Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 03-01 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDIAGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 1, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Luebt, Commissioners molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1984 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the minutes of the February 16, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson. APPLICATION NOS. 84004 AND 84005 (Oliver Stoutland) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request for a special use permit to conduct a drafting business in the basement of the home at 3118 Lawrence Road involving one nonresident employee and a request for a variance from Section 35-406 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow up to three nonresident employees in the home occupation. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning. Commission Information Sheet for Applications Mos. 84004 and 84005 attached). The Secretary concluded by saying that home occupations, by definition, are to be secondary and incidental uses in residential districts. He stated that, if the Planning Commission recommends an ordinance amendment, a finding should be made that additional employees would still be secondary and incidental to the primary use of the premises which is residential. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Stoutland stated that he wished to expand on the reasons for requesting additional employees. Mr. Stoutland explained that the economic downturn had affected the steel industry which his drafting firm services. He explained that the steel industry used to include fabricating, estimating and drafting along with a sales force all under one company roof. He stated that the pattern is now to farm out the fabricating work and the drafting work and that estimating is done by freelancers with a minimal number of functions under the company roof. He explained that all these functions are carried on by smaller companies and he stated that his drafting firm could not compete with other small drafting companies that worked out of private homes. He stated that the hardship is personal in this ease and not physical. Chairman Luebt stated that the Commission certainly sympathized with the economic circumstances faced by Mr. Stoutland. He added, however, that the Commission is concerned with physical aspects and land use. Mr. Stoutland again described the problems of a shrinking market for the services his company renders. Commissioner Simmons acknowledged those problems, but stated that Mr. Stoutland was asking for the Commission to breach the separation between residential and commercial uses. She stated that this kind-of action would erode the separation which is the very foundation of zoning. She stated that people would buy houses just to put businesses in then and that residential neighborhoods would no longer be residential. 3-1-84 -I- Chairman Lucht stated that, if additional employees were approved -in this ease, other uses such as beauty shops, insurance offices, etc. would certainly be entitled to extra employees also.. He pointed out that the impact would be greater in those cases, but that the precedent would have been set with this one. The Secretary stated that the Commission must keep in mind that zoning is based on the City's police power. He explained that the City may establish certain land use districts through zoning and that the zoning ordinance sets up commercial, industrial and residential districts. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance separates single- family districts from multiple-family districts, light industrial from heavy industrial, and retail from service/office. He stated that these finer distinctions went beyond the basic distinction between commercial uses and residential uses. The Secretary went on to explain that the 'provision for home occupations is a compromise between a strict zoning approach and a strict property rights approach. He stated that certain standards and guidelines have been established to evaluate individual home occupation proposals. He explained that the limitation of one nonresident employee is a standard which indicates a level of activity tolerable in a residential district. The Secretary also stated that the Zoning Ordinance originally did not allow nonresident employees,but that it was amended later on to allow up to one. Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Stoutland how many square feet of space he was presently using. Mr. Stoutiand explained that he presently used about 600 square feet of office space and that he would be providing about 400 square feet in the basement of his residence. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 84004 and 84005) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the special use permit and variance applications. Mr. David Sedgeman of 3117 Lawrence Road explained that Mr. StoutlandIs property is located at the beginning of a curve. He stated that it would be difficult to get in and out of his driveway if parking associated with the home occupation were allowed on-street. He also talked about the increased difficulty of getting around such cars during the winter time when snow narrowed the street. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the approval of the home occupation would stipulate that no on- street parking is allowed Mr. William Gibson of 3112 Lawrence Road stated that he had no objection to the home occupation as long as all parking were conducted off-street. He clarified that he had no objection to three employees either. Mr. Richard Mero of 3201 Lawrence Road stated that he agreed with the Planning Commission. He explained that he had watched the evolution of Osseo Road into a commercial strip and did not want such commercialization to extend into the residential neighborhood. - He stated, however, that he had no problem with the request for "one employee. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then asked whether anyone else wished to speak. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 3-1-84 -2- ACTION RECUTIENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84004 (Oliver Stoutland) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 84004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violations thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the applicant. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges no more than one nonresident employee on the premises at any given time. 5. A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the basement work area prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 6. Special use permit approval is subject to completion of any items recommended by the Building Official following inspection prior to City Council consideration. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECDVINIENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84005 (Oliver Stoutland) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend denial of Application No. 84005 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance and for a special use permit are not met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary explained that these applications would be considered by the City Council at its March 12, 1984 meeting and that notices would be sent of the time of consideration. DISCUSSION ITEM (Critical Area Ordinance) The Secretary then briefly introduced to the Ccuaission a Draft Critical Area Ordinance for their consideration. He explained that the draft was a compilation of regulations from the interim regulations established by the original Executive Order of Governor Anderson in 1976 and from a proposed Critical Area Ordinance developed by the City's Planning Consultant in 39T9.. He stated that staff had modified the orginal draft and that the Planning Comission now had a second draft to consider. He urged the Commission to study the ordinance and bring back comments at future meetings. Chairman Lucht asked whether there was any change in zoning brought about by the Critical Area Ordinance. The Secretary responded in the negative. He explained the boundary of the Critical Area District and notedd that it includes land west of the freeway and east of Camden Avenue North. He stated that staff see no real impact on this land as a result of the ordinance and sought to have this land excluded from the district. He explained, however, that the State was unwilling to change the boundary line of the Critical Area. 3-1-s4 -3- Commissioner Simmons asked whether there was any possible impact on the land between the freeway and Camden Avenue North. The Secretary answered that staff and the Commission would have to look at the possibility, but he did not think so. He explained that the ordinance is intended to prevent the overutilization of the river bank and protect the aesthetic character of the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. Commissioner Manson inquired about the rest areas and vistas which are referred to in the ordinance. The Secretary explained that the Critical Area does extend throughout the Metropolitan area and that the model ordinance from which these terms were taken probably envisions such areas every so often throughout a larger area. There was a brief discussion regarding the reason for the boundary being established along Camden Avenue instead of further east. 'The Planning Assistant explained that the ordinance is intended to prevent visual pollution from the river bank area into the River Corridor. He stated that the limitations on the height of buildings and signs would not do much good if the boundary were drawn too close to the river and that, therefore, it extended as far east as -Camden. Chairman Lucht noted the provision for phasing out nonconforming signs within seven years after the adoption of the ordinance. He pointed out that there might be signs on the west side of West River Road which would be visible from the east side of the Mississippi. River Bank, but which would not have to come down even though they are visible, because they are outside of the district. The Secretary agreed. He explained that the phaseout provision mayor may not be legal. He stated that there are some court decisions to support such a provision and some that would refute it, The Secretary briefly explained an upcoming planning application regarding commercial access through residential property. Commissioner Simmons stated that she was interested in discussing the matter of accessory apartments again in the future. Chairman Lucht stated that question would also be looked at by the Year 2000 Study Task Force. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The anning Commission adjourned at 8:54 p.m. ran- 3-1-84 -4-