Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 01-26 PCM I 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 1 JANUARY 26, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Nelson noted that Commissioners Bernards, Johnson and Sander had all informed the Commission of their absence and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1989 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89001 (Gorco Construction) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a setback less than the ordinance required 50' from County Road 57 for the construction of a garage at 5658 Logan Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89001 attached). The Secretary also briefly reviewed the purpose of the application, the accident that had destroyed the previous garage, and the proposal to rebuild at a 20' setback. The Secretary told the Commission that 69th Avenue North between Shingle Creek Parkway and Brooklyn Boulevard may be expanded to four lanes in the future and would, thus, become a major thoroughfare again under the proposed definition. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether she understood what was being proposed. Mrs. Lois Anderson, the owner of 5658 Logan Avenue North, responded in the affirmative and explained that it was not a truck that hit the garage, but a trailer that had no safety chain. She also stated that she would keep the 20' setback as proposed because it would allow her to parka car between the sidewalk along 57th and her new garage. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89001 (Gorco Construction) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 89001 , on the following grounds: a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the ordinance standards for variances. b) The circumstances upon which the variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. 1-26-89 -1- c) Granting a variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Nelson then inquired of the Commission as to whether they recommend the ordinance amendment drafted by staff. Commissioner Malecki asked whether she understood correctly that, if 69th Avenue North becomes a four lane street, it would become a major thoroughfare again. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, adding that it would only be a major thoroughfare where widened to four lanes. He noted that there is no plan as yet to widen 69th west of Brooklyn Boulevard where it is a county road. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REDEFINING MAJOR THOROUGHFARES Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Definition of Major Thoroughfares as all four lane streets and roads. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89003 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval by the City of Brooklyn Center of the land bordering the freeway, generally south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commissionr Information Sheet for Application No. 89003 attached). The Secretary added that he would like the Commission to review the ordinance language amending the uses permitted in the I-1 zone. He noted that the language in the ordinance draft would eliminate all C2 uses except service/office uses from the I-1 zone. He reviewed with the Commission some of the C2 uses that would be eliminated, including retail sales, restaurants, and some service uses. He stated that the Commission should take a close look at what would be taken out of the I-1 zone. He stated that the initial concern was to prevent fast food restaurants and budget motels at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that he recommended that the Commission not go as far as the draft ordinance, but rather consider allowing the permitted C2 uses in the I-1 zone, while excluding the special uses such as fast food restaurants and transient lodging. In response to a question from Chairman Nelson as to the vacant parcels involved, the Secretary showed the Commission a map of the commercial and industrial park and pointed out existing vacant parcels in the I-1 zone and the parcels that would be rezoned under the proposed rezoning. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the proposed ordinance covers the things that he would not like to see in the I-1 zone, including retail centers. He stated that he did not think a restaurant would go on the I-1 zoned land remaining. Chairman Nelson asked whether the ordinance would eliminate a dining facility. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that he would not recommend going that far. He stated that he would also allow retail uses in the I-1 zone. He noted that there is some retail that would still be allowed as an accessory use to manufacturing, and wholesale, etc. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could restrict the type of retail uses that would go into the I-1 zone. He stated that he did not want to see a strip shopping center built in the I-1 zone. The Secretary stated that the Commission could look at ordinance language in 1-26-89 -2- restricting retail establishments in the I-1 zone. He stated that some retail uses have been allowed, such as Schmitt Music and the former Carriage House use west of Shingle Creek. He admitted that allowing retail uses in the I-1 zone could open up the possibility of a strip shopping center, but he doubted that such a use would be proposed. Commissioner Ainas acknowledged that a strip shopping center was not expected, but he would still like to prevent it. j Mr. Al Beisner, the representative of Richardson and Sons, the owner of much of the vacant land left north of the freeway, commented on the ordinance amendment changes. Chairman Nelson asked about the possibility of restaurants at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Mr. Beisner stated that he had talked to representatives of a couple of restaurants interested in locating at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary briefly reviewed the areas proposed for rezoning to C2 and asked Mr. Beisner to comment on the reality and potential for the I-1 zone. Mr. Beisner stated that he had contacts with a company that wanted to put a furniture showroom similar to Schmitt Music west of the Schmitt Music site. He also stated that a restaurant could be proposed at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that the area at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is a very popular corner and will be in the future. He predicted that the industrial building at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard would probably be demolished and redeveloped in the next five years or so. He stated that he understood the aim of the ordinance amendment, but would still like to allow restaurants in the I-1 zone. { Commissioner Malecki stated that it sounded as if the vision Mr. Beisner had of the land along Freeway Boulevard involved more commercial than industrial uses. Mr. Beisner stated that that could be what works out. He stated, that because of the first ring suburb location of the industrial park, the City would not see much warehousing proposed in this area, but would see more service-oriented uses. He stated that he did not want to see the City zone out future possibilities for the industrial park. Commissioner Ainas asked whether Mr. Beisner foresaw a strip shopping center in the I-1 zone. Mr. Beisner answered in the negative, but stated that a retail showroom/warehouse type use, similar to Schmitt Music might be proposed. The Secretary pointed out that what spurred the rezoning proposal was interest on the part of fast food restaurants and budget motels to locate at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that staff did not believe such uses would reflect well on the industrial park and the Planning Commission and City Council had concurred with that judgement. He went on to explain that the uses south of Freeway Boulevard were basically commercial in nature even though they were located in the industrial park zoning district. He stated that staff had become concerned that the City would be unable to defend in court a denial of a special use permit for a fast food restaurant and a budget motel since similar uses had been allowed in the area south of Freeway Boulevard. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could distinguish between a large and a small restaurant in its use regulations. The Secretary stated that the City already distinguishes between convenience food restaurants and other eating establishments. He also pointed out that a liquor license requires a restaurant to have at least 150 dining seats. Commissioner Malecki.asked whether Schmitt Music wouldn't fit under the category of retail sales as an accessory use to wholesale and warehousing uses. The Secretary stated that it possibly could, but that that building was originally an appliance showroom and warehouse for Kennedy and Cohen. Commissioner Malecki noted that there had been educational uses in the I-1 zone such as a dance studio. The Secretary also pointed out some other uses that had been allowed, including gymnasiums. 1-26-89 -3- Mr. Beisner stated that he was concerned that the City not send the message that some good things for the industrial park would be kept out. The Secretary suggested that the application could be tabled until the next study meeting when a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be brought back for the Coninission's consideration. He added that, in the interim, staff could get further input on potential uses from Mr. Beisner. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89003) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone else wished to comment on the proposed rezoning. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to table the application and continue the public hearing until the next study meeting. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89003 AND CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89003 —City of Brooklyn Center ) Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner Ainas, to table Application No. 89003 and continue the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Nelson added that he would like to see language that would allow an upscale type restaurant in the I-1 zone, but definitely not a fast food restaurant. DISCUSSION ITEM a) Residential Facilities The Secretary then introduced the topic of how to regulate community based residential facilities within the City. He pointed out that the City has retained Donn Wiski as a consultant to help the City develop regulations governing community based residential facilities. He noted also that the City has retained Peter Patchin to study property value changes that occur due to the location of group homes in residential neighborhoods. He informed the Commission that the preliminary results of Mr. Patchin Is study do not appear to support the contention that property values decline when a group home is located in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Donn Wiski, of Resolution, Inc., then distributed to the Planning Commission copies of a preliminary report entitled Community Based Residential Facilities Regulatory Framework Evaluation. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission some of the graphs and tables in the report. Mr. Wiski stated that one key term used in zoning regulations is the residential unit and how that unit is defined. Mr. Wiski stated that, many years ago, cities had a mixture of land uses within a given district. He stated that zoning regulations for some time then sought to separate uses into homogeneous districts, but that now regulations were moving back in the direction of allowing some mixture of uses within districts. He cited Riverplace as an example of a mixed use development. He added that court decisions have been moving toward a more liberal definition of the family unit to include group occupancies as well as family occupancies. Mr. Wiski pointed out that there has been a decline in state hospital occupancy over the last 30 years. He stated that the trend toward deinstitutionialization has been matched by more people coming from single family homes into supervised living facilities. He informed the Commission that there are far more offenders living in supervised living arrangements than are actually confined in prisons or jails. Mr. 1-26-89 -4- Wiski told the Commission that the City cannot discriminate in deciding who can live where. He reviewed with the Commission a table which summarized the types of community based residential facilities that operate under various state rules. He stated that the task of the Commission is to develop a land use regulation to overlay these operational rules governing residential facilities. He stated one potential area of regulation would be the size of the facility. He pointed out that supervised living facilities tend to be smaller in number of clients than those where total care is offered, such as nursing homes, which tend to be large institutions. Mr. Wiski reviewed various ways to distinguish facilities, among them: living arrangement, living support, support type and facility size or level of activity. He suggested that it should be possible to distinguish between independent living facilities and service dependent living facilities. He added that regulations should cover what is permitted in various districts and number of persons per housing unit. Mr. Wiski then reviewed various implementation options, including: a) do nothing b) comply with State preemption c) revise definitions of family and supportive housing, and d) adopt regulations including: permitted uses with conditions, special uses with special conditions, and a separate special use permit process. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission policy considerations dealin g with group homes, including district uses, new districts, and regulations or conditions governing group homes. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Wiski whether his task was to help the City devise regulations to deal with community based residential facilities. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and stated that it was important for the City to have a policy and regulations in place before proposals for group homes come forth. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there were other communities that have such policies. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative, mentioning Plymouth and Eden Prairie among other cities that have dealt with the issue. He stated that each community has to look at the issue and devise a policy for itself. j The Secretary explained that the City had contracted for a broader based study than just dealing with the Bill Kelly House. He stated that there were concerns regarding property values and safety impacts of community based residential facilities. He added that the City can only regulate land use aspects of community 1 based residential facilities, not operational considerations. He stated that community based residential facilities will be here, whether we like them or not. He stated that legal decisions have been laid down protecting the rights of facility residents to locate in residential zoning districts and limiting the scope of local regulation. He explained that Mr. Wiski is laying out possibilities that the City can have for regulating such facilities, but that the State has preempted some of the ; decisions. Mr. Wiski recommended that the regulations set conditions for j community based residential facilities and, if they are met, such facilities should { be allowed. Chairman Nelson concluded that the Commission is being told that it cannot say no and get away with it. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and reiterated that cities cannot discriminate on the basis of who can live where. The Secretary commented that one option'would be to allow group homes as a permitted use with limited occupancies consistent with State law and not have any special use category. He asked whether the special use process has helped or served any purpose in resolving differences between group home advocates and neighborhood residence. He noted that, in the case of the Bill Kelly House, attitudes have not changed as a result of the public hearings. He went on to explain that the moratorium imposed on 1-26-89 -5- j1 1 group homes was to allow time for a study of possible land use regulations governing group homes. He added that the City cannot deny a facility with 7 to 16 clients in a multiple family zone, since State law mandates that such facilities are permitted uses in multiple family zoning districts. Mr. Wiski commented that, when the State preempted zoning authority on facilities with six or fewer clients, it quieted down the neighborhoods, since there were no public hearings and no debate on whether such a facility could be located in a residential neighborhood. He added, however, that there should be limits as to what can be allowed in both single family and multiple family districts. The Secretary informed the Commission that he has had contacts with people in the neighborhood group (near the Bill Kelly House) and with a legal representative of the Bill Kelly House. He stated that he would expect people to show up at future meetings where these regulations will be discussed. He concluded by stating that the issue before the Commission is how to regulate community based residential facilities generally, not just the Bill Kelly House. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:06 p.m. 4qlA V11 'A Ch man 1-26-89 -6-