Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-17 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 11,2017 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Bjorge,Franceschelli,Rich Members Absent: Kuyper Also Present: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a. Approve Planning Commission Minutes MOTON by Rich second by Bj orge to approve the minutes of June 13, 2017. Voting for: Rotty, Bjorge, Rich. Abstain: Franceschelli. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings—Chair Rotty opened the public hearings a. Conditional Use Permit Application to Allow an Auto Sales Use within the B-1 Zoning District-Continued This is a continuation from the June 13, 2017,meeting. The location is 923 8th Street. The applicant,Ms. Tara Fonseca, was present to answer questions. The unresolved questions dealt with where staging and parking of vehicles would occur on site as well as the location of vehicle inventory. There are three conditions for approval: 1. The applicant obtains all necessary building peiuiits from the city's building official. 2. A sign penult is obtained for any external signage that may be placed on the premises. 3. Other conditions as may be recommended by the Planning Commission. Chair Rotty asked if there will be staging of vehicles and where that will be. Ms. Fonseca stated the mall owner will allow five slots for parking of vehicles in the area behind the gas station. They probably will not be parking vehicles there as they want to do more internet sales. They just need the permit to obtain their license in order to start the business. There would be no parking of vehicles in front of the mall or the gas station. The five slots behind the gas station would be roped off. Chair Rotty noted there is traffic flow through that area for vehicles coming behind the gas station, so the vehicles would have to be out of the way for that traffic flow. Ms. Fonseca stated right now that area is full with other vehicles. Chair Rotty clarified the owner of the property has guaranteed you a safe location that won't inhibit traffic flow or anything else. Ms. Fonseca stated yes;they were told they could have five spaces that would not inhibit traffic flow. They will not be doing any mechanical work. Member Franceschelli stated it sounds like you have the vehicles for people to do a test drive, finalize the sale and take it off the lot. Ms. Fonseca stated that is exactly what they want to work towards. It will not be a big thing where people are coming in to look at cars all day long. Member Franceschelli asked why she selected this site. Ms. Fonseca stated every other place in the entire south metro is over$1200 a month which she cannot afford. This space is significantly less and allows her to start a new business. Planning Commission Minutes July 12,2017 Page 2 Member Rich stated at the last meeting they were wondering about staging the car for washing and cleaning it and where that would occur. Ms. Fonseca stated that would probably be in her driveway. MOTION by Bjorge, second by Rich to close the public hearing. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Rich to approve the conditional use permit allowing an auto sales use at 923 8th Street with three contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b. Fairhill Estate at North Creek Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment The applicant and developer have asked that this be continued to the August 8,2017, meeting. MOTION by Rich, second by Franceschelli to continue the public hearing to August 8, 2017. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Discussion on Revising the Home Occupation Ordinance This item was previously discussed in May 2017, and is a substantial change to the current home occupation ordinance. The first change is to have two categories for home, occupations;permitted home occupations and special home occupations. Permitted would be those uses allowed by the city without additional planning commission approval. All parking would be contained within the existing driveway. They generate little, if any traffic. Examples are art studios, consulting services and tailoring. The special home occupations would include barber and beauty services,massage therapy, photography studio, etc. The difference between the two is the special would allow for one additional employee who does not reside on the premises. They would also require an interim use permit approved by the planning commission. Currently home occupations are approved through a conditional use permit process and stay with the property. An interim use permit would allow for the use to not transfer with the property. It would be issued for an initial one-year period, after that the permit can be re-issued for up to three years. The initial permit would require a public hearing at the planning commission. Subsequent renewals would not require a public hearing; however,property owners within 350 feet would be notified of the renewal. The second change to the ordinance is the addition of a general provisions and performance standards section. The current code is not specific and puts staff in the position of interpreting the code. The revision would be more specific and provide some teeth to the ordinance. It would regulate noise, light and hours of operation. The revised ordinance lists uses that would be prohibited in a residential neighborhood. Examples are service repair or painting of vehicles, dispatch centers,medical or dental clinic,rental businesses, contracting, excavating, welding or machine shops, commercial kennels and veterinary clinics,tow truck services, sale or use of hazardous materials in excess of consumer quantities which are packaged for consumption by individual households for personal care or household use, any another use of residential property deemed to be detrimental or inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. Member Bjorge suggested clarifying the internet sales portion. Staff stated technically they are running a business from their home. If it is mainly computer work and phone Planning Commission Minutes July 12,2017 Page 3 calls,they have not been required to obtain a permit. Staff will make the internet sales portion more clear. Some are not only making calls all day,but are also holding events. In the revised ordinance, it would not need a permit. Member Bjorge stated some have social events or parties and that should be stated. Staff noted as an example,Tupperware parties are limited to four per year. Member Bjorge asked if the general provisions apply to permitted and special permits. Staff stated they do. Member Bj orge stated some things under general provisions and performance standards don't align with what are permitted uses. Such as not being able to have internal or external alterations or involve construction features not customarily found in residential dwellings and then allowing a salon. Staff stated salons are not changing walls,just adding plumbing. That is the purpose of a home occupation is for the home to be the primary use and the business is secondary. Member Bjorge asked for the reason for allowing one employee. Staff stated most cities allow no additional employees or one. More are leaning towards none. Member Bj orge liked the revisions to the home occupation ordinance. Member Rich stated what may be disappointing is the number of additional employees. He understood the point of complying with performance standards, although he could see two or three employees. He liked the clarity for permitted and special occupations. This is a substantial expansion that may not satisfy everyone. He asked for examples of interim use permits. Staff stated off premise directional signage is an interim use for signage for new housing or commercial development. Member Rich liked the fact it did not go with the property. Under the general provisions, he pointed out the home occupation is incidental and doesn't change the character of the house. This is extremely important and applicants need to be aware of this. He also agreed with not using more than 45% of the gross floor area of a dwelling unit. He asked about no retail sales and delivery of products and that this could interfere with occupations such as Tupperware sales. Staff stated retail sales means we don't want it open to the general public. If we have a one-chair barber shop,they could sell their products to their customers because the products are incidental to their main use. Member Rich asked to clarify that it can't be an actual retail service. He felt the revisions cover the items discussed. Member Franceschelli stated as far as deliveries,we are thinking of a FedEx truck coming in. We don't want a semi coming to unload a year's worth of supplies at one time. He liked the structure of the ordinance and it allows the neighborhoods to remain neighborhoods and not centers for commerce in large scale. The suggestions are worth pursuing. Member Rich suggested one way of resolving the additional employees could be that is part of the special home occupation permit. We could have a normal cap and the ability to consider more. That may need to be part of a public hearing. Member Franceschelli asked where would you set the cap. Member Rich stated it could be based on the circumstances. A home with a long driveway, a lot of parking area would be a special circumstance. It would be reviewed by the planning commission. Member Bjorge recalled another comment was that you could have five employees,but only one is in the house at a given point in time. Staff was concerned with how do you ensure that. Member Bj orge asked how would we track the number of employees. Member Franceschelli stated you have a licensed person doing haircuts and we don't require them to register with the city,but those licenses are in the public domain. Member Rich stated Planning Commission Minutes July 12,2017 Page 4 you could say non-consecutive,but how do you regulate it. Member Franceschelli stated there are a lot of what-ifs that we can't decide. Chair Rotty liked the interim use permit and that the use would not run with the property. Existing home CUP's would continue. Home occupation shouldn't become a nuisance in the neighborhood. It should be transparent to the neighbors. If they want to expand, that is why we have a commercial district. This is a step in the right direction. The commission would like to continue with the process to revise the code. Member Franceschelli asked at what point does a home business become something that the EDA would look at to assist into branching out to a commercial business. Member Rich suggested when they exceed the perfou nance standards. Member Franceschelli stated that may be something to alert the EDA to at the time; that a resident needs assistance identifying where to move or the next logical step. Chair Rotty directed staff to incorporate the commission's comments into the ordinance and discuss it again next month. Regarding the current CUP's the property owner could amend the CUP. If they want to obtain an interim use permit and expand on it, that could have a sunset provision. A resident in attendance stated she could not start a day spa with one employee. Her initial goal would be to have one hair, one nail, one massage, one skin care; so it would be four to five people to have the business she wants. That is her only concern. Staff will bring this back as a public hearing on August 8,2017. b. 1st Street Complaint There is an issue with a resident dealing with a business on First Street. The business owner was unable to attend this meeting,so the discussion will be held at the August 8, 2017, meeting. Member Rich stated at the last meeting a public hearing was held and the commission made a recommendation and in the process,the City Council chose a different recommendation. The minutes for the planning commission meeting were approved tonight. He asked without the minutes, does the City Council have access to the comments. We do a thorough recording of the comments and the citizens who speak to the commission. He asked if the City Council is at a disadvantage in not having the minutes before they take action on something. Staff stated a couple of the residents were also at the City Council meeting and expressed the same concerns they had at the planning commission meeting. Staff does not provide the City Council with draft minutes,because they are not official until the planning commission approves them. Staff did outline to the City Council the concerns expressed at the commission meeting. Member Rich stated his concern is that the planning commission has the obligation of holding the public hearing and getting the feedback. If he were a Councilmember,he would want to be privy to the body of information the planning commission considered. He wondered about the process with only a one week turnaround when there isn't an opportunity to present the good material compiled. Councilmembers have to take a position with some of the residents coming back. The City Council doesn't hold a public hearing. He was interested in having a procedure where the items the commission has to take a position on and forward with a recommendation of yes or no to the City Council that it would seem to be more appropriate that they get the official record. Planning Commission Minutes July 12,2017 Page 5 That introduces a delay,but everything goes to a certain timeline and people have to meet those timelines. Staff stated that would be a substantial delay in the process and with the way state statute is for the approval of applications,that could create some issues. Member Rich stated with the fine job staff does with presenting the character of the discussion,he doesn't know how much flavor of that comes through in the City Council's consideration. He is not questioning the City Council can see something differently than the commission,he would want them to have sufficient information. Member Franceschelli stated they can view the video the next day, so they can get the flavor of the meetings. That public record is just as valid as our official record. They are getting it; it is up to them to devote the time to it. Chair Rotty stated the City Council and the commission hold a workshop periodically. This sounds like a good discussion for that workshop. Our goal is,are they getting the information they need to make the best decision possible. 5. Adjourn MOTION by ijorge second by Rich to adjourn at 7:55 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, G' Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant