use large outside dumpsters which would have to be screened. Chairman Hawes asked Mr. Beisner why there were not more trees planted out in the front greenstrip areas . Mr. Beisner answered that the areas immediately in front of the buildings would be well landscaped and he wished not to cover up that landscaping with too many trees and tall berms. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the building would be less of a warehouse and more of the service center. Mr. Beisner answered that _ that would not necessarily be the case. He noted that excess land exists on the site for additional parking should more space be devoted to office. The Assistant City Engineer asked Mr. Beisner whether he had any tentative plans for development of the C-1 zoned. property on the west side of Xerxes Avenue North. He noted that the access for that prop- erty would be bound by the location of the access shown on the pro- posed plan. Mr. Beisner stated he had no plans for the C-1 property at this time. Commissioner Theis asked what the color of the exterior of the build- ing would be. Mr. Beisner answered that it would be similar to the Brookdale Six office building owned by A.F.I.A. on John Martin Drive. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81038 (Brooklyn Development Company) Motion by Commissioner Ma ecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 81038, 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. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5 . The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances . 6-25-81 -3- 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. Plan approval acknowledges a joint access easement with the proposed Shingle Creek I property to the east as was required under Application No. 79030. 10 . Traffic control signs on the site are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 11. The plans shall be modified to indicate 21-1' to 3' berms and at least seven additional shade trees on the site, the species of which shall be other than those already shown. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81043 (Ann Book) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit to operate the nursery school at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard in the Brooklyn United Methodist Church. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81043 attached) . He added that in the past five years since the operation was taken over by Patricia Williams, no complaints have been received. He also stated that the Church should again be inspected by the Building Official and/or State Inspectors prior to the issuance of a state operator's license. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant and asked whether she had any additions or corrections to make to the staff report. Mrs . Ann Book stated that she had no objection to the staff report. Commissioner Theis asked whether she has been a teacher in the nursery school. Mrs. Book answered in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak to the application. Seeing none, he stated that a letter in the file from a Mrs . Ann Elms of 4727 Wingard Lane is in favor of a nursery school. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Comma— is r Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81043 (Ann Book) Motion by Comm! loner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81043, subject to -the following conditions : 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 6-25--81 -4r x 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances , and regulations and any violation { thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be: Monday through Thursday, 9 :00 to 11: 30 a.m. and 12 : 30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and Friday, 9 :00 to 11: 30 a.m. 4. The applicant shall submit a current copy of her state operator' s license to be kept on file at the City offices prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. Permit approval acknowledges 30 parking stalls to the rear of the church which is adequate for handling traffic of parents dropping off and picking up children at the nursery school. 6. The permit is subject to any recommendations of the Building Official and the Fire Marshal fol- lowing an inspection of the premises . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis , Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81044 (Donald. Johnston) The Secretarntroduced the next item -of business, a request by y i Donald Johnston of 4800-71st Avenue North to conduct a part-time welding, operation in the garage of his home. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81044 attached) . The Secretary added that the Building Official had made a second inspection of the premises with the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal that day. The recommenda- tions of their report, he said, involved additional sheetrocking of the garage and the installation of a ten pound fire extinguisher within the garage area. The Secretary stated that the staff had received phone calls from neighbors opposing the home occupation an the grounds of safety, noise and other code problems. He clarified that the proposed home occupation would not involve the repair of automobiles. Commissioner Ainas noted that the staff report does not mention that a vacuum cleaner business existed at the residence prior to the current welding operation and that there was considerable outside storage by the previous occupants . The Secretary answered that those home occu- pations did not require a special use permit. He explained that the proposed home occupation requires a special use permit because it involves an accessory structure and equipment not normally found in the home. He added that the applicant also has a portable welder which is attached to a pickup truck. The applicant uses this welder to perform service at a customer's location. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the neighbors expressed the feeling that a home occupation with the annoyances caused by previous occu- pants should not be allowed. The Secretary confirmed that impression and went on to explain that past complaints have related to working on cars . Police investigation revealed that these cars belonged to the occupants . Commissioner: Lucht noted that the residence in question was the same residence the Youth Investment Foundation had wished to use for a counseling renter. Ile recalled that the concern at that 6-25-81 -5- time was basically over the traffic that would be generated and went on to point out that the proposed home occupation does not involve any substantial traffic. The Secretary agreed and informed the Commission that the Police had checked the area just that day for speeders and had tagged one vehicle out of thirty-six. He stated that the level of traffic in the area and the average speed were well within the normal limits of a residential street. Co._.-- missioner Ainas pointed out, however, that Perry Avenue North and 71st Avenue North are used as a short-cut for traffic moving east on 69th Avenue North to north on Brooklyn Boulevard and vice versa. He also stated that the former owner of the property had a car that was parked on or close to the street and made turns from Brooklyn Boulevard onto 71st Avenue North difficult. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding the required sheetrocking, Building Official Will Dahn explained that the present building meets code, but that the welding operation would require sheetrocking around the garage and the installation of a ten pound capacity fire extinguisher. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Johnston ex- plained that there would be no outside storage involved, but rather that he would pick up the materials needed for each job and then deliver the finished product when completed. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to the work serving individual customers. Mr. Johnston answered that he hoped that he would have some business serving customers at their home using the portable welder, but that this is a minor aspect at this time. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes , Mr. Johnston stated that his welder is electric powered. Commissioner Theis stated that he was confused regarding the hours of operation proposed by the applicant. Mr. Johnston explained that he wished to have the freedom to weld from 8:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, but most likely not during the summer since he would generally be away on weekends. Commissioner Malecki asked Mr. Johnston whether he had been involved in welding at his previous residence. , Mr. Johnston answered that he had done so at 4935-38th Avenue South in Minneapolis. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Pehrson of 4812-71st Avenue North stated that he had no animosity toward Mr. Johnston, but was frankly surprised to receive another notice regarding a home occupation at the address in question since there had been so much opposition to the Youth Investment Foundation. He stated that he opposed the welding operation because of possible toxic wastes from the welder and the fire danger that would exist. He stated that welding is not suited for that residential area, citing the traffic danger near Brooklyn Boulevard and the fact that the applicant's driveway is very short and cannot accommodate vehicles easily which will lead to parking on the street. He expressed concern regarding the need for exhausting the air from the welding operation and said that this would lead to leaving the garage door open and causing more fire hazard and noise problems for the rest of the neigh borhood. He noted that the school buses take 71st Avenue North as a short-cut to 69th Avenue North as they travel down Brooklyn Boulevard and that this creates traffic problems around 2 :30 to 3 : 30 in the afternoon. 6-25-81 -6- Mr. Pehrson went on to complain about past businesses that have occupied the residence at 4800-71st Avenu6 North. He stated that they have caused a deterioration of the residence and have affected adversely the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. He added that promises made by previous occupants were never ..fulfilled, but rather- the situation only got worse. He complained that the previous occupant repaired cars and sold them from his own property. He ad- mitted that he has not complained often to City Hall, but rather has suffered with the past occupants and does not wish to continue to put up with such annoyances in the future. Mr. Pehrson concluded by submitting a letter from the Schlicht' s of 4819-71st Avenue North, also in opposition to the home occupation. Mr. Dale Magnuson of 4830-71st Avenue North told the Commission that Mr. Johnston has been put in a position of taking the brunt of criticism for the sins of others . He explained to the Commission, however, that the past experience of the neighborhood with home oc- cupations at this location has been all bad. He explained that the previous owner bought cars , fixed them up and then sold them. He acknowledged that this was technically legal, but violated the spirit of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Magnuson stated that his biggest concern was over traffic gener- ated during the school year around 2 :30 p.m. He explained that there is a great deal of vehicle and pedestrian congestion on the corner of 71st and Brooklyn Boulevard at that time and that the location is dangerous for kids traveling to and from Willow Lane School, Northview Junior High and Park Center High School. He concluded by stating that while Mr. Johnston may not repair cars at his residence, welding is hot work and that during the summertime, doors would probably be opened causing annoyance to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Louis Terzich of 4825-71st Avenue North stated that he opposed the welding home occupation principally because welding is a manu- facturing activity which is entirely contrary to a residential use of the premises. He stated that welding simply should not be allowed as a home occupation. Mr. Terzich submitted to the Commission a letter from the Gardner's of 4824-71st Avenue North. Mr. William Legler of 4813-71st Avenue North also expressed his opposi- tion to the home occupation. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to respond to these comments from surrounding neighbors . Mr. Johnston stated that the primary complaint and concern seems to be with traffic, especially school traffic. Mr. Johnston explained that his welding activity would be _ carried on in the evening and would not conflict with the children walking to and from school during the day. He also explained that the residence has a three-car driveway and it has room for any vehicles which would be coming to the premises to drop off small items to be welded. As to ventilation, Mr. Johnston explained that an exhaust fan is also being required by the Building Official and Fire Chief and would be installed. He also added that there would be no toxic waste from the welding activity. Chairman Hawes asked Mr. Johnston whether the welding operation would create problems for other properties . Mr. Johnston answered that in 6-25-81 -7- his opinion it would not. There followed a brief discussion of the use of the garage on the premises . Commissioner Theis asked Mr. Johnston whether he could park a car in his garage. Mr. Johnston stated that a car could be parked on either side of his garage, if necessary. The Building Official explained that the garage has been partitioned off and that one-half of the garage is really a breezeway-like facility which is considered a residential occupancy. On that basis, he said, an office in that area should not be counted as use of more garage space toward the home occupation. Commissioner Simmons asked whether one-half of the garage space that does exist would be left over for residential purposes . The Building Official explained that the garage which remains is too small to park any large cars in. He explained that the garage would be used for the home occupation, but could also be used for other accessory resi- dential uses as well, such as storage of common household possessions . Chairman Hawes asked whether it would be proper to deny the appli- cation on the basis that no car can be parked in the garage which is remaining. The Secretary answered in the negative. He stated that the strict reading of the ordinance does not require that a car be parked in the garage, only that no more than one-half of the access- ory structure be devoted to the home occupation, so that the home occupation is secondary in its use of an accessory structure. Commissioner Lucht asked whether the other home occupations carried on at 4800 - 71st Avenue North, were required to have special use permits. The Secretary answered that, to his knowledge, none re- quired permits. He stated that the special use permit is required in this case because of the use of an accessory structure and the fact that the equipment involved is not normally found in the home . Com missioner Lucht pointed out that the special use permit in this case would allow the City to place more controls on the operation than if no permit were required. Commissioner Theis inquired as to ways to revoke the special use permit. The Secretary answered that the permit would be brought back to the Planning Commission if the applicant violates the conditions attached to the permit. In answer to another question from Commiss- ioner Theis, the Secretary explained that the Housing Maintenance Ordinance would cover the deficiencies in maintaining the residence . He recommended to the Commission that they not tie any maintenance of the residence to the granting of the special use permit. Mr. Pehrson observed that a woman in a residence further west on 71st Avenue North had sought a special use permit for a home beauty shop in the past. He noted that in that case the City Council required a fence and improvement of the driveway. He pointed this out as an example of certain improvements to property being required -in con- junction with- the granting of a special use permit. The Secretary acknowledged that some changes in properties can be required that are directly related to the function of a home occupation in accord- ance with ordinance requirements, but he -rejected any requirement for generally maintaining 'a home as a condition of a home occupation since they are not directly connected. Mr. Louis Terzich disagreed with the Secretary, stating that home occupations represent a use of the premises which is not strictly residential, that the structure 6-25-81 -8- is looked at more as a place to operate than as a place to dwell. This, he said, leads to a lack of maintenance. He asked whether there would be any interference with TV reception if the welding operation were approved. Mr. Johnston explained that he had only bought the house on June 1 and had not had time to rectify all the maintenance problems with the home. He stated that he wanted to enjoy the premises as a residence and simply pursued the home occup- ation as a possibility of gaining a little extra income. Commissioner Simmons observed that Mr. Johnston was receiving a lot of criticism for things that he has nothing to do with. She cited the traffic problems which Mr. Johnston has not created. She stated the behavior of past occupants should not prejudice peoples attitude toward his own use of the premises so long as that use is within the boundaries established by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pehrson hastened. to say that he had no animosity toward Mr. Johnston personally, but that the neighborhood is generally opposed to any use of the premises which will adversely affect the neighborhood. Commissioner Simmons stated that she understood the disappointment of the neighborhood, but that the Planning Commission could not deny a special use permit to Mr. Johnston on the basis of past history, particularly when he was not a party to these events . Mr. Pehrson stated that all the past occupants of the residence had given the neighborhood a bad experience. He stated that home occupations start out small, but expand to the point of annoying the surrounding properties. He recommended that the Planning Commission simply deny the permit and thereby prevent any future problems . Commissioner Theis asked whether the welding operation would be seasonal or year round. Mr. Johnston stated that the busiest times would be during spring and summer. Commissioner Theis asked whether a special use permit can be issued with a time limit. The Secretary stated that this has been done in the past and suggested that the Planning Commission could set a date for review of complaints, etc. Commissioner Theis stated that he wished to protect both sides of the argument if possible. The Secretary explained to those present that home occupations present difficulties for the City, but that they are a necessary part of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. He stated that they really go to the heart of the whole question of property rights . On the one hand, he said, there are people who state that their property belongs to them and they can do whatever they please with it. On the other hand, he went on, there are those who argue that a single family residence should be used strictly for resi- dential purposes and absolutely no occupational use can be made of a residence. He explained that the home occupation provision of the Zoning Ordinance attempts to strike a balance between these two com- peting philosophies. He explained that the ordinance allows for some limited home occupations which are secondary and incidental to the residential uses of the premises , provided that they meet certain restrictions which will protect the value of surrounding property. rir. Louis Terzich stated that it behooves the City to protect the safety, health and welfare of the neighborhood since that is one of its basic legal responsibilities . Mr. Dale Magnuson stated that traffic may not be aggravated by the home occupation, but that he objected to a home occupation which infringes on his right to- enjoy his own property in a reasonable manner. Chairman Hawes pointed out that the City could not deny Mr. Johnston the right to use his welder for his own private purposes. 6-25-81 -9- Mr. Louis Terzich still objected to welding as a home occupation and brought up other possible examples which would be objectionable to the neighborhood including a house of ill repute. C6mmissioner Simmons stated that wh%tever the home occupation involved, it would be subject to the conditions laid out in the Zoning Ordinance re- garding noise, parking, etc. Mrs . Johnston explained to Mr. Terziph that there has been no adverse effect on her own TV reception during the operation of the welder. Mr. Legler stated that he was opposed to the illuminated sign which stays lit until approximately midnight. Mr. Johnston explained that the light on the sign is on a timer which he will adjust to stay lit only from 5:00 to 9 :00 p.m. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by CoFiFassl_oner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis again stated his concern that both sides be accom- modated in any approval. He stated that he would like to set a time limit of preferably four months as a trial period for the welding operation. He also stated that all welding should be done inside the garage with the door closed. The Building Official explained that the exhaust fan would have. to take air in from the outside and that there would have to be some opening. Mr. Johnston stated that he would withdraw his application because he would not make the in- vestment required by the Building Official and the Fire Chief for only a temporary permit. Commissioner Simmons commented that she felt the investment required by the City to operate the home occupation is unreasonable if a per- mit will only extend for four months . Commissioner Ainas stated that the home occupation should be treated like any other business . He suggested that the City investigate any complaints and require any changes necessary to make the operation conform to the requirements of the City Ordinance. The Secretary explained that special use permits are issued for one year under the Zoning Ordinance. After that year, he went on, they are subject to an administrative review. If there are no complaints, he explained, the permits continue without reapproval by the City Council. If there are substantial problems with a special use, he stated, then the option exists for the City Council to consider revocation of the special use permit. Commissioner Theis stated that he did not detect an attack on Mr. Johnston by the neighbors, but rather a concern over past problems . He stated that he would like a definite review after a certain period of time. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the City Ordinance already provides for a review after one year and that there is no evidence that Mr. Johnston should be subject to any greater restriction than other home occupations . ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81044 (Donald Johnston) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 81044 . While the motion was on the floor, Chairman Hawes stated that he preferred to prohibit welding on Sundays . Commissioners Ainas and Simmons both agreed to this revision. Commissioner Theis asked that the application come back to the Planning Commission for a review 6-25-81 -10- within one year. The Secretary stated that staff could prepare a report for the Commission, if so directed. Commissioner Theis stated that a report on the home occupation, even if there were no complaints, would be good for both the neighborhood and the home occupation. Com- missioner Simmons stated that she wished the report to be limited only to matters related to the home occupation, and not include com- plaints or difficulties which may arise concerning property maintenance. Chairman Hawes called for a vote on the amendments proposed by himself and Commissioner Theis regarding the hours of operation and establish- ing a definite review after one year. The Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of these amendments . The original motion by Commissioner Ainas and seconded by Commissioner Simmons was restated to approve Application No. 81044 , subject to the following conditions : 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the home occupation and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances, and regulations , and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be 5 :00 P.M. to 9 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. -Saturday. 4. Noise from the operation shall not be percep- tible beyond the premises .on which it is located. 5. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. The home occupation shall not occupy an area more than one-half of the area of the structure in which it is located. 7. The home occupation shall conform with the recom- mendations of the Building Official prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 8. Signery related to the home occupation is subject to the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. 9. Service or repair of automotive vehicles on the . property where the home occupation is conducted is strictly prohibited as per Section 35-900 (definition of private garage) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 10. There shall be no outside storage of materials related to the home occupation. 11. The. Planning Commission will receive a written report as to any. complaints or ordinance vio- lations concerning the home occupation after one year from the date of the issuance of the special use permit. 6-25-81 -11- Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Mal.ecki , Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81045 (GregorBlazek) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for a home occupation special use permit to build picnic tables in the garage of the residence of 6515 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the Staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81045 attached) . The Secretary added that the Building Official had inspected the premises earlier in the day and recommended that a ten pound fire extinguisher be in- stalled in the garage where the operation would be conducted. Commissioner Lucht noted the turn-around driveway shared by the applicant with his next door neighbor and stated that this would help accommodate any customer traffic. Commissioner Theis asked whether there was any agreement in writing between Mr. Blazek and his neighbor to share the driveway. Mr. Blazek answered that his agreement is only verbal. In answer to another question from Com- missioner Theis, Mr. Blazek answered that the tables are built to order and that few of them are on the premises at any one time. $F� RTN C airman Hawes asked Mr. Blazek for any comments' on the staff recom- mendations . Mr. Blazek stated that he accepted the conditions , but asked why he would not be allowed to place one table in his front yard. A discussion ensued regarding storage of items in the front yard areas and the Secretary explained that outside display of mer- chandise is seldom allowed, even in commercial zones. He stated that outside storage of tables as part of a home occupation would violate the spirit of Section 35--900 of the Zoning Ordinance which limits home occupations to a secondary and incidental use of the premises . Chairman Hawes stated that the picnic tables may not be offensive, but other products produced in a home might be. The Building Official explained that when a sign is combined with a table, the table becomes a part of the sign advertising picnic tables. This "sign" , as an eyecatching device, he went on, would be much larger than the 2h square feet allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for home occupations. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81045 (Gregory Blazek.) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 81045 , subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the home occupation and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances, and regulations, and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. . 3. The hours of operation shall be as follows : Manufacture of Tables : not after 6 :00 p.m. Monday-Saturday. 6-25-81 -12- Sale of Tables : not after 9 :00 p.m. Monday-Friday , nor after 6 :00 p.m. Saturday. 4 . Noise from the operation shall not be perceptible beyond the premises on which it is located. 5. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. The home occupation shall not occupy an area more than one-half of the area of the structure in which it is located. 7. The home occupation shall conform with the recom- mendations of the Building Official prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 8. Signery related to the home occupation is subject to the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. 9 . Any outside storage of materials or finished product shall be totally screened from public view and shall be limited in area to 500 square feet. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Theis , Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: Chairman Hawes . The motion passed. Chair- man Hawes explained that his negative vote was based on Condition No. 9 which he felt was unclear. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10 : 35 p.m. and resumed at 10 :56 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 81046 (Mel Boyd/Erlmar Properties) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the next item of busi- ness, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide two lots between Brooklyn Boulevard and Beard Avenue North between 61st and 62nd Avenues North including the P.B.C. Clinic and a vacant R4 proper- ty to the south. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the Staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81046 attached) . PUBLIC HEARING Cha-- man Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing and called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Mel Boyd, representing Erlmar Properties, stated that he would be managing the construction of a 4 unit resi- dential building on the property. CLOSE PUBLIC FEARING Motion y Commissioner Thesis seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81046 (Mel Boyd/Erlmar Properties) Motion by Commass oner Maleecki sseconded y Commissioner Theis to . recommend approval of Application No. 81046 , subject to the following conditions : 1. The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 6--25-81 -13- 2. The final plat is subject to Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . 3. A joint access agreement as approved by the City Engineer shall be filed with the plat at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Final plat approval is subject to approval of Application No. 81047 to rezone the north 40 feet of the proposed Lot 2 from Cl to R4 . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81048 (Hennepin County) The Secretary introduced the next stem of business , a request by. Hennepin County for a variance from Section 5-302 of the Brooklyn Center Fire Code to allow for the monitoring of the fire sprinkler system inside the new Hennepin County Library by a remote substation which is not UL approved. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the 'Staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81048 attached) . Chairman Hawes asked whether the Service Center would be served by the remote monitoring system as well as the Library. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing and called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Al Voza, representing Hennepin County, stated that the ARMS monitoring system used by the County would be improved in the near future by the addition of an automatic dialing system which would provide for rapid response to emergency calls. Chairman Hawes asked whether the ABMS would show a break in service if wires are down. Another representative from Hennepin County re- sponded that service is interrupted only if telephone lines are down, and that the system will detect when that happens . The Secretary explained that the UL certification required by Section 5-302 basically assures that the monitoring system is comparable with the City' s monitoring system in providing 24 hour service and immedi- ate notice to the City in the case of an emergency. Commissioner Theis asked whether the Hennepin County Library would be monitored by the City if the County discontinued its monitoring program. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Chairman Hawes asked whether variances could be granted in other cases if the conditions for a variance are met. The Secretary answered that that was possible, but added that the Hennepin County monitoring system is unique in its range of operations and by the fact that Hennepin County has its own monitoring system to begin with. He stated that while the variance proposal which is recommended by the staff would set a precedent, it would also set up a procedure for establishing requirements if a variance is to be granted. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to close A the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 81048 (Nennopin Countv) Malecki to Cc;71r�a—i�'s—, , (f(�Itimi.ssioner sion(�, 'r Lt�chf Motion by seconded by recor(anend approval of Application No. 81048, on the basis that the Standards for Fire Code Variances are met, subject to the following conditions : 1. The system shall be maintained and tested in accordance with NFPA Standards . Results of the testing shall be supplied to the City of Brooklyn Center annually. 2. The Automat.,J,c Building M.anageraent System shall be continually monitored 24 hours- a day, seven . days a week with notification given immediately to the Brooklvn Center Police Department (561-5720) if an emergency should arise. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis , Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Bateman) The Secretary item, a request for a variance from Section 35-31-0 :1(b) of the Zoning ordinance to allow for construction of a garage equal to 100% . of the ground coverage of 'the dwelling at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. The Secretary briefly reviewed the Planning Commission' s discussion of an action to table the application at its June 11, 1981 meeting. He recalled for the Commission that an ordinance change had been recommended by the staff and accepted in concept by the Planning Commission to allow accessory structures for all dwellings to be up to 100% of the dwelling area, but not to exceed 1,000 square feet in area for any single, accessory structure . He presented to the Planning Commission, draft ordinance language which would accomplish that change. He also - noted that one change of the lanquage is that all dwellings are en- titled up to two accessory structures , the total area of which may not exceed 100% of the ground coverage of the dwelling. PUBLIC HEARING ZI—lafrman Hawes opened the meeting and asked for comment on the pro- posed ordinance amendment. Mrs. Jacqueline Bateman stated that the ordinance language looks fine to her. The Secretary briefly reviewed the ordinance procedure, stating that the ordinance would probably become effective toward the end of August. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING M-0tion by ommissHioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis stated that the draft ordinance seems fine to him and recommended its approval by the Planning Commission. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Bateman) ffo­tj_,;_n—by C^6;,,_,an1_s_so_ner Malecki to recormiend denial of Application No. 81036 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Cotiartissioners Malecki , Theis , Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . 6-25-81 -15- Voting against: none. The motion passed, ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 35-310 : 1 (b) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded y to recommend approval of the draft ordinance amen6nient to increase the allowable size of accessory structures for all dwellings up to 100% of the ground coverage of the dwelling building, not to exceed 1,000 square feet; and to allow up to two accessory structures for all dwellings, the combined area of which may not exceed the 100% of the area of the dwelling buildng< Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis , Lucht., Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary briefly reviewed with the Planning Commission alternate ordinance amendments to allow for the manufacture of electric vehicles within the Industrial Park. Chairman Hawes inquired whether the pre- sent ordinance would allow for the manufacture of fibreglass bodies within the Industrial Park so long as it is a separate use from the assembly of electric vehicles which would take place at a different location. The Secretary responded that the ordinance could be in- terpreted in that way. He stated that manufacture of fibreglass bathtubs is already allowed under the ordinance section permitting manufacture of "miscellaneous plastic products. " He stated that the proposed use by Classic Electric Car Corporation was presented as limited to assembly at first, then expanded to include all manufact- uring aspects . Commissioner Lucht stated that he preferred the more , restrictive language. Commissioner Ainas recalled that the concern during the original discussion of the ord=nance amendment was with metal body work, as opposed to fabricating fibreglass bodies . Commissioner Theis ob- served that if the restrictive version of the amendment is adopted, then manufacture of plastic bodies :1s prohibited. Commissioner Simmons expressed some concern about the expansion of the use into as yet unknown aspects of the manufacturing of electric vehicles . The Secretary discussed briefly the evolution of the staff's and the Commission' s thinking about the proposed use from an assembly operation to a full blown manufacturing use. A discussion ensued regarding the possible language to permit the assembly of motor vehicles in the Industrial Park. Finally, Com- missioner Lucht recommended that the ordinance -read "assembly of electric powered vehicles" with no other restrictions . The rest of the Commissioners generally agreed on this recommendation. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE ASSEMBLY OF ELECTRIC POWEPLD ViIIICLES Motion by Commxssi ner Lucht second by Car.-missioner M.a ec cT�to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to Section 35-330 : 1 and 35--331: 1 to include the following: "assembly of electric powered vehicles. " Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary briefly reviewed the Howe Fertilizer case with the Planning Commission. He stated that the judge's ruling had been 6-25-81 "16- a handed down on the day the City Council approved the plan, June 22 , 1981. He stated that there was no change from the ruling and that Howe Fertilizer did not intend to appeal further. ADJOUR M NT Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12 :07 a.m. C' Chairman 6-25-81 -17- 1 1 1