Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 06-14 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 JUNE 14, 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: 31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Sander and Holmes had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 10, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the May 10, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairperson Malecki. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90014 (Leslie Andresen Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to install and operate a home beauty shop in the basement of the home at 6821 Perry Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90014 attached) . Chairperson Malecki inquired as to the plumbing and ventilation work that would have to be done for the home beauty shop. The Secretary answered that a sink would be added in the barber/beauty shop area and that some ventilation improvements would also probably be required. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if she had anything to add. Mrs. Leslie Andresen submitted a copy of her State barber's license to the Commission. Chairperson Malecki inquired as to the remodeling work to be done. Mrs. Andresen answered that she has bought the sink to be put in and that her father is a plumber who can do the work. Chairperson Malecki noted the limitation in the conditions prohibiting on-street parking. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90014) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing 6-14-90 1 and asked whether anyone present wished to comment regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the venting, whether there was any odor involved and, if so, can it be controlled so that it would not be vented outside. Mrs. Andresen answered in the affirmative. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90014 (Leslie Andresen) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 90014, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty/barber shop as proposed in the applicant's letter dated May 14, 1990. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The beauty/barber shop shall operate on an appointment- only basis. Hours of operation shall be 9: 00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Tuesday through Friday; 7: 00 p.m. to 9: 00 p.m. Wednesday; and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the applicant. 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a current copy of the State shop license prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The applicant shall obtain required permits for plumbing and ventilation work. 6. The applicant shall install a 10 lb. fire extinguisher in the area of the beauty/barber shop. 7. There shall be no more than 10 people in the basement area at any given time. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90016 (Joseph Jacobson, The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a saw sharpening business as a home occupation in the garage of the residence at 1821 Irving Lane. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application 6-14-90 2 No. 90016 attached) . The Secretary added that noise may be another possible concern of this home occupation. He also stated that the Planning Commission may want to prohibit hours of operation on Sundays as is often done on home occupations. Commissioner Bernards asked whether all the items to be sharpened would be picked up and delivered. The Secretary answered that that was his understanding. Commissioner Johnson asked how that would be monitored. The Secretary stated that it would have to be on a complaint basis if there was on-street parking. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything further to add. Mr. Jacobson stated that there was no TV or radio interference in his own house when he was using the equipment. He stated that he did not think it would be a problem for anyone in the neighborhood. Chairperson Malecki asked about the pickup of items to be sharpened. Mr. Jacobson stated that he had an arrangement with a hardware store and that he would pick the items up from the hardware store and deliver them when the work was done. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the equipment met safety standards. Mr. Jacobson responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90016) ' Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. Chairperson Malecki asked whether Mr. Jacobson had been conducting this home occupation for some time. Mr. Jacobson responded that his grandfather died earlier in the year and that he had inherited the equipment from him and wanted to make use of it. Chairperson Malecki asked whether Mr. Jacobson had any problem with excluding hours on Sunday. Mr. Jacobson responded in the negative. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90016 (Joseph Jacobson) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90016, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special use permit is granted only for a saw sharpening business as proposed by the applicant. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 6-14-90 3 3 . The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 8:30 a.m. , nor any later than 9: 00 p.m. No work will be performed on Sundays. 4. The garage door shall be closed during operation of power equipment. 5. Any parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. No radio or TV frequency interference to neighboring properties caused by the home occupation shall be permitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then inquired if there was anyone present representing Harold Teasdale, the applicant for the next item of business. No one responded. The Secretary recommended a recess and stated that he would try to contact the applicant. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:59 p.m. and resumed at 8:15 p.m. Following the recess, the Secretary stated that he and the Planner had attempted to contact Mr. Teasdale, but were unable to reach him. He stated that he would review the report and recommended opening the public hearing, but that the application should be tabled so that the applicant could appear. APPLICATION NO. 90015 (Teasdale and Associates) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval from Section 35-400, footnote 1 c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than 10% of the units in the Garden City Court apartment development to be three-bedroom units. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90015 attached) . The Secretary also explained that the maximum density for the property on which the Garden City Court apartments were located is 16 units per acre or 2,700 sq. ft. per unit. He stated that the staff had not received any further memo from the City Attorney regarding the legality of the 100 limit on three-bedroom apartments in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance could not exclude low income people. He stated that recent amendments to the Fair Housing Act prohibit discrimination against low income residents. He stated that staff did not recommend approval of a variance, but that, if the 10% limit is considered to be unfair, he would recommend an amendment to the ordinance. 6-14-90 4 The Secretary stated that the essential question for the Planning Commission is what is the effect of the 10% limit. Does it have an effect on who occupies an apartment unit or does it address a typical zoning concern such as density? He stated that the "who" issue is not a zoning concern. He stated that he could not respond in any detail to the two questions about the possible grant money to be used in rehabilitating units. Commissioner Mann asked, if the 10% limit were eliminated, would the project have enough land area for the additional three-bedroom units that would be created. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He explained that the reduction in the overall number of units would reduce the land requirement by more than the additional land requirement for three-bedroom units would add to that overall land requirement. Chairperson Malecki asked what was the reason for the 10% limit. The Secretary responded that it was apparently to limit the number of large apartment units. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there were any three-bedroom units in the complex right now. The Secretary responded in the negative. Chairperson Malecki then recognized the applicant and asked whether he had anything to say regarding the application. Mr. Harold Teasdale, the gentleman who was interested in buying the Garden City Court apartments and converting some of the units to three- bedroom units with the use of grants and tax exempt financing, then briefly addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that one of the issues for the City to consider in addressing the variance request is the declining demand for one-bedroom apartments in the Metropolitan area. He noted that, conversely, there is an increasing demand for three-bedroom apartments. He also stated that there was federal and state money for three-bedroom units. He stated that, because of the reduction in the overall number of units, the number of people within the complex would not change that much. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Teasdale whether he would not remodel the complex if tax exempt financing were not available. Mr. Teasdale responded not necessarily. He stated that there was also low-income credit available from the federal government which would provide money for remodeling the units. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was any verification of the supposed excess of one-bedroom and the lack of three-bedroom units. Mr. Teasdale responded that the Metropolitan Council has done studies of the region's demographics and has documented the decline in demand for apartments generally. Mr. Johnson asked whether the City's recent. Housing Study noted anything regarding the demand for one-bedroom apartments. The Secretary responded that he would have to look at the study more closely. He stated that most of the homes in Brooklyn Center are for first time home buyers and that there are mostly one and two-bedroom apartments in the City. Mr. Teasdale 6-14-90 5 added that, in the Whittier neighborhood of Minneapolis, the only kind of conversions that are done are to three-bedroom units. The Secretary asked Mr. Teasdale whether there were any limitations on the grant being sought and whether it was a County grant. Mr. Teasdale responded that it was a federal program administered by the County. The Secretary asked whether there were certain requirements on who could rent a unit in the development if the financing and grant were approved. Mr. Teasdale stated that he would not be able to limit who to rent to. He stated that he would have to be open to Section 8 tenants. The Secretary asked whether all of the units would have to be rented to Section 8 tenants. Mr. Teasdale responded in the negative. The Secretary asked whether a number of the units could then continue to be market rate rental. Mr. Teasdale responded in the affirmative. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding the management of the complex, Mr. Teasdale stated that he would like to keep the present managers at the complex. The Planner stated that he believed that the Housing Study did mention at some point a declining demand for apartments and that a danger was reduced cash flow and thereby decline of the upkeep of properties. He also stated that the City's last population estimate from the Metropolitan Council had gone down by about 800 people and that one of the reasons for this was because of a high vacancy rate in the City's apartments. Commissioner Ainas commented on the demand for various types of apartments and noted that he was on a waiting list for a three-bedroom apartment. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90015 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Francis Zins, of 3408 65th Avenue North, stated that the neighbors in the area were very concerned about the proposal. He stated that there were a lot of children at the complex now and that there would be more with single-parent households if the variance were approved. He stated that the complex has nothing to offer children, that there are no sidewalks and that children have to play in the street. He stated that the children cannot play at the school because parents are afraid that they will get hurt. He stated that they wind up playing in 65th Avenue North, which is a busy street. He also stated that the parking situation at the complex is bad, that there are not enough spaces and that residents wind up parking on Chowen Avenue North. He stated that there are parking spaces at the complex that don't get used because of the habits of some of the tenants. He stated. that some of them play their radios very loud in the street late at night. He complimented the present manager on having done a good job of getting after some of the tenants. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Zins whether he had tried to work with police on the problems. Mr. Zins responded in the 6-14-90 6 affirmative. He again stated that he was concerned that the area would decline if the variance were granted. The Secretary asked Mr. Zins whether he felt the situation would be acceptable if there were modifications to the project that would involve more parking and more play areas. Mr. Zins responded that he did not know where they could put such facilities. The Secretary asked Mr. Zins how he felt the management of the complex had been conducted. Mr. Zins responded that it did not seem that good. Commissioner Johnson stated that he knew of an elderly woman who lived in the complex who had been asking for a guardrail for a year and that it had not been put in. Mrs. Louise Wirtz, of 6501 Beard Avenue North, (the on-site manager for the project) stated that the City may eliminate one problem, but cause another. She acknowledged that the City could not discriminate in who was allowed to rent a unit, but she encouraged the City to look at the problems with subsidized housing along Humboldt Avenue North. She expressed a concern that there would be more undesirables living in the complex. She also related a recent problem that she had had with a drug dealer. Mrs. Wirtz acknowledged that not all low-income residents were like that, but that most of them are on AFDC. She stated that the City already has its share of subsidized housing. She acknowledged that these people need a place to live, but asked that they not all be housed near them. She also had some complaints regarding the management. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mrs. Wirtz stated that three-bedroom apartments are a problem. She stated that she preferred single-family homes for families where children can have space. Mr. Francis Zins asked whether the apartment project had been inspected recently. The Secretary answered that he was not sure if the license was up for renewal. He pointed out that the issue before the Planning Commission is not whether the rental license should be renewed. He explained that that is not decided by the Planning Commission. He added, however, that he would investigate with the Housing Inspector if there are any problems at the complex. Mr. Zins stated that he had a petition signed by 97 people in the neighborhood who are very much against the project. Chairperson Malecki asked what the petition said. Mr. Zins then read the petition which cited the possible use of federal and state money for low-income housing and predicted problems in the project and declining property values in the neighborhood. The Secretary asked Mr. Zins whether he wanted to submit the petition. Mr. Zins responded in the affirmative and gave the petition to Chairperson Malecki. Chairperson Malecki concluded that the main concerns appear to be regarding parking and playground area. Mr. Zins responded in the 6-14-90 7 affirmative and added that there was concern regarding the children who would inhabit the complex. Mrs. Jackie O'Brien, of 6536 Chowen Avenue North, asked whether the project had been sold. Mr. Teasdale stated that the project had not been sold, but that he had made an offer on the property contingent on getting the variance. Mrs. O'Brien asked whether there was anything to prohibit two families from occupying one dwelling unit. The Secretary responded by reviewing the definition of a "family" in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that a dwelling becomes a two-family unit when certain physical facilities are installed such as a second kitchen. He added, however, that a variety of living arrangements could be acknowledged as a family as long as the people in it maintain a common household. He stated that the main issue under City ordinance would be whether the number of occupants exceed the occupancy limits in the Housing and Maintenance Occupancy Ordinance. Mrs. O'Brien asked about the possibility of two welfare mothers living in the same apartment. The Secretary answered that it would probably be allowed if it was within the limits of total occupancy of the unit. Mrs. O'Brien also asked about the possibility of unrelated individuals living in one unit. The Secretary answered that such an arrangement would probably be covered by the lease with the owner. He stated that the City would allow up to five unrelated individuals to be considered a family as long as they were maintaining a common household. Mrs. O'Brien stated there would be parking problems with such an arrangement. The Secretary acknowledged that this might happen, but pointed out that a problem could also exist with a family of two adults and two grown children with their own cars. He stated that the City's Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. He also stated that the Garden City Court apartment complex may have been built before that parking requirement went into effect. Mrs. O'Brien stated that she had fought the approval of apartments many years ago when she first moved to the community and that they were fighting them again now. She stated that it was a difficult situation not to know who owned the complex or would own it, with or without the variance. The Secretary stated that many people buy property with a contingent offer and that Mr. Teasdale is simply pursuing that route in this case. Mr. Zins stated that 25 years ago there were plans for a play area for children at this complex. The Secretary stated he was not sure how many children have always been at the complex. He stated that the buildings were composed of dwelling units and that the people come and go. He stated that the problem is not necessarily because of the type of dwelling units or whether the residents happen to be welfare recipients, but that there are individuals who can create problems and be bad tenants. An unidentified woman in the audience asked the Secretary whether he did not feel that the problems come with low-income residents. The Secretary answered that the tall 6-14-90 8 building south of the City Hall was full of low-income residents and that the City has no problems with them. He stated that one could not stereotype a person on assistance as necessarily being a problem. He stated that he did not feel it was a fair characterization to equate low-income residents with crime and drugs. Mrs. Louise Wirtz stated that not all low-income people have problems, but that a majority of them do. She cited people who cheat on welfare and boyfriends who are allowed to live with welfare mothers as long as they are not fathers of the children and that some of them live better than she does. The Secretary pointed out that the program being pursued by Mr. Teasdale would not necessarily require that all of the units be rented to low-income individuals. Mrs. Wirtz asked to see that in writing. Mr. Teasdale said that some of the residents would be low-income. He stated that he hoped to have many of the same tenants as are in the buildings right now. He stated that he wanted to have good tenants and that bad tenants are a problem for everyone. He stated that good dwelling units would attract good tenants. He stated that he would try to screen tenants so that the bad ones were weeded out. Mr. Earl Anderson, of 3301 64th Avenue North, stated that he felt that Brooklyn Center was saturated with low-income residents and that no more were needed. Mr. Todd Paulson, of 3216 Poe Road, and a member of the City Council, then briefly addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked the Commission for their good work and asked them to get more information on this matter before making a decision. He stated that he would like to encourage the Commission to look at the requirements Hennepin County has for these programs. He also recommended getting a comment from the City Attorney and also information from the Metropolitan Council on the need for three- bedroom units. He also recommended that the Commission look into the history behind the 10% limit. He stated that he just became aware of the issue today and stated that he felt the proposal was not a candidate for a variance since it was not unique. He stated that there may be a reason to look at amending the ordinance if it is determined that the 10% limit is not fair. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann stated that she would like to see the application. tabled until the City Attorney comments on the 10% limit. Commissioner Ainas agreed and suggested checking with other cities on their experience with apartment conversions. He also suggested acquiring any Metropolitan Council reports bearing on this issue. Commissioner Bernards stated that a variance would set a precedent and that the proper way to approach this would be to evaluate the 6-14-90 9 ordinance itself and to change it if necessary. Commissioner Ainas agreed. Chairperson Malecki also suggested that the Planning Commission look at the Housing Study that was done last year. She doubted that the state or federal government would spend money without attaching some strings as to who would live in the complex. The Secretary reviewed some of the items that the Commission wanted to have researched. He stated that staff would work on these and concluded that he felt the Planning Commission prefers an ordinance amendment, if necessary, rather than granting a variance. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not think the City should rely on a land area requirement for three-bedroom units. He stated this, he said, because Prescott, Wisconsin recently dropped a similar provision when their City Attorney gave them a memo that such an ordinance would be declared unconstitutional. The Planner noted the City Attorney's memo which was distributed to the Commission in which one community that had a fairly exorbitant land area requirement had their ordinance thrown out. He added, however, that a number of other cities that he interviewed two years previously had similar provisions and that he doubted that they were all invalid. The Secretary then reviewed again for the benefit of those present the Zoning Ordinance provisions that apply to the Garden City Court apartments. He stated there is presently a 10% limit on the number of three bedroom units in any apartment complex and that that 10% limit is the reason for the variance. He stated that the question for the Commission is whether that provision may be discriminatory toward larger families. He concluded that it is a complex issue that cannot be resolved quickly. He added that he would notify the neighbors when the matter was reconsidered. Commissioner Bernards noted that the complex could have some three- bedroom units under the present ordinance. Chairperson Malecki stated that she wanted information on available parking at the complex. The Secretary reviewed the problem of parking and explained that parking on a public street is allowed with some restrictions unless it is posted "no parking. " Mrs. Louise Wirtz, the resident manager, stated that there was adequate parking at the complex, but that people park on the street because it is closer to their units. Chairperson Malecki stated she would also like some background on the history of the three-bedroom limit in the ordinance. The Planner explained that most of the history had been dug up two years ago with the Zappa application. He stated that a number of . ordinance amendments were adopted in 1974 which related in one way or another to density concerns. Among them, he stated, were the 10% limit, the land area requirement of 250 sq. ft. of additional land for each bedroom over two, a deduction of setback area from land area required for multi-family dwelling units (he noted that this was repealed seven or eight years ago) , and a density credit 6-14-90 10 for under building parking stalls. He stated that all of these ordinances related in one way or another to density and open space and stated that he would provide that information for the Planning Commission's consideration. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 90015 (Teasdale and Associates) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to table Application No. 90015 and direct staff to provide more information as indicated in the Planning Commission's discussion. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourned the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Chairperson 6-14-90 11 1 1