Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC73001 - 2/1/71 - 6421 Brooklyn Blvd�%.w 1*1-1 PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: A&E FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: 7300/ PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: R I PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission al'1�2 ,'V/-517-3 Office Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Document Type Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council z11/,-9, a?/ / j City Vault City Vault Number Location City Vault City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault CITY OF BP.00IUjYN CENTER Planning Com-,xiiss-4r-n Application Application No. O� / Street Location of Property Y/7 Z-:�L V 4:�)' Legal Description of Property to /VJRTH CA% E A.npN Owner Address Telephone No. Applicant 7��c 1I6l /, C' /0%'0 Address G„ �C�, �_ `�e'c) e �c Telephone No. - 3 -- L/y 7S Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plans ---c::1, Special Use Other Permit Description and Reason for Request: Fee $ `S Receipt No. Applicant Date PLANNING C01-MISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of Po Co Consideration: Approved Denied this �_ day of��,/, y subject to the following conditions: _ Cha i n�an ^———— — — — — —— — CICOUNCIL ACTION —_— -- -- —— Dates of Council Consideration: Appro Denied this with the following amendments -je-� Cay of Cleric NEW TO FRC?M � SUBJECT DATE, Planning Commission 14embers3 Blair Tremere Planning Commission Application No. 73001 February 12, 1973 At the February 1, 1973 meeting, extensive testimony was taken from Mr. Richard Johnson regarding the nature of the vacuum cleaner service he was proposing as a special use for the residence at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard, Among other things, the applicant commented as to the "very limited" activity which would be realized., and he cited as an example, the business he pursued fromm his present residence at 6336 Scott Avenue North. He also noted that there was "a lack of a vacuum cleaner repair service" at this time in the City of Brooklyn Center. of prime concern to the staff and the Commission was the applicant's proposal to have a certain amount of retail sales incorporated with the repair service. The applicant noted that a limited amount of accessories. such as paper bags and hoses would be available for repair service customers. in this regard, the Commission inquired as to the possibility of sales of vacuum cleaners, particularly used or reconditioned machines. The applicant's response was than while this was a distinct possibility for such a service, it was not the prime activity. Relative to his current business, he explained that vacuum cleaners were demonstrated on the customer's premises and were not sold at retail from his home, Since the Planning Commission meeting, the attached flier has been brought to our attention. It has been displayed in several apart- ment buildings throughout: the City, and the advertisement appears to speak quite vividly to those very issues which were analyzed at the Commission hearing. The applicant was notified that further consideration of the matter was being recommended, due to the information displayed on the flier. A conversation was held with the applicant last week., Page 2 Planning Commission Application No. 73001 He was asked to explain the content of the advertisement, which seemed to be contradictory to the situation described by the applicant during his testimony. His response was that the flier had been placed in various locations throughout the City in January of this year so to generate a response for such a service, and thus aid in determining the feasibility of the applicant's proposal. He emphasized that the significant words on the flier were "vacuum Repair; Free Pickup And Delivery; Guaranteed Repair All Makes of 'vacuum Cleaners". He was asked to explain the remainder of the message which very succinctly refers to retail gales of various brands of rebuilt vacuum cleaners and accessories. Basically, the applicant's re- sponse was that the activity was "very limited". He was also asked again whether this type of retail activity would be promoted at the Brooklyn Boulevard residence. The re- sponse was again that it was a "very limited" activity and would not be promoted per se,, but was entirely possible. The 3 x 5 card which appears at the bottom of the photostatic copy attached, was also founts in several apartment complexes in the City, and the applicant's explanation of that advertisement was essentially the same as noted above: that it was an attempt to "feel out the public" as to the desirability of such a service. it is noteworthy that the 3 x 5 card makes no reference to a service however, but rather to the sale of vacuum cleaners. The telephone number in- dicated is that of the applicant. The applicant has been notified of the meeting and it is expected that he will be present. The staff position remains essentially the same, that is a very serious concern for the passible expansion of retail uses in the residential districts, regardless of geographic location. The subject advertisements are submitted for review primarily as they relate to the testimony given by the applicant at the February lst meeting. The issue of 'what type or degree of retail activity may be occurring at the applicant's residence will be investigated and handled as an administrative matter. $RdQ KL VN 'BLVD. u0AVFD roF�N APDt)N47 u/V PAVE0 LJ1 , I ERoo KLYN tB L.v Q, -P, C, r ►► c No. 16601 NoT 'TP S LARVEY SCALE" GARDEN CITE+ SCHOOL c2. SHoPPERS ciTy lb MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 1, 1973 CITY HALL Call to Order The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:10 Y.M. Roll Call Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Scott, Foreman, Gross, and Engdahl. Also present was Administra- tive Assistant Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes Motion by Commissioner Engdahl 1-18-73 seconded by Commissioner Foreman to approve the minutes of the January 18, 1973 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were Chairman Jensen, Commission- ers Bogucki, Scott, Foreman, and Engdahl. Not voting: Commissioners drosshans and Gross who explained that they were not present at the January 18th meeting. Application No. 73001 Following the Chairmah"s explanation, (Ri.aha�rd :ro,:,son) the first item of business was planning Commission Application No. 73001 sub- mitted by Richard Johnson. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained -the applicant was requesting. a special use permit to operate a vacuum repair service in the residence at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard. He ex- plained that the home is a nonconform- ing use since it is a single family dwelling in an R-5 District. The Secretary further commented that the applicant had submitted a statement regarding the nature of the proposed operation. He noted that a limited amount of retail sale of accessories was proposed and that an inventory of replacement parts and accessories of not more than $2500.00 was.proposed. The Secretary stated that retail sales were expressly prohibited in this' district and that recently the City Council directed full enforcement of the ordinance provisions in this regard, and efforts were being made to do so. He stated that approval of the sale of accessory items apart from the actual repair of vacuum cleaners could tend to negate this action. Relative to the location of the resi- dence and the traffic and parking -1- 2-1-73 factors, the Secretary stated that the driveway, from Brooklyn Boulevard to the rear of the property where the garage was located, was approximately 12-feet wide and was not paved. He stated that there was a "turn -around" area at the front of the double garage but he noted that a field test of this "turn -around" provision indicated the maneuver could be difficult if other vehicles were parked in the area. He stated that vehicles parked in the driveway itself would tend to obstruct clear access from the turn -around to the highway. He noted the applicant had mentioned the possible use of a portion of the front yard area for "overflow" parking if it were needed, and he noted that this was specifical- ly not endorsed by the City. The Secretary further commented that if the number of cars were minimal and if the parking spaces were delineated in the rear of the property, the area should be adequate. He noted however that unlawful and hazardous backing onto Brooklyn Boulevard was possible if these provisions were not made. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who discussed further the nature of the intended operation. He explained that his brother would be living in the house and would be the person in charge of the vacuum repair service. Mr. Johnson stated that his role would be as an advisor only, and he noted that the proposed operation would be the principal means of sup- port for his brother. in response to an inquiry by chairman Jensen, Mr. Johnson stated that the tools and equipment which would be used in the operation would be similar to those normally found in a home workshop. He also stated that the in- tended hours of operation would be 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Extensive discussion then ensued re- garding the nature of the operation and the proposed retail sales. Chair- man Jensen stated that it appeared that if the proposed operation were to be the principal means of support, the proposal was actually for a repair service and sales business operating out of a residence. The applicant re- sponded that the operation was'pri- marily the repair of vacuum cleaners and that any sales would only be for related items such as paper bags and hoses. -2- 2-1-73 Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the applicant intended to eventually develop the proposed home occupation into a retail or "storefront" type of operation at that address. The applicant stated that it was possible expansion could occur if the operation were successful. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Bogucki, the applicant stated that he had no intent at this time to ask for a rezoning of the property, even though the possi- bility existed for expansion. Commissioner Bogucki reiterated the concern of the City relative to further commercialization along Brooklyn Boulevard and stated that it did not appear rezoning would be feasible. Chairman Jensen initiated a brief dis- cussion regarding the possible paving of the driveway from Brooklyn Boulevard to the rear of the property. The applicant stated that the area should be paved because the present dirt driveway tended to become virtually impassable in wet weather. The appli- cant further stated that the driveway could be paved as a condition of ap- proval as soon as weather permitted. Commissioner Gross inquired what rem- ifications would result if retail sales were prohibited, and the applicant re- sponded that that would prove to be a hinderance. He stated that there was a basic need to have vacuum cleaner accessories on hand for customers hav- ing their machines repaired. He stated. however, that normally machines would be delivered and picked up for servic- ing. Commissioner Bogucki asked the appli- cant whether any retail sales of re- conditioned or used vacuum cleaners would be conducted on the premises. The applicant stated that it was possible that reconditioned machines would be offered for sale on a limited basis, but that the primary activity would be repairing. The applicant also stated that at the present time, vacuum cleaner repair services were located in other communities and that there was a need for such a service in the City of Brooklyn Center. He com- mented that such a service could even be expanded to include the repair of small appliances, although such business would not be solicited_ in discussion that followed relative to retail sales, Commissioner Bogucki -3- 2-1-73 Stated that retail activity of any degree was a critical factor, not only in light of the City policy dis- couraging and prohibiting such sales in residential zones, but also with regard to future use of the subject property. He stated the Commission' should be cautious not to create another C-2 use in spite of the es- tablished zoning and the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Jensen stated that while he could see the need for. a inventory of parts essential to the repair of vacuum cleaners, he was most concerned with. the intent to sell accessories, and to possibly expand the business to in- clude the sale of vacuum cleaners. in further discussion the applicant inquired whether it would be feasible to seek rezoning of the subject pro- perty to C-2, within five years. The response was a negative consensus. The Secretary commented that there was a fine line between necessary in- ventory of repair parts and the stock- ing of accessories. He stated that it was apparent a certain amount of retail sales would be involved in the proposed operation. He noted further that the applicant had not indicated - the mpplication that the sale of used or reconditioned machines would be involved. The applicant stated that he was appreciative of the Commission's con- cern for maintaining a low intensity use and he assured the Commission that vacuum cleaner service and sales constituted such a use. He emphasized the limited activity involved, noting that he had been a vacuum cleaner sales representative working from his home in,.the City for several years, and noted there had been no complaints from neighbors. In that regard, Commissioner Bogucki inquired whether the applicant was in- vol.ved in the actual retail sale or servicing of vacuum.cleaners in his home, noting- tile: applicant's previous statement, _irat there was a lack of such facility in the City. The appli- cant responded that he was a factory sales representative working from his home and that he domonstrated machines on the premises of potential customers. He stated that he intermittently re- paired vacuum cleaners for neighbors and friends in the basement of his home. -4- 2-1-73 Commissioner Bogucki stated that in his opinion, it appeared the applicant was seeking to establish a retail out- let for the sale of vacuum cleaners. The applicant responded that the only sales activity would be to take machines to the homes of potential customers. Action on No. 73001 Following further discussion there. Recommend Approval was a motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend approval of Planning Com- mission Application No. 73001 sub- mitted by Richard Johnson subject to the following conditions: 1. Retail sales of any kind are prohibited; 2. Driving and parking areas shall be paved, and delineated so to allow turn -around capability and adequate parking for custo- mer vehicles with the paving to be completed no later than June 1, 1973; 3. The permit is subject to annual review from the date of issue with the provision that the site shall be inspected on or about June 1, 1973 to assure that site improvements have been completed and that the operation conforms with the con- ditions of approval. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion Items: In further business a brief dis- Freeway Zone cussion ensued concerning the pending Fuel Storage proposal for a freeway zone, she pro Car washers vision for fuel storage facilities in the industrial district, and possible standards for car wash operations. Chairman Jensen stated that those items should be placed on the agenda.of the next study meeting wherein each item could be more thoroughly evaluated. Recognize former Chairman Jensen then recognized former Councilman Vern Ausen City Councilman Vernon Ausen who ap- peared before the Commission represent- ing the Brooklyn Historical Society. Mr. Ausen commented as to a recent meeting of the Board of Directors of the Society and read a letter relative to the status of the Earle Brown Farm farm buildings. He stated the Society was concerned that some significant vestige of the Earle Brown Farmstead should be preserved in that it re- presented the roots of the development of the north suburban area. He noted a basic concern of the Society was -5- 2-1-73 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TIM PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Or BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 15, 1973 CITY HALL Call to Order The Planning commission met in study session and was called to order cat 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Robert Jensen. Roll Call Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Foreman, Scott, Gross, and Grosshans. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded 2-1-73 by Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the February 1, 1973 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73001' The first item of business was continua - (continued) tion of the February 1st hearing of Application No. 73001 submitted by Richard Johnson. The Secretary presented a summary of the previous hearing, ex- plaining that the applicant was seeking special use permission to operate a vacuum cleaner repair service.a�,64.21 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that since the February 1st meeting, cdrtain information had come to the attention of the City, which possibly had bearing upon the Commission's recommended disposition of the request. He explained that the information was irk: the form of a flier which had been posted in several apartment complexes throughout the City, advertising among other things, vacuum cleaner repair and - the retail sales of accessories and re- built machines. He noted the advertise- ments directed potential customers to the applicant's present address, 6336 Scott Avenue North, and noted a phone number which was that of the applicant. He explained that the advertisements were brought to the attention of the Commission primarily as they related to the hearing on the proposed special use permit at the Brooklyn Boulevard address, since much of the public hearing and:,,. testimony given had centered aroun&-the applicant's present experience.,, Chairman Jensen then' 'recognized the applicant, who explained that.the adver- tisements had been printed and distribut- ed prior to the February 1st planning -1- 2-15-73 Commission hearing. He stated that his brother, who would be the operator of the proposed service at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard, had proceeded to distribute the advertisements in an attempt to determine the public response or demand for such a service. Mr. Johnson then produced receipts indicating that the fliers had been printed in late January, 1973. The applicant further stated that he had not been aware until the Planning Com- mission meeting that retail sales were prohibited in the residential districts. The Secretary responded that extensive - discussion had been held with the appli cant: outlining the need for and require- ments of ordinance provisions relating to special home occupations in the re- sidential districts. The Secretary further explained that the applicant had initially described the request as being for a small applicance repair service, not a vacuum cleaner repair activity, which would indicate that retail sales of merchandise could be involved. Chairman Jensen reiterated the Com- mission's action, which was recommended approval subject to certain conditions including the prohibition of any retail sales. The applicant stated that hq recognized this, and that if granted the special use permit, there would be no retail sales on the premises. An exten- sive discussion ensued and the applicant, further explained that sales activity might be realized only in the context that vacuum cleaners could be taken to a potential customer's home and demon- strated. He stated that this was his business at the present time in that he worked out of his home, taking machines with him to be demonstrated and sold on the premises of potential customers. Commissioner Foreman recalled that ex- tensive discussion had centered around the applicant's claim that no comparable service existed in Brooklyn Center at the present time. He asked the applicant to further clarify that statement in -light of the claim of the advertisement that such a service existed at the applicant's residence. Mr. Johnson restated that the intent of the advertisement was merely to "feel out" the public as to the need for such a service and thus provide a basis upon which request for a special use permit could be made. Commissioner Foreman responded that in any case, the advertisement did not convey that message to the general public and quite ex- plicitly referred to outright sales of reconditioned machines. -2- 2-15-73 Chairman Jensen reiterated the City's planning policy discouraging the ex- pansion of commercial uses along Brooklyn Boulevard as well as the ordinance provisions prohibiting retail sales in residential districts. He noted the recommended condition that no' retail sales would be permitted on the site and that if such activity were de- tected, it would be grounds for revoking the permit. In further discussion, the applicant stated that he intended to advertise the fact that reconditioned machines were available, and that the demonstration and sales of such machines would be on the pre;nises of potential customers. He also noted that at the present time, there were many persons involved with cosmetics sales in the City who conduct- ed businesses -in a similar manner from their homes. Commissioner Bogucki noted his previous comments as to the apparent value placed by the applicant upon the Brooklyn Boulevard location and he stated that it seemed the evidence indicated the appli- cant was primarily interested in estab- lishing the site as a commercial retail outlet for vacuum cleaners. He further stated that the ramifications of com- prehensive planning, particularly the principals discouraging expansion of commercial uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, did not appear to be clear to the appli- cant. Mr. Johnson responded that he was fully aware of the City's concern regard- ing the intensity of various uses through- out the City. Commissioner Grosshans asked the appli- cant whether he was fully aware that if the residential use of the subject property ceased, the special use would also cease. The applicant responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Gross in- quired whether certain conditions could be stipulated to control advertising, and in ensuing discussion, it was deter- mined that conditions should relate only to the use itself. The applicant was in- formed that advertising could be con- sidered ate indicator of the specific activity taking place on the site at any given time. Reaffirm prior Following further discussion it was,the recommendation for consensus of the Commission to reaffirm No. 73001 the February 1, 1973 recommendation for approval of Application No. 73001 sub- ject to the stipulated conditions. -3- 2-15-73 ., e try C014NO.11- /rl�NaTES Planning Commission Mr. Tremere then reviewed Planning Commission Appli- Application No. 73001 cation No. 73001 submitted by Mr. Richard Johnson. (Richard Johnson) He explained the applicant was seeking a special home occupation permit to operate a vacuum cleaner repair service from the residence at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard. He reviewed the extensive consideration and recommen- dation of the Planning Commission as reflected in the February 1 and February 18, 1973 minutes. Mayor Cohen then recognized the applicant and noted that none of the notified property owners was present. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the concern that no retail sales would be allowed since the subject property was located in a residential district. In res- ponse to a question by Councilman Britts the applicant stated that there would be no direct retail sales on the premises. In response to a question by Councilman Kuefler as to what type of sales were proposed, the applicant ex- plained that vacuum cleaners would be available for demonstration and sale upon customers' premises and that this would be similar to the activity which he currently pursued from his home. An extensive discussion then ensued relative to the type of sales which would be proposed and the City Manager noted the concern expressed previously as to the enforcement of ordinance provisions prohibiting retail sales in residential districts. Mayor Cohen commented that it appeared the basic issue was how much latitude could be permitted in residential zones while effective control was maintained. He stated that citizens in the City were recognizing the problem of business activities in residential districts throughout the City, and that it was incumbent upon the Council and the Planning Commission to address the problem and reach a reasonable and workable decision. Councilman Britts suggested that the previously pro- posed joint meeting with the Planning Commission be scheduled as soon as possible to discuss this and other issues. In further discussion Councilman Kuefler inquired whether the property had been bought for the express purpose of conducting a vacuum cleaner repair service. The applicant responded in the affirmative. Motion to Approve Following further discussion there was a motion by Application No. 73001 Councilman Britts, seconded by Councilman Kuefler to (Richard Johnson) approve Planning Commission Application No. 73001 subject to the following conditions, with particular emphasis on the first: 1. Retail sales of any kind are prohibited. 2. Driving and parking areas shall be paved and delineated so to allow turnaround capability and adequate parking for customer vehicles with the paving to be completed no later than June 1, 1973. 3. The permit is subject to annual review from the date of issue with the provision that the site shall be inspected on or about June 1, 1973 to -4- 2-28-73 assure that site improvements have been com- pleted and that the -operation conforms with the conditions of approval. Further Discussion of Further discussion ensued and Councilman Leary stated Application No. 73001 his pessimism of the Council's ability to control the illegal business activities generated as outgrowth of special home occupations. He suggested the possibilty of terminating special home occupation provisions. It was . suggested that a moratorium on the issuance of such special use permits be declared, commencing with the subject application. Mayor Cohen stated that as a matter of principle, he agreed with Councilman Leary, but that as a practical matter the Council should act on the subject application. Councilman Britts also noted the extensive discussion and consideration by the Planning Commission regarding the subject application and their recommendation. Approve Application The Mayor then called for a vote. Voting in favor, were: No. 73001 Mayor Cohen, Councilman Britts and Councilman Kuefler. (Richard Johnson) . Voting against: Councilman Leary. Motion passed. Discussion of Proposed In further discussion regarding the questions raised by' Evaluation of Retail Uses the subject application, Councilman Britts stated the in Residential Zones. and Council 'should declare a moritorium on special home Relative Ordinance occupation permits so that the issue could be discussed and evaluated with the Planning Commission. Council- man Kuefler stated that he agreed that a moritorium should be established effective immediately so that the staff, the Planning Commission and the Council could proceed with a thorough review of the ordinance special home occupation provisions as soon as possible. Action to Direct Resolution There was a motion by Councilman Leary, seconded by Establishing 90 Day Mora- Councilman Kuefler to direct the staff to prepare a reso- torium on Issuance of lution establishing a 90 day moratorium on the issuance Special Home Occupation of special home occupation permits, to allow the Permits Planning Commission and Council the opportunity to review and discuss the merits of the ordinance require- ments. The City Manager commented that such action would be interpreted that no new applications would be taken for special home occupation permits commencing immedi- ately. Mayor Cohen called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Kuefler, and Britts. Voting against:. none. Motion passed. Recess The meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. and resumed at 10:00 P.M. Comments on Pending Mayor Cohen noted that a number of persons were Water Distribution Study present who were intere-sted in the water distribution study agenda item. The City Manager dommented that further basic information was being developed but was not available for the present meeting. The Mayor then asked those present if there. were any particular ques- tions and. stated that the issue would be discussed at an upcoming meeting . -5- 2-2--673