HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 11-16 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
NOVEMBER 16, 1978
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in rt �dy session and was called to order at 8:10 p.m.
by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl .
ROLL CALL
Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Pierce, Hawes and Theis . Also pres_nt were
Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska,
Director of Parks and Recreation Gene Hagel , Administrative Assistant Mary Harty,
Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson.
APPROVE MINUTES - November 2, 1978
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes
of the November 2, 1978 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA PLAN: Inventory of Existing
Conditions, Development Opportunities and Constraints, and Goal and Policy
Guidelines
Following the Chairman 's explanation, the first item of business was -a public hearing
on the three portions of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan, Inventory
of Existing Conditions, Development Opportunities and Constraints, and Goal and
Pol icy :GUidel Ines.
The Secretary stated that the public hearing had been scheduled to solicit feedback
and input regarding the first three portions of the Critical Area Plan. He explained
that at the Commission's study meeting on October 19, 1978, copies of these portions
of the Plan were distributed to the Park and Recreation Commission, the Conservation
Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, the Southeast Neighborhood
Advisory Group, and interested citizens for review and comment.
The Secretary explained that the Critical Area Plan was being prepared by the Plan-
ning Consultant, BRW, Inc. He stated that recommendations regarding the Physical
Plan and Implementation Plan were anticipated for the near future, and that these
would be forwarded to the same groups and other interested groups or individuals
for a public hearing on December 14, 1978. He explained that a recommendation
from the Planning Commission to the City Council regarding the Plan would hopefully
be made at that time so that the Plan can be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council
by the January, 1979 deadline.
The Secretary explained that the City is undergoing two planning processes at the
current. time, and clarified the two separate plans . He stated that the Compre-
hensive Planning process was a mandatory updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
He explained that all Metropolitan Municipalities were required to prepare a Com-
prehensive Plan incorporating those areas of Metropolitan significance as spelled
out by the individual Systems Statement into the overall Metropolitan Systems Plan.
He stated this process was not yet at a critical stage and would not be completed
for another year.
11-16-78 -1-
The Secretary continued that the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Areal' Plan was
to be completed and forwarded to the Environmental Quality Council in January of
1979, and that the Inventory and Analysis and the Policy and Objectives sections
of the Plan had been completed.
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the City outlining the Critical Area . He
noted that the Critical Area was that property lying between the River and 169 in tha°
part of the City north of Interstate I-94. In the portion of the City south of
the Interstate, the Critical Area was bounded on the west by Camden Avenue to 55th
Avenue North, then easterly along 55th Avenue to 4th Street, then southerly to
the south municipal boundary.
The Secretary reviewed the Preface of the Plan and noted that the Minnesota Critical
Areas Program was established by the Minnesota Legislature in 1973 and stresses
the importance of determining the most appropriate use of land areas, considering
all relevant factors and statewide interest. He further noted that in Novem.er of
1976, Governor Wendell Anderson designated the Mississippi River Corridor through
the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as the second of the State 's Critical Areas . He
reviewed the objectives of the Mississippi River Critical Area as established by
the Environmental Quality Board. He also briefly reviewed the Inventory of Exist-
int Conditions, Development Opportunites and Constraints, and Goal and Policy
Guidelines. He pointed out that there were several pages of additions to be made
to the text and to the map of the Plan. He reviewed those additions . The Secretary
went on to explain that the Commission was most interested in input regarding the
Goal and Policy Guidelines.
Chairman Engdahl opened the meeting for purposes of the public hearing and recog-
nized Mary Ellen Vetter, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, who read a pre-
pared statement from the Conservation Commission. She stated the Conservation
Commission was in agreement with the objectives in establishing the Mississippi
River as a Critical Area and also concurred with the overall Goal and Policy Guide-
lines as recommended by the Environmental Quality Board. The Commission had the
following comments to make regarding the Inventory of Existing Conditions and
Development Opportunities:
1 . Inventory of Existing Conditions, Page 1 .
The tree cover along the shoreline consists primarily of Elms,
Maples, Cottonwoods, and Ash. The biggest percentage of these
trees are Elms, and if elms are the predominant trees, perhaps
a plan for reforestation might begin now.
The access point to River Ridge Park off U. S. 169 and 58th
Avenue North leads to a somewhat narrow, but level area which
might be surfaced as a parking area, thus supplying a parking
area at either end of the hiking trails.
2. Development Opportunites and Constraints, Page 3.
Those residents who will soon find themselves hemmed in along
their back yards by the Interstate 94 Freeway, (north of 53rd
to 57th Avenue and west of Lyndale Avenue) , could seek a
solution in construction of sound walls or barriers. Perhaps
that exorbitant cost of such a remedy could better be channel -
led into acquiring those homes and adding the open space to our
riverfront park land.
They recommended the use of a "greenstrip" along the western
frontage of River Ridge Park to serve as a noise and pollution
barrier.
11-16-78 -2-
In additional comments, Chairman Vetter stated that the Commission hopes that the
City of Fridley across the river south of the Freeway bridge is meeting and con-
ferring regarding their plans for the Mississippi at that point. Scenic view of
the River from Brooklyn Center has never been enhanced by the dumping operation
located there. x
g
The Commission wishes that that oddity that lies geographically within Brooklyn
Center, but politically within Brooklyn Park, Durnam Island, be able to end its
checkered career to be forever preserved for open space, a haven for resident
wildlife and migrating birds . The Commission recommends that the Island be
purchased by the State of Minnesota and be put under the management of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources.
The City Engineer responded to the comment regarding the construction of sound
walls and stated that since the Freeway would be recessed at that point, bernling
was established for that area, rather than high sound walls, and that the cost
was less per mile than that of sound walls. Mrs. Vetter explained that the comment
generated from previous experience, and that it was felt that living in that area
may become intolerable.
Director of Parks and Recreation Gene Hagel stated that the comments and concerns
of the Conservation Commission regarding River Ridge Park are appreciated. He
explained that the parking lot was planned for the area between 58th and 59th
Avenues upon completion of Freeway Interchange at 57th and Lyndale Avenues North.
He stated the present access was only temporary. He also commented that the Goals
and Policy Guidelines were in harmony with Park and Recreation Commission's goals
and policies.
The City Engineer further clarified the status of River Ridge Park. He stated the
land was owned by the State Department of Transportation and that noise abatement
was not required for State owned property. He explained that all City improvements
are really "interim" because while the land can be utilized by the City, the State
could reclaim it any time. He pointed out that if the City adopts a policy for
noise wall construction in the park, the State could retain it as open space,
rather than allowing the City to use it as a park.
Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the State had indicated any future plans for
River Ridge Park. The City Engineer responded that they had not, and further ex-
plained that if the land became an actual park, there were strict Federal require-
ments dealing with the treatment of the park because of the proximity of the
_.Freeway. He explained that as long as the State owns the property, it is not
necessary to observe those Federal guidelines.
In response to further questions, he stated that the State could reclaim the land
for use with a 30 day notice to the City. The Secretary pointed out that on Page
2 of the Plan, River Ridge Park is referred to as a City park, and that reference
will be corrected.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Albright, 5344 Irving Avenue North, and Conserv-
ation Commission member, who inquired whether the City leased the land from the
State. The City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation explained that the
City has a use agreement with the Department of Natural Resources which leases
the property from the Department of Transportation. Mr. Albright also commented
relative to the Conservation Commission 's comment regarding noise abatement walls.
He stated that the Commission felt that if the residents in that area would ask
for noise abatement, the money used for that purpose might be better spent. The
City Engineer responded that the Freeway plans approved did include noise abate-
ment for that area.
11-16-78 -3-
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Morrow, 7212 Willow Lane, who inquired as to the
status of Highway No. 169 north of the Freeway. The City Engineer responded that
the roadway would probably remain in the same general location, and would not
expand to the east although it may shift somewhat to the west. He stated that BRW,
Inc. was preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and that information regarding
traffic projections and evaluations of the roadway were needed prior to a recom-
mendation for location and widening of the roadway.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Farmes, 7200 Willow Lane, who commentc: j relative
to the additions to the text, "discuss further the feasibility of hig' rise housing
development along the River" and "discuss the feasibility of the use a -- the River
as an airplane landing location." He inquired as to the Commission ', 2elings
regarding these two matters. Chairman Engdahl stated that the Commission was
skeptical about the possibility of using the River as an airplane landing location,
and that the Commission had not specifically discussed the possibility of hiqh-rises
in the area. Commissioner Pierce pointed out that the old Comprehensive Plan had
called for high-rise development south of 57th. Avenue along the River. The Secret-
ary explained that there had been discussion at one time regarding the possible
location of a high-rise south of 57th Avenue. He stated th-e Consultant, BRW, had
been asked for further input regarding the feasibility of ': �y:ating a high-rise in
that area. The Secretary also commented relative to the aj; ;.Jane landing. He
stated the entire Mississippi River was designated as a larding zone, but that it
was possible the City could include a Policy Statement to dissuade a portion of
the River located in Brooklyn Center being used as an airplane landing, noting
that such a use would be in conflict with the boat launch in River Ridge Park, and
general recreational uses of the River. He also pointed out that the River is not
under City control, and that it was necessary to address these two points in the
Plan. The City Engineer pointed out that the City does control land use, and that
if landing were to take place on the river, it would be necessary to harbor the
planes, and explained that harboring was a land use which could be controlled by
the City. He also explained that the City also had authority over development of
a high-rise through land use control .
Chairman Engdahl recognized Sharon Schmickle, 6724 Willow Lane, who raised the
question of Police access to Durnam Island. The Secretary stated that Durnam
Island is part of the City of Brooklyn Park, and that there is no access to it
from the City of Brooklyn Center other than by boat. He added that he thought
the River was under the jurisdication of the Department of Natural Resources.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Jim Whitaker, 6934 Willow Lane, who also commented
relative to Durnam Island. He stated he felt some consideration should be given
to banning trapping on the Island because the traps were a hazard to children, he
stated he had talked to the DNR Wardens, and discovered that trapping on the
Island is legal . He stated that while he was aware that the Island_ was in Brooklyn
Park, he felt that Brooklyn Center could take the initative and suggested that
such an action be taken.
Chairman Engdahl again recognized Mr. Albright who stated he felt the question
could be resolved if the Island were acquired by DNR, who might be better
able to regulate use of the Island. He stated the Island was not Brooklyn Center
park property, but was privately owned.
Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the Island was ever under water. Mr. Whitaker
stated in the last thirteen years the Island had been flooded twice. Mrs. Vetter
commented that the Island lies within the Federal regulations for a flood plain
and cannot be developed. She stated it was bought by the present owner for
speculation purposes and that it was not certain at this time what would happen
with the property.
11-16-78 -4-
The Secretary again reviewed the Goal and Policy Guidelines. Using the land use
map, he pointed out the existing zoning and land uses. He stated that the zoning
of the currently zoned commercial property would be maintained as well as the
residential zoning in the Critical Area.
Commissioner Jacobson arrived at 9:10 p.m.
Further discussion ensued relative to Highway No. 169. The City Engineer explained
that the 169 corridor south of the Freeway would be the same as that of I-94, and
that Lyndale Avenue would become a City street. In response to questions from the
Commissioners he further discussed various alternate routes which had been proposed
for 169. He commented that while the Corridor had been determined in Brooklyn
Center, Brooklyn Park h- ' not yet determined where the Corridor would lie within
its City limits.
Commissioner Book arrived at 9:15 p.m.
The Secretary also briefly explained the Great River Road concept. He stated that
the Great River Road was a Federal project whereby there would be a scenic roadway
from Lake Itasca to the Gulf of Mexico along the Mississippi . He stated that in
Brooklyn Center the Great River Road would run from 73rd Avenue to the Freeway
along the west side of the River on 169. He exp1=� ` ud the roadway would cross the
Freeway and continue to run along the east side or . ie River at that point.
The City :Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation explained that along
with the Great River Road there was a trailway system. It was explained that
there were three different routes proposed for the trailway through the area. The
City Engineer explained that the City Council had supported the route which would
continue along Palmer Lake Basin to 69th Avenue North and would go west Highway
169, then south along 169 to 65th Avenue, under the Freeway bridge, throu: l River
Ridge park, and along Lyndale Avenue. He stated this alternative was supported
because of the possibility of a future bikeway crossing across the 694 bridge,
which the other alternatives do not provide.
In response to questions from the Commissioners., the City Engineer stated that the
trailway would be blacktopped, 8 ft. wide, and that rest stops were provided for
in the concept. He explained that the Federal Government was responsible for 75%
of the cost of construction and that local government was responsible for 25% of
the cost. He stated the total cost would be approximately $250,000.00 to
$300,000.00. In response to a question from Mrs. Vetter, he stated that the City
is responsible for maintaining the trailway after it is completed.
He also explained that although the trailway would extend from Lake Itasca to the
Gulf of Mexico, it was anticipated that it would be used more for regional trips,
rather than trips along the entire length.
In further discussion, Chairman Engdahl suggested that the Neighborhood Advisory
Groups meet prior to December 14, 1978, the date scheduled for the next public
hearing on the Critical Area Plan. The Secretary stated that if anyone was
interested, they could contact City Hall and the next portion of the Critical
Area Plan would be sent out to them prior to the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public
hearing on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan: Inventory of Existing
Conditions, Development Opportunities and Constraints, and Goals and Policy g
Guidelines. The motion passed unanimously.
11-16-78 -5-
APPLICATION NO. 78066 (Cynthia Pierce)
The next item of consideration was Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce.
The Secretary stated the applicant sought an amendment to a special use permit for
a home occupation, a beauty shop, at 3313 Lawrence Road.
Commissioner Pierce stated that in view of his relationship to the applicant, he
would abstain from consideration of the application.
The Secretary explained that the amendment to the special use permit originally
granted under Application No. 75019 would recognize one nonresident employee in
relation to the home occupation. He stated that the application had been con-
sidered by the Commission at its November 2, 1978 meeting and was tabled penriing
a clarification from the City Attorney regarding the definition for home occup-
ation, special contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the applicant of a
dwelling for which a special use permit is issued is required to be on the premises
at all times when a permitted employee is working. He stated a response had been
received from the City Attorney.
The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding special home
occupations in which two opinions were given: one, since the ordinance limits the
nonresident employee with language which contains the phrase " at any one time"
the language as it presently stands would permit more than one part-time employee,
as long as no more than one employee was on the premises at any one time; two,
there is no language in the home occupation definition which would indicate that
the occupant must remain on the premises in order to supervise the employee. The
memo indicated that the definition says "any gainful occupation or profession, . . .
engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling . . ." Giving
the phrase "engaged in" in its ordinarily accepted meaning, it could mean to
operate the profession or occupation without being on the premises at all times.
The Secretary stated that neighboring property owners had been sent an informational
notice regarding the -Commission's consideration of the item. He stated that he
had received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Howard J. Atkins, 3213 Lawrence Road, who
stated they objected to the use of the property as a beauty parlor operated by a
person other than the homeowner. They also stated that they believe the proposed
amendment would threaten to change the neighborhood from its residential character
to a commercial character and felt that the increased traffic around the corner
lot would be a safety hazard to the children on the block.
The Secretary stated he had also received a telephone call from Jackie Alexander,
3311 Lawrence Road, who reiterated her opinion that since the applicant was
establishing herself in a real estate business, perhaps the home occupation had
served its purpose and the time had come to seek a commercial building for her
operation. The Secretary briefly reviewed the definition for special home occup-
ation, the Standards for Special Use Permit, and the recommended conditions of
approval . He stated that the key cc 1deration of any home occupation is a deter-
mination that the proposed use is c: . ., °ly secondary and Incidental to the primary
use, which is residential .
11-16-78 -6-
Chairman Engdahl asked for comments from the Commissioners which had not been
heard at the previous meeting. Commissioner Theis pointed out that the definition
for special home occupation contained in Section 35-900 specifically states that
the occupation may involve "the need for not more than two parking spaces in
addition to spaces required for the persons residing on the premises." He ex-
plained that if the operation were expanded to a two chair operation, and con-
sidering the need for a vehicle for the nonresident employee ,as well as those of
potentially two customers, there could be a need for three parking spaces
which is outside of the limits set by the ordinance.
Commissioner Theis inquired whether the applicant was aware that this provision
would mean that if the nonresident employee drove to work, there could only be
one customer car parked on the premises at any time. The applicant responded
there shouldn't be any trouble with the parking for a variety of reasons. She
stated that she would not be working when the nonresident operator was working,
and that there would not be two chairs operating at one time. She also commented
that si,,any of her customers were neighbors who walked to the shop.
Commissioner Book commented that following the line of reasoning, introduced by
Commissioner Theis, anyone who had been permitted a two chair operation in the
past would be in violation of the ordinance.
The Secretary commented that an application for a special home occupation for
instruction of porcelain painting had been approved this fall . He stated th
approval had been granted to comprehend four students at any one time. He a'
pointed out that the parking formulas in the ordinance relating to other use
generally require one space for every two employees or one space for every t
seats in a restaurant use. He continued that it was important that the appl t
wont out through scheduling any conflict there may be with the parking.
Commissioner Theis pointed out that the estimate of three cars was a low estimate
since a two chair operation with a nonresident operator could comprehend as many
as five cars if each operator were handling two customers at one time. Commissioner
Book pointed out that the parking formulas established in the ordinance for other
types of uses are not based upon the maximum use possible. He also used the example
cited by the Secretary.
The applicant stated that without being familiar with the operation and her method
of scheduling customers, the Commission was assuming that there would be a need
for three parking spaces, and that there would be parking problems . She stated
that because of strict scheduling there would not be a problem with the parking.
Commissioner Theis responded that at the public hearing, there had been complaints
about the parking in the neighborhood. He said that whether or not that parking
problem is related to the special use, the problem exists. He stated that the
ordinance requires that in a special home occupation there be a need for no more
than two parking spaces in addition to those required by the residents. The
applicant pointed out that since she would not be working when the nonresident
operator was working, and because there was less business now than there had been
previously, the need for parking spaces would be less.
Chairman Engdahl explained that if the nonresident operator drove to the house,
and if two customers were handled at any one time, there would still be a possible
need for three parking spaces. Commissioner Theis commented that he saw the major
problem with the application to be that of the parking.
11-16-78 -7-
The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance did not specify that the two parking
spaces be off-street spaces. He commented that he felt the intent of the ordinance
was to limit on-street parking spaces to two, and that this concern was addressed
by the condition of approval which would require that adequate off-street parking
be provided by the applicant.
Commissioner Malecki stated she was confused regarding the definition. She stated
that if the definition were strictly adhered to, the applicant would not be able
to have a nonresident employee, even though the ordinance acknowledges one non-
resident employee.
Commissioner Book stated he had two questions. He asked whether the City Council
had approved any two chair beauty shops in the past. The Secretary responded that
he did not know for certain whether any two chair beauty shops had been specific-
ally permitted, although there may be some in operation. He explained that ;:Ihile
the ordinance sets the maximum uses permitted, the special use permit is issued
based upon the applicant's specific request for a home occupation. He continued
that in this case, the applicant had originally requested only a single person
operation, and that an amendment was required in order to permit the employment of
a nonresident operator.
Commissioner Book also commented that special use permits were subject to revocation
and inquired as to what channels a neighbor could pursue if
they objected to the
special use and wanted the permit revoked. The Secretary explained that the
neighbor would complain to the City, staff would review the situation to determine
whet`;er the applicant was abiding by the requirements of approval , and if the
occupation were determined to be a bona fide nuisance, the matter would come before
the Planning Commission which could recommend revocation of the permit.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Reetz, 3309 Lawrence Road, who commented that
there was a two chair beauty shop operation located on 63rd Avenue North, adjacent
to the fire station. She stated that this was a different matter from that proposed
by the applicant because the nature of that area was commercial , while Lawrence
Road is a residential area. She also pointed out that in the applicant's case,
it would be possible for a customer to arrive ahead of her appointment time, and
that this could cause more parking problems.
Chairman Engdahl explained that whether the area was commercial or residential in
nature was not important to the consideration of the application. He stated that
special uses are permitted uses within a zoning district and that the determination
which must be made was whether or not the applicant's proposal was permitted under
the ordinance
The applicant commented that it was her understanding that under special use permit
review, each case is considered individually. She explained that in her individual
case, because she was going into the real estate business, her beauty shop business
would be much less intense, and that she was taking on no new customers. She also
pointed out that she understood from the City Attorney's memorandum, that there
was no ordinance problem with having a nonresident employee working on the premises
when she was not present.
In further discussion Commissioner Hawes stated that he felt the problem with the
application was that there would be a need for more than two parking spaces. In
response to Chairman Engdahl 's point that the recommended condition of approval
requiring off-street parking space be provided by the applicant would cover that
concern. Commissioner Hawes stated that if the ordinance were interpreted literally,
then that provision does not satisfy the definition.
11-16-78 -8-
The applicant stated that she didn't see where there was a problem since she could
provide four off-street parking spaces in her driveway. Chairman Engdahl explained
that the ordinance requires that the occupation does not involve a need for more
than two parking spaces in addition to those spaces required by the residents of
the premises. Commissioner Theis explained that he felt the two car limitation
probably spoke to the desirable intensity of a home occupation. He continued that
he felt that the intent of the ordinance was that if more than two parking spaces
were required, then the proposed use was not a suitable home occupation.
Commissioner Book stated that in discussing this limitation the Commission was not
dealing with the precedent which had already been set regarding home occupations.
He stated he did not feel the application could be rejected at this point unless
the Commission went back and disapproved any other special home occupations which
involve the need for more than two parking spaces. Commissioner Jacobson also
pointed out that the Commission had recently approved a special home occupation for
art instruction comprehending four students with no reference to the number of
parking spaces needed by the use.
Chairman Engdahl stated that he felt the definition was ambiguous, and that he was
comfortable with the interpretation that the provision was intended in order to
prevent more than two on-street parking spaces, and that if the applicant were
required to provide adequate off-street parking, he felt the concern would be
addressed. Commissioner Theis disagreed and stated he felt the definition was
clear and unambiguous, and that he could not recommend approval of the appli-
cation if there were a need for more than two parking spaces. He again inquired
of the applicant as to the need for a two chair operation if the business were de-
clining. The applicant responded that the amendment was to allow a nonresident
employee who would work on the premises when she was not there. Commissioner
Theis pointed out that such an operation would essentially be a one person
operation, and that if the applicant agreed to limit the use to a one chair
operation, he would have no objection to recommending approval of the application.
The applicant agreed and stated that she understood that only one chair could be
in operation at any one time.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78066 (Cynthia Pierce)
Notion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to recommend
approval of Application No. 78066 subject to the following conditions.
1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed
use and is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinancesland regulations
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. The permit acknowledges the employment on the premises, at any
one given time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident
of the premises, and violation or this condition shall be grounds
for revocation.
4. The current copy of the applicant's State Operator's License as
well as a current copy of any employee's State Operator's License
shall be kept on file with the City.
5. All parking related to the special use shall be off-street parking
on appropriate space provided by the applicant.
11-16-78 -9-
-6. The hours of operation shall be: Tuesday, Thursday, Friday
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. ; and
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
7. There shall be only one chair physically in the building.
8. The special use permit is subject to annual review.
The applicant objected to the seventh condition of approval and stated there has
been a second chair in the building ever since she started working which is used
es of her treatment.
in between stages for a customer to wait g
Commissioner Malecki clarified that the point was made in order to provide that
only one operator be working at any one time. In further discussion, Commissioner
Theis agreed to change the motion so that the seventh condition of approval wcald
read that only one chair shall be in operation when the operator is a nonresident
employee.to ee. The second concurred with the amendment. Voting in favor: Chairman
•
'n a
Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson, Book and Theis. Voting against: Com-
missioner Hawes. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce. The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
airman
11-16-78 -10-