Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 04-27 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 April 27, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:44 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Commissioner Ella Sander had called to say she was unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the April 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Nelson. The motion passed. INFORMATIONAL ITEM (Northbrook Shopping Center) The Secretary reviewed with the Plannin—g—Tommission plans for upgrading the Northbrook Shopping Center, He stated that there would be a change to the exterior to stucco, but no building expansion. He stated that Bosa Donuts would be demolished and that building fronts would be constructed along the south side of the southerly building. He noted that there would be no changes to the Country Club building. The Secretary explained that a property line exists along the wall of the Bosa Donut building where it meets the Northbrook Shopping Center building. He stated that, under the Building Code, no openings could be allowed along that wall. He explained, however, that the owner has submitted an agreement binding the parcels together and that a replat would be accomplished within a year. The Secretary pointed out that the exterior treatment of the shopping center buildings would be carried entirely around the buildings and that the parapet wall would be raised to screen mechanical equipment and allow signs on the parapet wall to be considered wall signs. He stated that there was no site and building plan application required inasmuchas there was no expansion at this time. There was a brief discussion as to the location of the liquor store in this neighborhood. The Secretary stated that the liquor store is looking at relocating within the same building to face 57th Avenue North. Chairman Nelson asked whether there would be any change to the access or the parking lot. The Secretary responded in the negative. DISCUSSION ITEM a) Group Home Study Mr. Donn Wiski of Resolution, Inc. then addressed the Commission at some length regarding the planning study he was preparing on the regulation of group homes. He 4-27-89 -1- stated that the traditional household that has been used for planning purposes in the past is turning into something different. He also stated that care facilities are shifting to community based residential facilities and away from institutions. He noted that it was a good time to anticipate the changes in household patterns and living arrangements in the first ring suburbs. He reviewed with the Commission the areas for study directed by the City Council regarding group homes. He pointed out that the ordinance needed to be updated. He explained that the treatment of related as opposed to unrelated individuals in a household setting under the Zoning Ordinance would have to be distinguished in certain circumstances. He stated that the ordinance would have to define and treat group occupancies differently than single-family occupancies. He noted the possibilities for classifying group occupancies based on length of occupancy, the type of service, the level of service and the size and scale of the group occupancy. He reviewed some of the potential impacts to be regulated including size of the facility, concentration of facilities, safety, interaction with the neighborhood, and traffic and parking. He stated that 20 clients was sort of an upper limit acknowledged in studies as a residential occupancy. Regarding concentration, he stated that there should perhaps be no more than one group occupancy per building allowed. He stated that, with a size of twenty or less, there was no appreciable negative impact on the safety in the neighborhood from residential facilities. He added that a study by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration had concluded that, even community correctional facilities did not have negative impacts on the safety of surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that there is a limited amount of interaction between group home residents and people in the neighborhood, but that people in residential facilities sometimes look different and are feared by neighborhood residents. He added that traffic and parking at residential facilities has generally not been a factor in affecting the residential character of neighborhoods. Mr. Wiski then reviewed some implementation options including: do nothing; comply with State preemption; add definitions regarding family and supportive housing; regulations; and creating districts for institutional uses. He reviewed some zoning actions which could be taken. He stated that definitions could be amended regarding group occupancy, distinguishing affiliated, nonaffiliated, and institutional versus residential occupancies. He added that definitions would be needed concerning group living units and community based residential facilities. He stated that establishing an institutional/residential district for large occupancies would be appropriate. He stated that the various types of residential uses should be allocated to the various districts based on a residential classification system. Finally, he stated that the City may wish to establish group living unit conditions in its regulations. Mr. Wiski then discussed the special use permit hearing process. He stated that the process is set up so that neighbors can vent their concerns before a use is approved. He pointed out, however, that the special use permit process has not reconciled the applicant with the neighborhood, but has led rather to further opposition and to court actions. He reviewed with the Commission the types of residential definitions which could be added. He pointed out that the basic category of occupancy could be divided into family occupancy and group occupancy and that group occupancy could, in turn, be divided into affiliated and unaffiliated group occupancies. He then reviewed with the Commission the possibility for screening out various types of occupancies based on length of stay, level of care, and size and scale of the facility. He stated that short term occupancy would not be considered residential 4-27-89 -2- uses and that total care facilities would not be considered residential occupancies. He added that a large facility serving over 20 clients could also be considered a nonresidential occupancy. He stated that facilities which cater to these various populations might be classified as institutional uses and allowed in an institutional district. The Secretary asked about facilities that provide total care for retarded persons. Mr. Wiski stated that they might not be considered residential uses if they provide total care for individuals. The Secretary cited an example of two sisters that live in Brooklyn Center and take care of dying children. He stated that, under Mr. Wiski Is classification scheme, that would not be considered a residential use. Mr. Wiski stated that, when total care is offered, no matter how small the occupancy, the City may wish to classify it as a nonresidential use. The Secretary asked whether it would still be considered a residential use because the occupancy is an affiliated group occupancy. Mr. Wiski responded that it could be. He added that the City may wish to accept the State mandate of 6 or fewer clients as a permitted single-family use of property even if total care is offered. He stated that he was concerned about the possibility of a mini-prison being set up in a residential district. He stated that such a prison would offer total supervision and care of the residents and was appropriately an institutional use rather than a single- family use. In response to a question from Chairman Nelson, Mr. Wiski stated that the City could draw a line on the basis of level of care, not just on the basis of size. He stated that total confinement is not a residential type occupancy. The Secretary added that the sisters that care for dying children are classified by the County as foster care and are, therefore, classified under the Zoning Ordinance as a single-family use. Commissioner Johnson raised the example of a house serving six AIDS patients. Mr. Wiski stated that, under current law, that would be a permitted single-family use of property. Commissioner Johnson asked for the definition of a family in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary explained that there are three basic definitions of a family. These include: a) persons related by blood, marriage or adoption; b) up to six wards or clients cared for by a resident family or licensed personnel; and c) five nonrelated individuals. He pointed out that in all cases, the families are expected to maintain a common household. In response to another question from Commissioner Johnson, the Secretary pointed out that the definition of a family involving up to six wards or clients notes that the facility has to be licensed by the appropriate public agency. He explained that, although the definition refers to a resident family, in all cases he is aware of, those clients are served by a staff of people who come and go rather than a resident family. Mr. Wiski stated that it is legitimate for zoning ordinances to define families, but that there have to be reasons. He stated that a functional family could also be considered as a family. He pointed out the existence of family versus nonfamily households. The Secretary cited the example of the Bill Kelly House which was proposed for a 10 unit apartment building. He explained that the proposal involved up to 23 clients with four to five staff present at a time. He pointed out that, if each unit were occupied by a family of up to six individuals, the entire building could accommodate up to 60 people in group occupancies. He stated that such a scenario is not a practical problem, but a theoretical problem. The Planner stated that proposed State legislation dealt with this in some way. Mr. Wiski stated that the State legislation as drafted would allow for either an entire building to be converted to a group occupancy or a maximum of 25% of the floor area if less than the entire building were used. 4-27-89 -3- Mr. Wiski stated that he would suggest that distinguishing occupancies based on the length of occupancy, the level of support and affiliation, and size of facility. He stated that these could serve as tests for defining residential as opposed to nonresidential occupancies. He reviewed with the Commission a matrix of various residential and institutional uses and the districts that they could be allowed in as either a permitted or a special use. He also reviewed with the Commission a list of definitions, some of which would have to be added to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission a list of standard conditions which should apply to group occupancies. These would include: a license obtained before occupancy; compliance with occupancy limits; supervision appropriate to the occupancy; on premise services for residents only;. no more than one group living unit per building in residential districts; a consistent exterior; spacing of facilities of 660 feet in single-family zones and 1,320 feet.between multiple- family uses. He added conditions relating to annual renewal; demonstration of the adequacy of off-street parking; certification on a yearly basis of no violent behavior by residents; and approved funding before occupancy. He stated that these standard conditions would probably be the most appropriate way of controlling group occupancies. He again stated that the venting process with special use permit hearings has not served much purpose. Regarding funding, Chairman Nelson stated that it was his understanding that the Bill Kelly House had to get its funding, its licensing, and its zoning approval all at once and that one could not really be a condition of the other. The Secretary explained that Bill Kelly House thought that it had funding and was approved originally by the City. He pointed out that the County did not fund the Bill Kelly House for the location at 53rd and Drew. He stated that funding would be needed as a practical matter before occupancy. The Secretary wondered why it would not be appropriate to put State officials in front of the public at hearings since they are the ones that have mandated that group homes be allowed in residential districts. He stated that the special use permit process allows people to think that the City has the right to say no to these facilities. He pointed out, however, that community based residential facilities are going to be located in the City under State law and that the City cannot really say no to these uses. He questioned whether the special use permit process is really worthwhile. Chairman Nelson asked whether the Secretary implied that group homes should just be set up as a permitted use. The Secretary answered that he leaned that way. He stated that he did not know what was really accomplished by the special use permit process. Mr. Wiski stated that he thought it was important to have some mechanism to integrate group home uses into residential neighborhoods. He agreed that, perhaps the special use permit process was not the best, but that there was a need for some sort of review to insure that group homes would fit into the neighborhood. The Secretary asked where the study goes from here. Mr. Wiski encouraged the Planning Commission to work with the text of the study and to revise' it as needed. The Secretary added that there is legislation being considered right now which would require the dispersal of group homes. He stated that the legislation refers to planning districts which, in Brooklyn Center, would be the various neighborhoods. He stated that these districts were used to determine when a level of concentration had been reached. 4-27-89 -4- Mr. Wiski stated that there were three provisions being considered. One would require that all residential facilities be allowed as a permitted use. The second provision defined concentration of group homes as 1% of the population of a planning district being housed in residential facilities. The third provision was to allow prisons in commercial districts. The Planner noted that the provision on correctional facilities required that they be 750 feet from any residential district and that there were few, if any, locations in Brooklyn Center which would qualify. Mr. Wiski stated that cities would not see a giant impact from the process of deinstitutionalization and deconcentration of facilities if it were properly managed and that that is what the study is for. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m. irman 4-27-89 -5- 1 1