Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 03-15 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 MARCH 15, 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioner Johnson had stated that he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 1, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the March 1, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion was passed. APPLICATION NO. 90002 (DAVID ROOP) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a custom woodworking home occupation involving a non-resident employee in the basement of the dwelling and in a portion of the detached garage at 7219 Grimes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90002 attached) . The Secretary also expressed concern about noise coming from the dust collection system and the possibility of the hours going as late as 10:00 p.m. with power equipment operating. The Secretary also pointed out that commercial vehicles over 21 feet in length, over 8 feet in height or over 9,000 pound gross vehicle weight are not permitted to be parked or stored in residential areas under the City's Nuisance Ordinance. He stated that the applicant should clarify what size vehicle(s) he will have in association with the home occupation. The Secretary stated that condition number 2 regarding compliance with applicable codes, ordinances,and regulations would pertain to noise, light glare, etc. that may affect surrounding properties. The Secretary suggested a ninth condition relating to the parking of vehicles, that it would not include vehicles prohibited by section 19 - 101 of the Nuisance Ordinance. He concluded by stating that the Planning Commission's action should be based on a finding that the home occupation is in 3-15-90 1 keeping with the City's ordinance regarding home occupations and would not have an adverse affect on surrounding properties. Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a ratio in the ordinance limiting the area to be used for a home occupation in either a home or a garage. The Secretary answered that there was no ratio except the language in the definition of a home occupation limiting home occupations to being incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. He stated that there are a variety of home occupations in the city and that it would be impossible to set an absolute limit on the amount of square footage devoted to a given home occupation. He stated that there are differences in how often a home occupation is conducted and what level of annoyance would be associated with any given home occupation. Commissioner Sander asked whether a garage can be as big as the house. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that the maximum area of any one accessory building is 1, 000 square feet and no accessory building can exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. Commissioner Bernards asked what standards would be applied by the state and also whether O.S.H.A. standards would be required. The Secretary answered that he assumed O.S.H.A. standards would have to be met. He added that he did not think that the state would check on an operation as small as this. Commissioner Holmes noted the possibility of storage of lacquers of varnishes and asked whether businesses with paints and such materials are subject to any special regulations. The Planner answered that the Fire Department controls such businesses and would do a yearly inspection on the storage of materials and also on the dust collection system. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there would be a special garbage pick up for this home occupation. The Secretary responded that he did not think so or at least that there should not be. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Roop responded that, regarding windows being open, he would install an air conditioning system in the garage so that it would be unnecessary to open windows for ventilation purposes. He added that there would be no commercial vehicles besides a standard sized pick up truck. As far as the dust collection system, he stated that it is a vacuum system that ` generates about as much noise as a typical furnace. He concluded by stating that O.S.H.A. requirements only apply when there are a certain number of employees and that his operation would not have that many. Chairperson Malecki inquired as to the license required by the state. Mr. Roop responded that it was not a license as such, but 3-15-90 2 a registration in order to have a tax number. Commissioner Bernards asked whether storage of materials and equipment would be conducted wholly in an enclosed building. Mr. Roop responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki asked how the materials would be delivered to the site. Mr. Roop answered that he would pick up material himself and bring it to his residence. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the use of varnish, Mr. Roop stated that he preferred to do jobs that did not require finishing. The Secretary asked Mr. Roop what kinds of . equipment would be present in the home occupation. Mr. Roop and his son, Paul, answered that there would be a table saw, planer, band saw, and possibly a sander. The Secretary asked how large a band saw it would be. Paul Roop answered that it would be a 20" saw. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Roop whether he had talked to his neighbors about the home occupation. Mr. Roop responded in the affirmative and stated that they do not have any problem with the proposed operation. Chairperson Malecki stated that she thought that 10: 00 p.m. was kind of late to be running this power equipment. Mr. Roop stated that he would be willing to limit the home occupation to 9:30 p.m. if that was desired. Commissioner Mann expressed concern about the possibility of electrical disturbance from the use of power equipment affecting neighboring properties. Mr. Roop answered that it should not be a problem as long as 220 current is used in the garage. He added that he would be willing to take care of any problem associated with electrical disturbance. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there would be a special garbage pick up. Mr. Roop responded in the negative, stating that he would just use the normal garbage pick up. The Secretary pointed out that the City Council is considering an ordinance amendment regarding vehicle parking and storage of material outside. He stated that he would suggest an additional condition that all storage be within an enclosed building. Mr. Roop stated that he would have no problem with that. PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 90002) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present beside the applicant. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that his main concern with the home occupation was the possible noise emissions and the safety issue of 3-15-90 3 children getting in and getting hurt by the equipment. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that if Mr. Roop sought to do the home occupation on a full time basis that he would have to come back for an amendment to the special use permit. Mr. Roop pointed out that, if he wanted to go into the business full time when he retired, he would probably find a building somewhere else and not do it at home. There followed a brief discussion with the applicant regarding noise and hours of operation. Mr. Roop's son, Paul stated that they did not like noise either and would want to minimize it as much as possible. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90002 (DAVID ROOP) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90002, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a woodworking shop in the basement of the dwelling and in the back of the detached garage as indicated in the applicant's proposal. The home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2 . The home occupation is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3 . Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of one (1) nonresident employee. 4. The hours of operation shall be from 6: 00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. weekdays and 9: 00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 5. The addition to the garage shall be a separate room and shall be insulated and sheetrocked. Double glass windows shall also be installed. Windows shall be closed during the use of power equipment to minimize noise emanating to adjacent properties. 6. A dust collection system shall be installed in the garage room. The Fire Department shall inspect the installation of the dust collection system and shall inspect the operation on at least an annual basis. 7. A 20 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the work areas as required by the Fire Chief. 8. Any customer parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the 3-15-90 4 applicant. 9. The home occupation shall not involve the parking or storage of vehicles and equipment prohibited in residential zones under section 19-101 of the nuisance ordinance. 10. All storage of materials or equipment associated with the home occupation shall be within an enclosed building. 11. No radio frequency interference to neighboring properties caused by the home occupation shall be permitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary noted that Mr. Donn Wiski was not present yet and encouraged the commission to wait awhile to see if he would arrive. The Planner noted that staff have put on the Planning Commission's March 29th agenda some items relating to Fina Oil and Chemical and the Atkins property at 66th and West River. The Secretary explained some aspects of the plan submitted to date. Commissioner Mann asked whether the roadway construction north of 66th had commenced. The Secretary answered that it had not as yet, but that it should begin this construction season. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the roadway re-alignment would depend on approval of the Fina plans. The Secretary answered in the negative and pointed out that a re-alignment of West River Road north of 66th was a separate project pursued as a result of a separate traffic study. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8: 18 p.m. Mr. Donn Wiski arrived at 8:19 p.m. before most of the Commissioners had left. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENES The Planning Commission reconvened under Chairperson Molly Malecki at 8:20 p.m. without Commissioner Bernards. DISCUSSION ITEM - GROUP HOME STUDY The Secretary then introduced for the Planning Commission the subject of the group home study done by Donn Wiski of Resolution Inc. He statedthat the staff needs direction from the Commission on how to amend the zoning ordinance. He referred again the Commission's attention and Mr. Wiski's attention to the article in the Zoning and Planning Law Report about the Fair Housing Act which affects the regulation of group homes. 3-15-90 5 Mr. Donn Wiski stated that the city could adopt a new definition of community based residential facilities and then decide what districts to allow them in. Under the heading of new definitions, Mr. Wiski stated that definitions could be based on occupancy types, being family and group occupancies. In turn group occupancies could be broken down into affiliated, unaffiliated, and institutional. He added that there should be new definitions of dwelling unit and living unit. He stated that beyond adopting new definitions, the commission may wish to recommend approval of a new institutional residential district, establish group occupancy conditions for permitted uses, and assign various residential uses to the various zoning districts. He recommended that 16 to 20 clients be an upper limit on group residential occupancies and that over 16 to 20 clients be assigned to an institutional residential district or a commercial district. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission a table from the study that set up various screenings of proposed group occupancies of unrelated individuals. The first screen was length of occupancy. The second screen was the level of support provided to the clients. And the third and fourth screens were affiliation and size. The Secretary stated that, using the scheme outlined by Mr. Wiski, the Bill Kelly house with 23 clients would have to go into an institutional district. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and went through the various screens that would apply to that use. The Secretary stated that there may be some reasons to exceed a limit of 16, but that over 20 clients begins to a put facility into a non-family category. Mr. Wiski stated that there were higher costs under the safety codes for group occupancies over 20 persons. The Secretary stated that he felt that the special use permit process was not getting the City anywhere. He stated that the City cannot prove a property value impact or safety concerns regarding facilities for the mentally ill. He noted that a study on the impact on property values of residential facilities had shown no appreciable impact. The Secretary stated that the next step for the Commission was to fashion an ordinance outlining definitions for family and group occupancies and putting those occupancies into various districts with various restrictions. He stated that 17 to 20 clients probably would not raise many concerns. In response to a question by Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary explained that the group home staff would be in addition to the number of clients allowed at a facility. Mr. Wiski stated that there would usually be about 4 staff persons for a group home that involved 16 to 20 clients. He stated that there should probably be standard conditions applying to all permitted group homes. He added that the state has changed terms for residential facilities over the years and that the city's language should not be tied to state's language since state language changes over time. He stated that it was important to set 3-15-90 6 local definitions that would encompass state programs. Mr. Wiski stated that the City could adopt a provision requiring that a group home be licensed by the state and noted that Golden Valley has such a provision. Regarding spacing requirements, Mr. Wiski stated that, if a group occupancy is family like, there was no need for a spacing requirement. He stated that the state has required spacing in recent legislation and that the reason for this was that putting group occupancies together begins to develop an institutional environment. He stated that it was important for the city to allow equal access but not. overconcentration of group home facilities. Regarding whether to make group homes a permitted or special use, Mr. Wiski stated that the important thing was to have conditions relating to the use whether it was permitted or special. He stated that, whether a group home was part of a permitted or special use permit process, the community's level of consciousness has not been raised by the hearings. Mr. Wiski recommended that the City adopt a provision to allow group homes with perhaps up to 20 clients to be a permitted use in multi-family residential zoning districts with certain conditions. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the special use permit process solves anything. He stated that most of the concerns of the public are not zoning concerns which is what the commission is there to review. He noted that there were concerns about density, but mainly who is let into the facility, how many staff, what problems the people have, etcetera. He stated that these are questions related to the licensing of the facility by the state, yet the City was the one which had to address these questions through the special use permit process. He wondered aloud whether there was some way to make the licensing authority answer these questions by putting the onus back on the state to hold a public hearing. He stated that there was nothing that the city could do about these concerns. Commissioner Ainas noted that the city has required daycare facilities to be licensed in order to be permitted uses. He suggested doing the same sort of thing here. The Secretary agreed and noted the Golden Valley provision which requires a state license for a group residential facility. The Secretary stated that he did feel that all group facilities were family-like, but that some had become institutional by their size. Mr. Wiski stated that the licensing requirement is to help assure a quality of care. He stated that the quality of care is not really a zoning issue, but that quality of care is helped by local provisions requiring state licensing. Mr. Wiski pointed out that the last bill passed by the legislature regarding group homes took the special use permit option away from cities for facilities below a certain size. He also noted that neighborhood commercial zones became eligible 3-15-90 7 for prisons. He suggested that the city set up a zone for that sort of use. He commented that suburbs want to be a safe environment, yet they are prevented from being exclusionary. The Secretary pointed out that overconcentration is defined under state law as over one half of one percent of a community's residents being lodged in residential facilities. He stated that in Brooklyn Center that this would amount to about 150 beds. He suggested perhaps including overconcentration and a spacing provision in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wiski pointed out that it is difficult to have a not-to-exceed ordinance. He stated that such an ordinance would be on shaky legal grounds. He stated that an overconcentration policy should be a guide for land allocation put forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Regarding spacing, Mr. Wiski stated that, if the city allows family-like occupancies in multi-family districts, he thinks a spacing requirement will stand up for larger occupancies. The Secretary noted the problems with over concentration in the central cities and stated that Brooklyn Center would like to avoid such an overconcentration. Mr. Wiski noted that the facilities in the central city are located in large rooming houses concentrated in Minneapolis. He stated that the concentration of such facilities has actually changed the nature of a neighborhood. The Secretary pointed out that, as facilities are dispersed, there is an economic concern to provide housing for mentally ill and mentally retarded adults as economically as possible. He stated that Brooklyn Center has a lot of affordable multi-family buildings and that it was possible tor an over concentration to occur in Brooklyn Center unless there were some safeguards. He stated that first suburbs are concerned regarding the concept of taking their fair share of group homes, similar to the fair share for low income housing. He stated that these facilities are not being dispersed in accordance with stated policy. Mr. Wiski stated that there was a need for a transition for these facilities and that spacing is a part of that transition. Commissioner Ainas stated that, no matter how the City plans for these facilities, the neighbors will not accept them. He stated that it was important that the City show that they had done all that they can. Mr. Wiski stated that unpleasant things can be accepted if it is shown that the process was fair. He stated that one of the concerns with the Bill Kelly House was the information being provided by the applicant which lead to fears on the part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Ainas noted that he voted in favor of the Bill Kelly House and that he got a number of calls from the people in the neighborhood. He noted that one neighbor threatened to call the police every night in an effort to prove that there was a problem with the group home. Mr. Wiski acknowledged that all people fear change. 3-15-90 8 Commissioner Mann stated that she felt that the City needs a separate zone for larger facilities. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not feel that state law would allow such a distinction. The Secretary pointed out that state law only requires local governments to allow up to 16 clients as a permitted use in multi- family districts. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt that larger group homes cannot be put into industrial zones just to get rid of them. Mr. Wiski stated that the state allows 6 or fewer clients in a single-family home and 7 to 16 in multi-family zones. He noted that the only conditions that can apply to group homes in multi-family zones are conditions to protect the residents, not the neighborhood. He stated that community based residential facilities can be accepted in commercial or industrial zones. The Secretary noted that an institutional zone could be established for larger facilities, including hospitals and facilities like Maranatha Nursing Home with over 20 clients. He stated that it might be necessary to rezone the Maranatha Nursing Home to an institutional zoning district. Mr. Wiski asked the commission how it felt about that scenario. Commissioner Ainas stated that he would go along with an institutional zone if it is legal. But he pointed out, that the trend to de-institutionalization was precisely to put group home residents in residential areas. The Secretary concluded that the facility would have to be small enough to qualify for a multi-family zone. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Wiski whether he felt the number of clients in a group home would tend to increase over time. Mr. Wiski responded in the negative. He stated that the trend in the industry is downward. He stated that program providers would push for larger facilities for economic reasons, but that there was generally a better program by reducing size. He stated that this will lead to a budget crunch down the road. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that the city may want to rezone the Maranatha Nursing Home, but that it was unnecessary to rezone vacant land at this time. He stated that the city could respond to a proposal for an institutional use. He stated the proposal would be to rezone a large apartment building and that the city would have to deal with that at that time. Mr. Wiski added that the city could simply leave the Maranatha Nursing Home as a non-conforming use and exclude it from the Rl zone. Chairperson Malecki noted that the Maranatha Nursing Home is in a residential area. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that the City would have to look at school buildings in the future which may be vacated and reused for some non-residential purpose. He noted that schools are special uses in the R1 zone and that they tend to be located in residential neighborhoods. He stated that some schools would no longer be needed and that the reuse of the buildings would probably be either commercial or institutional of some kind. 3-15-90 9 Mr. Wiski asked the Commission where they would put an institutional district. Chairperson Malecki stated that she could not think of a place for it off hand. The Secretary stated that the Commission would have to make recommendations to the City Council regarding changes and definitions regarding an institutional district, spacing, etc. The Commission first discussed the number of clients and their respective zoning districts. Chairperson Malecki asked what would be allowed in the R1 zone. The Secretary responded that 6 or fewer clients would be allowed in the R1 zone and that 7 or more would be allowed in the R3 zone or above. Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission whether they agreed with the limit of 20 clients in a multi-family zone. The Commission responded in the affirmative. She also asked whether the City should adopt an institutional zone. The Commission again responded in the affirmative. The Planner noted that the study recommended a 3 to 10 acre size for an institutional zone and that presently the City regulates nursing homes on the basis of 50 beds per acre. He pointed out that the minimum size acknowledged in an institutional zone would, therefore, be 150 beds. He asked what the City would do with a facility of 24 beds. Mr. Wiski stated that such a facility could be located in a commercial zoning district and that larger facilities would be allowed in the institutional zones. The Secretary asked the commission about the special use permit issue. Commissioner Mann recommended getting away from public hearings. Chairperson Malecki agreed and stated that there was nothing to be gained by them. The Planner noted that the Planning Commission and Council would still have public hearings with a rezoning request to an institutional district or a commercial district for larger facilities. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Wiski stated that a moderate size facility would probably have be located in a commercial zone. The Planner stated that he was concerned about rezoning a neighborhood parcel to commercial to accommodate a moderate size facility. Mr. Wiski responded that if neighborhood parcels were zoned multi-family the limit would just have to be 20 clients in that zone. Chairperson Malecki noted the proposal to limit the institutional i zone to 3 to 10 acre parcels. The Planner commented that Maranatha was probably between 2 and 3 acres. He asked how the City would relate such a facility to the institutional zone being proposed. The Secretary stated that it would be necessary to fine tune the ordinance as the city dealt with each proposal on a case by case basis. There followed a general discussion of possible locations, buffers, and transition areas. 3-15-90 10 r Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission if they favored requiring facilities to be licensed. The Commission responded in the affirmative. There followed a brief discussion of the definition of "family" . The Secretary raised that the study recommends allowing 6 non-related persons maintaining a common household to be considered a family. The Planner noted the possibility for parking concerns which would not generally be the case with 6 clients being cared for by staff. The Secretary explained that the City does require off street parking and that this would be an indirect way of controlling parking in residential zones. Mr. Wiski recommended not allowing unaffiliated groups in the single-family zone. He stated that unrelated individuals must maintain a common household. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary stated that the staff would bring back an ordinance amendment regarding spacing, special use permits, etc. , but he was not sure when staff could produce this. Commissioner Mann inquired as to the issue of dispersing facilities between the various neighborhoods. The Secretary recommended that such dispersal be a policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to an ordinance requirement. The Secretary added that the Commission may want to put a separation requirement in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wiski stated that it was difficult to sort out density from occupancy in the zoning ordinance. The Secretary commented that there are space requirements for occupancy in the City's Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Chairperson 3-15-90 11 1 1