Based on the context provided, here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names and roles identified. [00:00] **Chair Pearson**: Good evening. I call to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission, December 5th, 2024. Will you have the roll call? Pearson, here. Willenbring is absent. Campbell is also absent. Moli, here. Di, here. Hagen, here. Wilson, here. Thank you. With the Pledge of Allegiance, please. [00:25] **All**: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:35] **Chair Pearson**: Okay, we have approval of the agenda. Is there anything you need to add to the agenda? I take it as no. So, somebody move to approve the agenda. [00:45] **Commissioner Hagen**: I make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. [00:47] **Commissioner Wilson**: Second. [00:48] **Chair Pearson**: Thank you. All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? Approval of the agenda is accepted. Approval of minutes: we have two before us, October 3rd and November 7th. October 3rd first—any changes from anyone? No. A motion to accept as presented? [01:05] **Commissioner Moli**: I make a motion to approve the October 3rd minutes. [01:08] **Commissioner Di**: Second. [01:10] **Chair Pearson**: All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? [01:12] **Commissioner Wilson**: Abstain. I wasn't here. [01:15] **Chair Pearson**: I will too. November 7th minutes—does anyone have any changes for those? If not, may I have a motion to approve as presented? [01:25] **Commissioner Di**: I guess I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. [01:28] **Commissioner Hagen**: You were here, so if you'd second it, please? [01:30] **Commissioner Wilson**: Second, sorry. [01:32] **Chair Pearson**: All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? The motion to approve as presented is accepted. Next is the Open Forum. This is an opportunity for anyone in the audience to present something that is not on the agenda already. So if anyone cares to voice an opinion or a point, please come forward. I'll open the Open Forum. Seeing no one moving to the front, I'll close the Forum then and we'll go on to old business, of which there is none. New business: a public hearing for ZOP 4066 Goodwin Avenue North, a conditional use permit for the home occupation of a dental workshop. Luke? [02:15] **Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager)**: Thank you, Chair. So, on the screen, we'll have it showed up here in just a moment. Whoops, let me switch. Bear with me just a moment while I get things straightened out there. So, on the screen there is the property in question. The address is 4066 Goodwin Avenue. It's directly across from Goodwin Park, and this general area is located north of 40th Street. The zoning of the site is R1, so that is our very low-density residential district where home occupations are allowed through the conditional use permit process or CUP process. The applicant is seeking formal approval to continue operating a dental workshop which specializes in making crowns and dentures. Here's a closer look at the site in question. The business operations are contained within the applicant's garage, and the applicant is the property owner in this instance. The applicant describes the use as being similar in intensity and in nature to like a wood shop or jewelry repair business. Equipment used for the business includes polishing machines, suction units, and molds for polymer impression devices. Reportedly, there are no customer visits on-site and there are no non-standard deliveries for the use—no specialty deliveries, in other words. The applicant essentially picks up and drops off the dental products to dental offices. Conditional use permits are subject to certain review criteria found in the city's ordinance. Here's just a quick summary of the review criteria the city must use when evaluating these requests. There’s one set, and then I'll follow up with a more specific set of criteria: compliance with the city's comprehensive plan, compatibility of the use with the zoning district, no nuisance effects generated, no traffic congestion or parking issues created, the use must be adequately served by public services, no excessive costs incurred for public services, and minimal impacts to the environment and natural features. Specifically for home occupations—or in other words, a home business—the business must be conducted by a family member residing on the property. Up to one non-family member may also be employed by the use. The operations must occur fully within the home or an accessory structure; in this case, it's the garage. The use cannot create noticeable externalities. Hours of operation shall be specified in the conditional use permit. And then finally, if the use requires a license or outside approval, it will essentially be tied to the conditional use permit. I do want to address this specific criteria: per the City Attorney's office, the applicant is solely responsible for ensuring that they have received any applicable state or federal approvals or licenses to operate the use. That's the responsibility of the applicant, not the responsibility of the city. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that addresses this issue. With all that said, staff finds that the conditional use permit review criteria of the ordinance has been satisfied as detailed in the staff report on file, and staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the following four conditions: 1. Hours of operation for the use shall be from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Sunday through Saturday. 2. No more than one outside worker shall be employed for the use. 3. All signage for the use shall comply with the city's regulations. 4. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain and maintain any required approvals or licenses from state or federal government agencies to operate the use. As a reminder, this is a public hearing. The applicant is here if you have questions; otherwise, I am available. Thank you. [05:55] **Chair Pearson**: Thank you. I do have one question for you. Item number one of your list: hours of operation from 9:00 to 5:00. Since it's a very low-noise, low-observable occupation, why would we limit it to 5:00? [06:08] **Luke McClanahan**: That was what was asked for. Just in my conversations with the applicant, those were the general business hours. If the Commission would like to adjust those, it's certainly at the discretion of the Commission to make updates. [06:20] **Chair Pearson**: I'm just questioning the 5:00 PM limitation, but if the applicant is okay with it, that's perfectly fine. Anyone else have any questions? [06:28] **Commissioner Moli**: I do, Chair. Luke, is there a limitation on how many customers could be served at the same time in a home occupation? [06:38] **Luke McClanahan**: The city's ordinance does not specify how many customer visits are limited. In this instance, the applicant states that there are no customer visits. The applicant goes to the dental offices, picks up the products, works on them in the garage, and then returns those products. [06:55] **Commissioner Moli**: As a follow-up, one of the conditions is that there should only be one outside employee. If the business owner has people that live with them, are they excluded from that condition? [07:10] **Luke McClanahan**: Family members residing there would be allowed. But this is such a specialized operation with specific qualifications needed; it’s likely this is just a one-person operation. [07:30] **Commissioner Moli**: Okay, thank you. [07:31] **Chair Pearson**: Anyone else have questions? No? I'd like to offer the applicant the opportunity to come forward if he wishes; otherwise, we'll just proceed. [07:40] **Luke McClanahan**: Chair, just a reminder this is a public hearing, so we want to open it up for any comments as well. [07:45] **Chair Pearson**: I'll open the public hearing on this issue. Anyone wishing to make a comment, please come forward. [07:50] **Robert Betts (Resident)**: I'm Robert Betts. I live at 4044, next door. We've been there since 1977. At a certain point, I decided my garage was not big enough. I applied for a permit, and the requirement then was that I had to dig another foundation, like putting a basement under the garage. The other requirement was that I had to be 20 feet off the line. Reason why I bring that up is at 4066, the garage was also made bigger and supposedly the city gave a variance so that garage could be 4 feet from the property line. Right now, we're experiencing noise from this operation. I can tell when he gets a big order because he's working out there late at night, even 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock at night. I don't know what's making the noise—some kind of consolidation unit or something to mix chemicals. We're not too happy with it, but we haven't said anything until now. I'm worried this is going to become even a bigger operation. There's also a vent on the garage that vents out chemical fumes. That’s kind where we’re at. [09:25] **Chair Pearson**: So you'd be in favor of the 5:00 PM limitation then, I take it? [09:28] **Robert Betts**: If it's going to continue, yes. But we're not happy with the noise. [09:35] **Chair Pearson**: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to come forward for the public hearing part? [09:40] **Mike Marone (Resident)**: Hi, my name is Mike Marone and I live right across the street from 4066. Our houses are straight across from each other. We have an office upstairs that looks over our driveway and I can see everything that goes on. We’ve lived there for 38 years. Honestly, if it wasn't that Z leaves at 9:00 every morning—I think to take a package out—I wouldn’t even know he had a business in there. We never hear any noise. I don't know about the venting, but there’s no negative issue from my perspective. We’re retired, so we see and hear what's going on all the time. They’ve been the very best neighbors we’ve ever had. They contribute to the community well. I have a question: all these people working from home now on computers, I assume they don't need permits? Is it only for products made in a garage? I'd like to know where the limits are. [11:05] **Chair Pearson**: I'll have to pass that question to Luke as the expert on the requirements. [11:10] **Luke McClanahan**: The city's ordinance is intended to review home occupations when there are externalities—in this case, specialized equipment. Other triggers include customer visits, non-standard deliveries, or noise. For most folks who just work on a computer, like a graphic designer, that does not rise to the level of a home occupation. It’s only when operations may have an impact on neighboring properties. [11:45] **Mike Marone**: I understand that. But in this case, there's just no sign of it other than him going out for a cup of coffee every morning. Thank you. [11:55] **Chair Pearson**: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? [12:00] **Robert Betts**: I just don't want to have to put up with the noise at any time of the day. [12:05] **Z Cha (Applicant)**: I am Z Cha. I reside at 4066. Yeah, I'm not sure how we even got to where we are now. I thought when I moved into this neighborhood it was going to be my last place; I really enjoy living there. As far as the noise goes, if you stand outside the house, you couldn't even hear it. If you put your ear up against my garage, maybe. The vent in the garage is just to vent out air to control the climate inside; I’m not sure where he gets the "fumes" from. I assure you there’s nothing going on in there. I’ve always been kind to neighbors; we’ve always made food and handed it out to everyone. I don't know why some neighbors lash out at us and the kids. I’m doing my best to not escalate this. I was notified by the city that I needed this, and I’m trying to be obedient to the laws. [13:45] **Chair Pearson**: Can I ask you a question, sir? How long have you been working in the business in your garage? [13:50] **Z Cha**: Probably a couple years. [13:52] **Chair Pearson**: Is your garage finished? [13:54] **Z Cha**: Just the one stall. It is separated. [14:00] **Chair Pearson**: And how did it come to your attention that you needed a conditional use permit? [14:05] **Z Cha**: I was notified through the city. [14:08] **Chair Pearson**: All right, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to come forward? [14:15] **Unidentified Resident**: I have a question. I live two houses down. I just moved there 4 years ago. He is an old friend of my brother's. My kids go over and play with his kids. When I have trouble with a lawnmower or snowblower, I go to him like a big brother. I’ll sit at the door and his kids say "he’s working in the garage," and I can’t hear anything. I didn’t even know he had a business until six months down the road. It looks just like a garage. [15:10] **Commissioner Di**: I have a question for either Luke or the applicant. He has been operating before seeking this, correct? Was it for lack of knowing he needed to do this? [15:25] **Luke McClanahan**: I believe the applicant did not know the regulations. Many property owners operate home businesses without knowing they need a permit. The goal is to bring them into compliance. [15:45] **Chair Pearson**: The applicant's letter also addresses that; he was not aware of the requirement. [15:50] **Commissioner Di**: I appreciate it because we want compliance, not punishment. But this is a health issue, working on dental issues. Has he contacted the state? Is he okay with the state? [16:05] **Luke McClanahan**: That gets complicated regarding the FDA. That is fully on the applicant to ensure he does that. The City Attorney's direction is that the city has no liability there, similar to a barber shop needing a license from the state cosmetology board. [16:25] **Commissioner Di**: That’s good to know. If it's on them with the state, I'm good. [16:30] **Chair Pearson**: Anyone else have questions? I'll close the public hearing. I'll ask for a motion. [16:40] **Commissioner Hagen**: I’ll make a motion to approve the resolution for the conditional use permit at 4066 Goodwin Avenue. [16:45] **Commissioner Wilson**: Second. [16:46] **Chair Pearson**: All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? Motion is passed. Next is a public hearing on the Larson Family Real Estate LLLP and the United Properties 3M Imation planned unit development amendment to allow an additional pylon sign at 3490 Hayward Avenue North. Luke? [17:10] **Luke McClanahan**: Thank you, Chair. The location of this site is on the Forefront technology and office campus. The proposed pylon sign would be located at 3490 Hayward Avenue, the Superior Third-Party Logistics site. The zoning is 3M Imation PUD. The applicant is seeking flexibility to establish a 50-foot tall pylon sign. By code, you’re only allowed 30 feet tall. Also, pylon signs are usually only allowed on commercial property, and this is not zoned commercial. However, PUD zoning allows flexibility if there is a public benefit. There are 13 existing signs on the 120-acre campus. This additional sign would be on the west side for visibility from I-694. Staff finds it acceptable as it’s placed away from other signs to prevent clutter. MnDOT reviewed it and only noted that illumination should be kept at a reasonable level. Staff recommends approval. [19:15] **Chair Pearson**: Anyone have questions for Luke? [19:18] **Commissioner Di**: Chair, Luke, is there a possibility for the sign to turn into a digital sign later? [19:25] **Luke McClanahan**: If they wanted to convert to dynamic or electronic, they would have to come back for a conditional use permit. [19:35] **Chair Pearson**: Would the applicant care to make any comment? No? I open the public hearing. Seeing no one, I close the public hearing. Is there a motion? [19:50] **Commissioner Wilson**: So moved. [19:52] **Commissioner Moli**: Second. [19:54] **Chair Pearson**: All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? Motion is passed. Onto staff liaison update. [20:05] **Luke McClanahan**: Just a couple of quick updates. I do not expect a January meeting as we didn't receive any land use applications by the deadline. Wishing you a good holiday season. [20:15] **Chair Pearson**: Thank you. Any updates from Commissioners? No? Council Liaison Jake Ingebrigtsen? [20:25] **Jake Ingebrigtsen (Council Member)**: This will be my last meeting here as your liaison. My term expires January 6th. I want to thank our past city planner Emily Shively, our current planner Luke, and also Andrew Gitzlaff. I also want to thank all commissioners. I don't think this is the end of my political career, but we'll save that for another day. It has been a pleasure. [21:10] **Chair Pearson**: Thank you. That finishes the agenda. Motion to adjourn? [21:15] **Commissioner Hagen**: Motion to adjourn. [21:17] **Commissioner Di**: Second. [21:18] **Chair Pearson**: All those in favor, aye. Meeting is closed.