Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 02-01 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 FEBRUARY 1, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7: 31 p.m. ROLL CALL 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7 , 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the December 7, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sander and Johnson. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the 1989 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary briefly introduced new Planning Commission member Mark Holmes and administered the oath office to Chairperson Malecki and Commissioners Sander, Johnson, and Holmes. CALL TO ORDER 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Malecki then called to order the 1990 Planning Commission at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. ELECT PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM The nomination of Commissioner Ainas was made by Commissioner Bernards and seconded by Commissioner Mann to be 1990 Planning Commission Pro tem. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, she called for a vote on the nomination of Commissioner Ainas. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Holmes. 2/1/90 1 Voting against: none. Commissioner Ainas was elected 1990 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary briefly explained to the Commission why the meeting had been rescheduled from January 25 to February 1. He explained that there was a proposal by F and M Drug to add a second level in the storage area of their tenant space in Brookview Plaza shopping center. He explained that the Planner and he had concluded that this would require a restrictive covenant to bind the use of the building in that area for storage so that the parking requirements could still be met. He stated that this would require Planning Commission and City Council approval. He explained that the Building Official made a finding that the second level to be installed was not really floor space, but was a catwalk system which provided access to storage racks, but was not really an addition to the building. The covenant was, therefore, unnecessary, but that finding was not made until after the meeting was rescheduled. DISCUSSION ITEM a) Group Home Study The Secretary then introduced the complete Group Home Study produced by Donn Wiski, of Resolution, Inc. He stated that Mr. Wiski had outlined a number of options for the City to pursue in amending its ordinances, but that the City does not have to adopt all of those options. He explained that one key change that may have to be made is in the definition of a family. He explained that under the current ordinance definition, a family can be persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, or up to six wards or clients with a resident family, or five unrelated people maintaining a common household. He stated that in all of these cases the persons living at a residence maintain a common household. He stated that Mr. Wiski had suggested looking at the possibility of allowing six unrelated persons to be considered a family to be consistent with the allowance of six wards or clients as a resident family. The Secretary went on to explain, under State law, six or fewer group home clients is classified as a permitted use in single family zoning districts. He also explained that, under State law, from seven to sixteen clients must be considered a permitted multiple family use of property. The Secretary then directed the Commission's attention to an article from the Zoning and Planning Law Report publication regarding the new Federal Fair Housing Act which addresses the status of group homes at various points. He pointed out that under State law, the term "residential facility" includes a broad range of types of clientele, from mentally retarded to mentally ill to chemically dependent to ex-offenders, etc. 2/1/90 2 The Secretary briefly discussed whether to allow some group homes in multiple family zones by special use permit. He stated that treating group homes as a special use may not be appropriate. He stated that the public hearings have tended to generate more heat than light. In the case of the Bill Kelly House, he pointed out, the applicant had meetings with the neighborhood before formal application to the Planning Commission. He stated that staff had suggested such meetings and that the hope was that there would be more understanding on the part of the neighborhood if there was contact between the applicant and the neighborhood. He stated that, after the many public hearings that the City held and the venting of opinions on both sides, there did not seem to be any better understanding of the City's role in the process. He stated that he did not think the public hearings that were held created a common ground between the care providers and the neighborhood. Chairperson Malecki stated that the report brings up facts which address some of the prejudices on both sides of the Bill Kelly House issue. She stated that she felt that the Bill Kelly House staff dug in their heels during the public hearings and did not address some of the concerns of the neighborhood. She stated that the report does address some of those concerns, though perhaps not in a way that the neighbors would like. The Secretary noted the smaller group homes with six or fewer clients which are permitted in single family zones. He stated that those homes are not a big problem because they are just permitted and there is not much to debate. He stated that he did not know what the community gains from holding a public hearing which just seems to polarize people even more. Commissioner Sander expressed concern that, without public hearings, feelings can just simmer beneath the surface. The Secretary acknowledged that this may be true, but asked if venting of those feelings really does any good in the long run. He stated that people seem to get more entrenched in their position through the public hearing process. Commissioner Sander stated that, without public hearings, neighbors would have no say in the operation of a group home. The Secretary responded that the state and federal governments have basically said that cities cannot zone out group homes of a certain size from either single family or multiple family districts. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that the Commission has to look back on the concerns raised by the neighborhood about the Bill Kelly House. He stated that one of those concerns was the effect on property values and that the other was the safety risk involved with the group home. The Secretary pointed out that a minority person could move into a neighborhood and might affect property values, but that their right to travel and move about is allowed and cannot be infringed through the zoning process. The Secretary went on to point out that a 2/1/90 3 lengthy study was done of the property values of areas adjacent to group homes and that the study showed the property values are not significantly affected by the presence of a group home. Regarding safety, the Secretary pointed out that it is not the zoning process which guarantees the type of clientele that will be in a group home, but the program that is licensed and monitored by the State. He stated that the program should weed out violent individuals from being located in a group home. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was still confused about the City's options. He stated that the article in the agenda implied that cities have a choice as to whether they want to accept group homes or not. He asked whether the City does indeed have a choice. The Secretary responded that he did not think the state or federal government is saying that we have to accept an unsafe situation. He went on to discuss the lawsuit with the Commissioner of Human Rights over the Bill Kelly House. Commissioner Johnson asked whether it was possible for the City to say that they will not allow any group homes of any type. He stated that the article implied that this was an option. The Secretary disagreed and stated that the article indicated that, if a city allows a nonhandicapped group occupancy, it also has to allow a handicapped group occupancy. He stated that the City allows apartment buildings in the multiple family zones and that, under state law, group homes with seven to sixteen clients must be accepted as a permitted use in multiple zones. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the door was closed to deny these uses. The Secretary stated that he thought so. The Secretary stated that he did not feel that facilities cannot be run without regard for public safety concerns. He noted that Mr. Wiski recommended in his report making the ceiling on unrelated individuals the same as for a residential facility, namely six people. He added that Mr. Wiski drew the line between a group occupancy and an institutional occupancy at 20 clients. He also pointed out that the City allows nursing homes and hospitals in other residential districts. He pointed out that there is a nursing home in the City with over 100 people that was located in the R1 district. He asked whether it would not be fair to allow 100+ mentally ill people in the same location. He stated that there are not really a lot of land use distinctions between an institution for elderly people and one for mentally ill persons. He pointed out that the Fair Housing Act would frown on any such distinctions based on the type of clientele. Commissioner Sander asked why the zoning was not changed for the nursing home. The Secretary answered that the zoning could be changed if the City felt that that was more appropriate than leaving it in the R1 zone. The Planner pointed out that one of the recommendations or one of the options in the report from Mr. Wiski was the possibility of creating an institutional zone which would 2/1/90 4 handle group occupancies over 20 clients. He stated that such a zone would allow for nursing homes and other institutional type uses. He noted that the City presently limits nursing home beds to 50 beds per acre of land. He stated that the proposed institutional zone would have a minimum of three to ten acres and that, therefore, the minimum number of clients might be as many as 150. He stated that the City, if it considered an institutional district, might have to look at what it required in terms of land for so many beds, perhaps reducing it from 50 beds per acre to some lower number. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that Maranatha could in effect turn into a home for mentally ill persons without any action by the City. She noted that mentally ill people are already housed in nursing homes. The Secretary stated that he felt numbers of individuals can make a difference in deciding which zoning district would be appropriate to put a given facility in. Commissioner Johnson stated that the level of care is also a concern. The Secretary acknowledged this, but stated that it is primarily up to the state licensed program for treating individuals, not the Zoning Ordinance, to regulate what the level of care should be for a certain group of individuals. He stated that many of the concerns with the Bill Kelly House were more related to the licensing of the program, not with land use issues regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary added that the Fair Housing Act is saying that cities cannot regulate on the basis of stereotypes. He stated that perhaps it should be the State, as the licensing agency, that should address the concerns of the neighbors. He added that the City does not control the program of treatment and should not be held accountable if that program fails. He then asked the Commission how they would like to proceed with evaluating the study by Mr. Wiski. Chairperson Malecki stated that she wanted to spend time talking about the things that the City can deal with, not with the things that the City can't deal with. Commissioner Ainas stated that it would be appropriate to educate the public as to the City's options regarding group homes. Commissioner Bernards stated that it sounded good in theory to educate the public, but, he pointed out, that tonight's meeting had been publicized and yet no one showed up. The Secretary stated that there are certain uses which are simply unpopular, but which must locate somewhere. He stated that these types of uses, in planning jargon, are called LULUS (locally unacceptable land uses) . Commissioner Sander stated that there was a need to educate the public on what the City's role is in this whole process. The Secretary indicated that overconcentration of group homes should be avoided in Brooklyn Center. He stated that Brooklyn Center may be a logical place for group homes to go since they have 2/1/90 5 the shopping and the local facilities similar to a central city. He stated that the City does not want overconcentration of such facilities in Brooklyn Center. He stated that the County policy recommends a population in residential facilities no more than 1/2 of 1% of the general population, or approximately 150 persons in Brooklyn Center. There followed a brief discussion of group homes in other cities. The Secretary indicated that the Planning Commission may want to have a public meeting to discuss the study. Commissioner Sander recommended bringing Mr. Wiski back to the Commission before such a meeting. Commissioner Ainas suggested that the City look at a spacing requirement to separate group homes and also recommended restricting them from a heavy R5 zoned area, such as along Humboldt, north of 65th. He stated that there would be a danger to the inhibitants of a group home if it were located in such a heavily populated area. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE The Planner then briefly introduced a model Flood Plain Ordinance which had been modified somewhat to fit within the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance numbering scheme. He explained that the model ordinance would be somewhat different than the existing Flood Plain Ordinance, though it would beef up certain provisions and would basically have the same framework. He did note that there would be three districts instead of two under the new ordinance: a floodway district, a flood fringe district and a general flood plain district. He explained that the general flood plain district is simply a district in which the topography has not been clearly defined and that the location of the floodway is not yet known. He also pointed out that the new ordinance would require topographic elevations and first floor elevations to be shot both before and after construction on most properties in or abutting a flood plain. The Planner explained that there are two basic reasons for flood plain ordinances, one was a safety reason to prevent structures being built in the floodway which would either obstruct the flow of floodwaters or be carried downstream and cause further property damage if they were built. The other primary objective of a Flood Plain Ordinance is to protect property investments, by preventing investments in areas that are subject to flooding or to require floodproofing in situations where structures already exist. Commissioner Mann asked whether the Flood Plain Ordinance would deal with wetlands and shore land requirements. The Planner answered that the City does not have any ordinances regulating the use of wetlands, but that virtually all wetlands in the City would be located within the flood plain since they are inudated at least part of the year. He stated that the Flood Plain Ordinance would regulate the use of those areas and would tend to protect wetlands. He added that the Department of Natural Resources also regulates 2/1/90 6 wetlands and would tend to protect wetlands from being developed. Mr. Harlan Lewandowski, of 4000 51st Avenue North, stated that the Corps of Engineers defines a wetland differently than the Department of Natural Resources. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the other communities within the Watershed Districts are developing different ordinances to meet the federal requirements. The Secretary answered that other communities in the Shingle Creek Watershed District have the same model ordinance and are under direction from the State DNR to adopt a version of it. The Planner briefly discussed the function of the Watershed Districts. He noted that there is some tension between the upstream communities and the downstream communities. He noted that the downstream communities have developed without Watershed District requirements and without Flood Plain Ordinances and that upstream communities will have to abide by those new regulations in order to preserve the water levels that affect communities downstream. He cited examples of requirements for ponding and skimmers on large developments to control runoff. The Secretary added that, when the Planning Commission approves a set of plans, a condition of approval is often that the Watershed District must approve the drainage plans before building permits can be issued. He stated that the control of development is carried out through the Watershed District with respect to runoff generated. Chairperson Malecki asked who the Board of Adjustment was, referred to in the ordinance. The Secretary answered that it would be the City Council and that the Planning Commission would be advisory to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF REVISED FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend adoption of the new model Flood Plain Ordinance in place of the existing Flood Plain Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON LAND USE STUDY The Secretary then passed .out to the Planning Commission copies of the Land Use Study prepared by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson (SEH) regarding the land at 66th and Highway 252 that had been the subject of a moratorium. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission was part of the process in arriving at the consultant's recommendation. He stated that the City Council had acted on the matter at its last meeting on January 29, 1990. He briefly reviewed the contents of the study which had been prepared by Randy Thoreson of SEH. He noted that the roadway realignment was incorporated into Alternatives D and E in the study. He noted that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was included in the study, that being C1 on the west side of the block in Area 2 and 2/1/90 the roadway realignment on the northeast part of the block. He added, however, that the recommendation of the consultant was not the same, but that it was Alternative E. He noted that part of Alternative E involved the possible vacation of the frontage road along Highway 252 . He stated that the vacation of that road would allow for expansion of the C2 use toward Highway 252 and might allow more land for the use to be buffered from the residential neighborhood to the east. The Secretary went on to explain that the City Council did not extend the moratorium and that it did prefer the recommendation of the consultant, although it did not vote on that issue. He pointed out that the City Council had opposed any downzoning of the Atkins property. Commissioner Sander stated that Mr. Atkins had downgraded the use of the old gas station property through the office conversion. She stated that he now wants to make the use of the site more intensely again. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that some rezoning of land may be necessary when the development is finally brought to the Planning Commission. He stated that there would be a minor rezoning and a site and building plan and special use permit application. He stated that he would not recommend sending such a rezoning back to a neighborhood advisory group, considering all of the discussion and study that has gone on. The Secretary also explained that the roadway redesign in the area north of 66th has already been ordered by the City Council. 1990 MEETING SCHEDULE The Planner passed out the old 1990 meeting schedule and indicated that the City Council had revised their schedule in May and in October, November and December. There was a brief discussion of various dates that would be best for the Planning Commission to meet in order to tie in with this revised schedule. The Planner indicated that a new schedule would be typed up for the Commission. Commissioner Sander complained about a neighbor who has cars all over his property and asked whether they had to be licensed. The Secretary answered that cars must be licensed and operable or else they will be considered junk cars and would have to be removed from the property. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Chairperson 2/1/90 8