Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022 09-12 CCM WORK SESSION MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 CITY HALL—CITY COUNCIL/EDACHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority(EDA)met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Mike Elliott at 8:25 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Mike Elliott and Councilmember/Commissioner Marquita Butler,April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, CommuniTy Development Director Meg McMahan, Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, City Attorney Jason Hill, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. ZONING CODE/UDO UPDATE DISCUSSION City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the item and invited CommuniTy Development Director Meg McMahan to continue the Staff presentation. Ms. McMahan pointed out the Zoning Code update began in 2018 and has taken longer than expected due to COVID-19, civil unrest,and the Department's focus on the Opportunity Site. The City has been working in partnership with consultant Bolton& Menk to update the City's Zoning Code, as well as the sign code and platting code. These three sections of the City Code are being rewritten and combined under a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As part of adoption of a new UDO, many properties within the City will be rezoned to align with the new regulations and new zoning districts. In addition, some existing zoning districts will be updated with new, more modern, regulations. Bolton & Menk representative Mike Thompson explained zoning and land use policies have historically contributed to systemic racism,and the legal separation of people and uses. Redlining, restrictive covenants, large lot sizes, and segregating land uses are all policy examples of how this has manifested. Brooklyn Center's history is not as explicit in this regard, but its traditionally auto-oriented design patterns has created issues of job access and transportation equity. Mr. Thompson stated he Zoning Code is addressing steps outlined by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan including mixed-use districts, neighborhood commercial nodes, organize around transit, zoning flexibility in exchange for identified goals of sustainability, housing affordability, and affordable commercial spaces, multi-generational housing needs, home-based businesses, and 9/12/22 -1- supporting more housing options and more affordable home ownership, through strategies like ADU's, Duplex's, and mixed-use zoning. Mr. Thompson noted the code is being updated to align the code with the city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan, bring the City zoning code into compliance with state law, reorganize the code so it is clearer and easier to use, modernize regulations to ensure they meet community needs and promote equity, and improve customer service and regional competitiveness. The overall goal is to create a strong Zoning Code for city adoption, with the understanding it is to be a living document to be revised over time. Mr. Thompson pointed out there has been a lot of community engagement efforts including info sheets, full drafts sections online, a taskforce, recorded webinars, online open houses, surveys, an interactive map, and online resources. Mr. Thompson showed a sign with a list of current districts in comparison to the proposed districts with corresponding colors. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson asked if PUD-mixed would be a catchall. Mr. Thompson stated PUD-mixed is an existing district that is grandfathered in but would fall under a new categorization. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan explained he has heard the purpose of the new mixed-use district allows for a lot of flexibility and creativity. He asked if the district has specifics of what is not allowed. Mr. Thompson confirmed there are several details pertaining what is allowed and what is not allowed in the new mixed-use district. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan noted his appreciation of making the Code more accessible and understandable. Mr. Thompson explained single-family housing will remain largely as it is today, with minimal changes to siting,heights, or lot sizes. The draft Code proposes reducing minimum lot size in R2 District from 6500 square feet to 5000 square feet. Rl remains the main residential district for much of the city, whereas R2 is concentrated along the Minneapolis border. The primary difference between the two districts is that R2 allows for smaller lot sizes, duplexes, and higher unit density. Density in R1 districts is 3-5 units per acre and 3-10 units per acre in RZ districts. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves asked what the purpose is of R2. Mr.Thompson stated R2 is reflective of the historic pattern of overflow from Minneapolis and is allows for current conditions to continue. Dr. Edwards asked if the reduction in the land size correlates with cost. One of the historic issues with land development is related to making larger lot sizes to make properties cost-prohibitive. Mr. Thompson conf'irmed the Code allows for smaller lots to allow for more affordability. Ms. McMahan pointed out the City is largely platted. The reduction in lot size increases the number of lots where a duplex would be admissible. The intent is to create more homeownership �I opportunities. 9/12/22 -2- Mayor/President Elliott stated they are not likely to see a flood of duplexes. Mr. Thompson stated it is not guaranteed,but the opportunity is created. Mayor/President Elliott stated there is a higher likelihood to see more duplexes rather than creating smaller lots. Mr. Thompson confirmed Mayor/President Elliott's statement was correct. Mr. Thompson noted it seems like the City Council/EDA believes the Code is on the right track. Mayor/President Elliott stated that he didn't mean that with his comments. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan pointed out the change would allow for more opportunities to change a single-family home. If the Code doesn't encourage substandard construction, then Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan supports it. Mr. Thompson stated any building would have to go through regular permitting and inspections, so there would not be substandard construction. Mr. Thompson stated Accessory Dwelling Units allow for conversion or construction of ADUs within the R1 and R2 districts. The allowable ADU height maximum of 16 feet must be more than 200 square feet but less than the primary structure. There may only be one ADU unit per lot. The property owner must live in either the principal structure or ADU, and file a deed restriction requiring the property to remain homesteaded. An ADU must comply with all applicable building codes. Mayor/President Elliott stated the illustration shows a house got taller. He asked if the addition is the blue roof area. He asked how that is an ADU. Mr. Thompson stated it has entirely separate living space, utilities, entrance, and kitchen. Mayor/President Elliott asked if the current Code allows for such a change. Mr. Thompson stated it doesn't. Ms. McMahan stated only single-family homes are permitted on such lots currently. A residence cannot have two kitchens according to current Code. Folks can add a kitchenette, but there isn't another oven allowed. Mayor/President Elliott asked if the changes would allow for someone to have a commercial space at a residence. Ms. McMahan stated there is an upcoming slide on home occupations, so they can answer the question then. It ultimately depends on exterior impacts. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she has a detached garage. She asked if the garage could be plumbed for a kitchen, then build a new garage and also have a shed on the property. Ms. McMahan stated each property is allowed two accessory structures, so there could be a shed and a garage with setback limitations. Mayor/President Elliott stated the ADU is limited to one with a certain square footage of less than the primary structure. He asked if two ADUs could be built on one property. Mr. Thompson stated the proposed Code only allows for one ADU. Mayor/President Elliott stated someone could have a 2200 square foot home with a 2100 square foot ADU. It may make more sense to have a 2200 square foot home with two ADUs, both of which could be under 1000 square feet. 9/12/22 -3- Ms. McMahan stated they wanted to work within the existing Code. While a home may be 2200 square feet, the footprint isn't likely 2200 square feet. The rationale is that if a garage can be a certain size,the ADU could be a similar size. The size of the ADU must be less than the footprint square footage of the existing residence. Hopefully, the new ADU would make homeownership more affordable and create opportunities in the City. � Mayor/President Elliott stated more ADUs could be built for more housing, because it may even make less of an impact than a single ADU. Ms. McMahan stated a Code could be drafted to allow for that, but there are considerations to be made such as parking. She noted she doesn't know of anywhere in the Country that allows for more than one ADU. Mayor/President Elliott stated he would like Staff to complete more research on the topic. Mr. Thompson stated Accessory Dwelling Units allow for conversion or construction of ADUs within the R1 and R2 districts. There is a question if any single-family home would be allowed an ADU or if the property owner must live on-site. Homesteading is proposed in the Code, but it is up to the Council. Councilmember/Corrunissioner Ryan sta.ted other residential districts with a single-family home should allow for ADUs, and the property owner should live on-site. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves agreed with Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan. She asked if the homesteading could be reviewed later on. Mr. Thompson confirmed the Code could be changed later on. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson asked if she could have a physical copy of the report provided to her. She added she agrees other residential districts with a single-family home should allow for ADUs, and the property owner should live on-site. She asked if both properties would be homesteaded and how would that impact property taxes. Mr.Thompson stated only one unit could be homesteaded. Ms. McMahan stated one person homesteads their personal property, and the homeowner can live in either the primary unit or the ADU. The property just has to remain homesteaded, and there isn't a need for a renter's license. There is one address. Mr. Thompson stated as for driveways, the new Code proposes that all new driveways be constructed of hard surface and not gravel. Driveways must be connected to an accessory structure that can store a vehicle. Vehicles parked on side- and rear-yards must be parked on a approved hard surface. One- and two-family homes are limiting to one driveway per parcel. A driveway permit is required prior to any work commencing. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson noted some driveways include a third stall of sorts made of gravel. Mr. Thompson stated the current code would grandfather in the gravel, but it could not be expanded. 9/12/22 -4- Mayor/President Elliott asked what the rationale is for the driveway Code. Ms. McMahan stated I the current Code doesn't define the material of driveway, and it has been a Code enforcement � issue. Gravel can be any number of materials, even a few rocks on some grass. Some vehicles ' end up parking in the yard because there is no definition of driveway materials which results in I� calls from neighbors. �, 1 o have ermeable surfaces I� 1 i asked if it is more environmentall friend t Ma or/President E 1 ott Y Y Y P i such as gravel. Ms. McMahan stated gravel is not permeable, and it has less of an environmental �I advantage because it erodes and can enter the stormwater or sewer system. Pavers would also be I a permissible use, and some are pertneable. Mayor/President Elliott asked if underground parking is allowed under the proposed Code. Ms. 'i McMahan stated underground parking is not mentioned in the Code. I Councilmember/Commissioner Graves noted when she moved into her house, the garage was �, already set up as a workshop rather than a garage. After moving in, she had to redo her driveway. 'I She asked if she would have had to convert the garage into a place to store her car under the ; proposed Code to have been able to redo the driveway. Ms. McMahan stated the intention of the �, Code is that a building to store a vehicle must have access to a driveway to connect to the street. ' Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated the proposed wording is problematic. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves asked if a looped driveway would count as one driveway I per parcel. Ms. McMahan stated the number of curb cuts is what matters. The lots in Brooklyn Center are predominantly small. The number of curb cuts also impact traffic, pedestrians, construction, and more. Mayor/President Elliott pointed out there are U-shaped driveways. Mr. Thompson stated the U- shaped driveways would be grandfathered in. Mayor/President Elliott stated he doesn't like not allowing U-shaped driveways. ' Mayor/President Elliott added he would like to discuss large families. Family structures are cultural, and the houses are primarily designed for the nuclear family. Mr. Thompson explained the family definition was removed from the Code and reworded to be more flexible and widely applicable. Family doesn't necessarily mean related. The definition will be shared with the City Council/EDA at a later time. Mr. Thompson stated fences may be no more than four feet in height at the front property line,and no more than six feet in height along the rear and side property lines. Allowable materials include wood, metal, bricks, masonry or other similar materials designed for fencing. A fence may only use two different materials as currently proposed. The finished side of the fence must be facing out. A fence permit is required prior to any work commencing, regardless of the district. Mayor/President Elliott asked if the fence was previously eight feet in the back. Mr. Thompson confirmed the current code is eight feet. 9/12/22 -5- Mayor/President Elliott asked why the Code was changed to six feet from eight feet for rear and side property lines. Ms. McMahan stated an eight-foot fence is a structural build, but the City doesn't require a permit to build a fence. The eight-foot fence would have to be engineered, and there have been issues with that. Also, six-foot fences are standard and predominant throughout the community. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated the finished side facing out makes sense, but her neighbor recently put the finished side facing in. She asked if a building permit would be required by the proposed Code. Mr. Thompson confirmed the fence building permit would be required. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated permits can be costly. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked if the Code could include a requirement that the fence be one color. He explained he has received complaints previously about fences of multiple colors or lacking upkeep. Ms. McMahan stated it is within the purview of the City CounciUEDA to implement a singular color requirement. Mayor/President Elliott stated it would be tough because two different materials may be used in the fencing. It could eliminate creativity in homemaking. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves noted she is bothered by the six-foot height, especially since the permit would now be required. Mayor/President Elliott agreed with Councilmember/ Commissioner Graves. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated the eight-foot fence allows for more privacy. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated her neighbors have a high deck, so they can easily see over a six- or eight-foot fence. She pointed out they installed a fence to keep their children in. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves added an eight-foot fence is safer to surround a pool. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson added her neighbors that installed the fence backwards also have a hot tub. It basically encouraged other people to climb the fence. Mr. Thompson explained the new Code allows for home occupations, which is any gainful occupation or profession, carried on within a dwelling unit. Types of home occupation must have no exterior impact. The exterior impact requires conditional use and must go through the Planning Commission and City Council. Home occupation is regulated primarily based on impact, rather than use occurring within building. Intent is to make process less complicated, and more flexible. There may be no more than three employees, one of whom must live in the home. Also, all home occupations must confortn to applicable building codes. Mayor/President Elliott asked for clarification on the employee regulations. Mr. Thompson explained there may be no more than three employees,at least one of whom must live in the home. Mayor/President Elliott asked if it is three employees on the premises or employed at all. Mr. Thompson stated there can only be three employees on the premises. 9/12/22 -6- Mayor/President Elliott asked for more information on exterior impact. Mr. Thompson stated exterior impact could include traffic considerations, signage, or things of that nature. A more detailed list can be provided to the Council. Mayor/President Elliott asked if a hair salon or coffee shop would have to go the Planning Commission. Ms. McMahan stated only having one or two salon chairs, there wouldn't be much exterior impact. A coffee shop or boutique where there could be a dozen customers per day that can show up multiple at a time, then there would be an exterior impact. Mayor/President Elliott asked if someone could request an addition to create a home occupation space. Ms. McMahan confirmed someone could get a permit for an addition to create a home occupation space if the other Code regulations such as setbacks or materials. Mayor/President Elliott asked if the determination of exterior impact would be based on neighbor calls. Ms. McMahan stated neighbors may call in on their neighbors, and Staff responds to see if there is a violation. There is action taken based on the finding. There is more detail in the proposed Code that better defines the number of customers, number of cars, and more. Mayor/President Elliott stated a sign could be a clear violation whereas a home occupation with ten customers would only be noticed by neighbors. Therefore, it would rely on neighbors for enforcement. Ms. McMahan stated the language in the Code has a threshold of vehicles that can park. Most Code enforcement cases are gray. Behaviors may be bothersome but not a violation of the Code. Zoning is not a perfect science,and it is impossible to address every possible scenario. Staff will provide a more detailed copy of the proposed Code to see if the City CounciUEDA is comfortable. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated if she wanted to have a yoga business out of her house, having two or three people come by isn't an issue. However, if she were to host three classes each day with 20 customers, then she would have to seek out an appropriate permit from the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson added as for commercial vehicle parking, only Class 1-4 vehicles may park in residential districts. These include motorcycles, cars, trucks and vans, and buses and trucks with trailers. The proposed code intends to allow food truck parking. While food truck classification varies on truck type, they are generally a Class 4. Only one licensed commercial vehicle may be parked in a residential driveway at one time, and must be operated by a resident of the property. Under no circumstances shall a semi-truck or tractor-trailer combination be parked or stored off- street in a residential district. Mayor/President Elliott asked why the line was drawn at Class 4. Mr. Thompson explained there needs to be a line somewhere. Also, the majority of commercial trucks that would relate to home occupations fall within the Class 1 to Class 4 range. 9/12l22 -7- Ms. McMahan added the Class 5 is considered heavy industrial and likely used for shipping materials. That would not be necessary for a home occupation. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan pointed out the current standard in the Code cuts off at a certain vehicle height. The notion of restricting commercial vehicles is for aesthetic and preserving the quality of life in a neighborhood. Class 4 vehicles can be up to 16,000 pounds, and vehicles such as busses are too large. The City Council/EDA could instead consider a larger van or camper van as the ma�cimum vehicle size. Mayor/President Elliott noted he agrees with the Class 4 vehicles at 16,000 pounds. He noted electric vehicles are heavier than gas vehicles. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan explained he is more concerned with size than weight. Ms. McMahan added Staff has considered ease of enforcement. Determining the weight of the vehicle is difficult,but the Class is mandated by the State. Also,residential roads are not designed for truck traffic. The aesthetic of a neighborhood is an important component to consider. Mayor/President Elliott stated he appreciates the balance. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan pointed out height is easily measured and enforceable. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson explained her understanding of a food truck would likely fall into Class 5. Mr. Thompson confirmed food trucks fall under Class 4 according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. UPCOMING ITEMS • Zoning Code Update • Strategic Plans for years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 • Review Special Assessment Police/Franchise Fees • Emerald Ash Borer Policy Review • Community-Wide Survey • Attorney RFP Process • Franchise Fees • Audit RFP Process ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:43 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 9/12/22 -8- __ STATE OF MINNESOTA) COLJNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. Certification of Minutes CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER) The undersigned,being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, certifies: 1. That attached hereto is a full,true,and complete transcript of the minutes of a Work Session of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on September 12, 2022. 2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at Brooklyn Center City Hall. 3. That the City Council adopted said minutes at its September 26, 2022, Regular Session. ������������ City Clerk Mayor 9/12/22 -9-