Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 08-29 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 CITY HALL AUGUST 29, 1974 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Carl Gross. Roll Call: Chairman Gross, Commissioners Grosshans, Engdahl, Foreman, Scott, Pierce and Horan. Also present was Director of Planning and inspection Blair Tremere� Approve Minutes Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by 8-1-74 Commissioner Pierce to approve the minutes of the August 1, 1974 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were Chairman Gross, Commission- ers Engdahl, Grosshans, Foreman, Horan and Pierce. Not voting: Commissioner Scott who explained she was not at the August I meeting, The motion passed. Draft ordinance Amendment The first item of business was consideration of elative to Definition of & proposed amendment to Section 35-900 of the amily zoning ordinance regarding the definition of "family". The Secretary explained that in re- sponse to a motion on June 20, 1974, the staff had reviewed the ordinance provisions for group care homes with particular regard for the de- finition of "family" which was used to determine the density in particular dwelling units in the Various residential zones. He stated the pro- posed amendment was a formal expression of an established administrative policy limiting the Size of foster or rehabilitative care facilities to not more than five unrelated persons in addition to the permanent residents. An extensive discussion ensued recalling the information which had been related during con- sideration of Planning Commission Application No. 74033 submitted by the Brooklyn Center Jaycees . Additional comments centered on the determination of the number of persons and the Secretary responded that research of zoning ordinances in other municipalities indicated this was a commonly accepted figure used in determining the number of unrelated persons equivalent to a family unit. He further commented that in terms of the pre- sent ordinance, a proposed use involving more than five unrelated persons would require special use consideration by the Commission and City council. 8/29/74 In response to questions by Commissioner Engdahl, the Secretary stated that the critical language in the definition which would be used in determining what was a permitted family was the phrase "maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit" ; the number of persons ; and the proposed language which stressed that in the case of foster care or group care facilities, the permanent residents must be authorized and the physical facilities must be approved and certified by the appropriate public agency (normally the State Welfare Department) . Following further discussion there was a motion Action Directing a by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Resolution Recommending Scott to direct a resolution recommending con- Adoption of Ordinance sideration and adoption of the proposed ordinance Amendment Regarding amending Section 35-900 with respect to the Definition of "Family" definition of "family" . Voting in favor were: Chairman Gross, Commissioners Engdahl, Grosshans , Foreman, Scott, and Pierce. Not voting: Commissioner Horan who stated his preference to abstain due to a possible conflict of interest in consideration of the previous application submitted by the Jaycees . The motion passed. The ' next item of business was consideration of Draft Ordinance a proposed ordinance amendment comprehending Amendment Relative to the inclusion of warehousing and storage as a Special Uses in I-1 special use in the I-1 District. The Secretary District explained that the draft amendment had been pre- pared following a review of the ordinance and the determination that warehousing and storage activity appeared to be similar in nature to other uses in the I-1 District. He stated that warehousing and storage was comprehended as a service activity in the I-2 (general industry) District. He stated that research indicated the activity had been excluded from the Industrial Park District due to early concerns as to levels of commercial vehicle and specifically truck activity, related to such uses. He explained that truck terminal activities involving the relatively intense storage, maintenance, and servicing of such vehicles was a permitted use in the general industry district in addition to warehousing and storage. He stated that the most similar use currently found in the I-1 District was that of wholesale trade and that given the nature of the physical development of the farm since the original adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, there seemed to be merit for including storage and ware- ousing as well. He explained that the use was proposed in the draft as a special use and that the considerations which the Commission and Council had applied towards certain commercial uses in the I-1 District had been applied in this instance. -I- -2- 8/29/74 He stated these concerns included compatibility with other I-1 uses ; assurance that the in- tensity of activity levels was comparable to other I-1 uses ; and, that the special use standards would apply. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the concern that maintenance and service of vehicles be prohibited and the concern that there was not a clear differentiation in the ordinance between "truck terminals" and "storage and warehousing" activity. Commissioner Pierce stated that definition should be provided in the ordinance to clarify this distinction as an assurance that storage and warehouse uses would not evolve into truck terminal uses . Further discussion ensued as to the extent of special use restrictions and Commissioner Engdahl stated he felt that the requirement for special Council and Commission review in each case, applying the established criteria set forth in the draft as well as in the special use section of the ordinance was adequate. Commissioner Foreman stated he felt that specific provisions should be made for an annual review of each special use permit and he in- quired as to what extent such review was con- ducted for all special use permits . The Secretary responded that the City Council had deliberated the matter of specified annual review and renewal of special use permits versus licensing and related annual approvals , and that it had generally been concluded a special use permit could not be construed as a license per se. He further noted that all special uses were subject to periodic review by the staff and that a formal filing system where- by such uses were flagged for inspection had been established . He stated, however, that this was not to be held as the equivalent of annual licensing whereby an individual was re- quired to reapply for permission to continue a certain type of use. Commissioner Foreman reiterated his concern that the City have assurance that uses such as warehousing and storage in the Industrial Park were conducted consistent with the City approval. Commissioner Scott stated that her primary con- cern was with the possible onsite vehicle main-- tenance and servicing and felt that such activity should be expressly prohibited . The Secretary explained that under Section 35--413, outside activity was prohibited in the I-1 District and that such a condition had not been included in the draft because of existing ordinance restrictions . Commissioner Scott stated,;"haver,=#she felt that as a special use, by definition, particular reference should be triae` '8s to the nature of that use and she sug- gested the inclusion of language to the effect -3- 8/29/74 that there be no vehicle maintenance or servicing on the site. The meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. and resumed Recess at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Horan inquired as to the need for including a new use in the I-1 District when it had been expressly excluded at the time of the establishment of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the value of a zoning regula- tion was its reflection of the concerns of the community as to the proper development of the City, and to include uses permitted in one zone in another, was tantamount to rezoning. The Secretary responded that while a good zoning ordinance did in fact reflect the com- prehensive planning adopted by a community as a tool for guiding its growth, the value of any ordinance was its flexibility to respond to change and particularly to the actual physical development of the community over the years . He stated that the amendment was proposed on the basis that in fact the Industrial Park area had been built up with structures and uses which were similar in nature to ware- housing and storage activity. He stated that wholesale trade activities currently operating on the farm actually involved warehousing and storage with the primary difference being an on-side office activity, such as in the case of manufacturers representatives . Chairman Gross stated that it appeared the essential question was if a warehousing and storage development were before the Commission under the present ordinance, would the Com- mission recommend approval of such a develop- ment on the basis that it was similar in nature to other I-1 activities . He stated that in his opinion such activity would be approved, depending on the merits of the particular pro- posal. He explained further that since the use would be a special use it would be subject to particular scrutinization and conditions to substantiate the assurance of the City that the use would be conducted as intended. Following further discussion there was a motion Action Directing a by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Resolution Recommend Horan to direct a resolution recommending con- ing Adoption of sideration and adoption of an ordinance amend- Ordinance Amendment .ing Section 35-330 (3) relative to inclusion of Regarding Special Uses warehousing and storage in the I-1 District, in I-1 District adding the provision that on-site repair, main- tenance, and servicing of vehicles be prohibited. Voting in favor were: Chairman Gross, Com- missioners Grosshans , Foreman, Scott, Horan, and Pierce. Voting against: Commissioner Engdahl who explained that he felt, as a matter of -4- 8/29/74 principle, that an effort was being made to build in restrictions to the provision for the proposed use; whereas, he felt the pre- sent ordinance standards for special use permits were sufficient. The motion passed. Action Directing Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Preparation of Draft Commissioner Scott to direct the staff to pre- Amendment Regarding pare an ordinance amendment comprehending Definitions definitions of "warehousing and storage" and "truck terminals" for purposes of clarifica- tion and limitation. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11 :05 p.m. �W//.AOW Chairman -5- 8/29/74 1 1