Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 06-14 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 14, 1990 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - May 10, 1990 4. Chairperson's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City' Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Leslie Andresen 90014 Request for special use permit approval to install and operate a home beauty shop in the basement of the residence at 6821 Perry Avenue North. 6. Joseph Jacobson 90016 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. 7. Teasdale and Associates 90015 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 located at 3407, 3409, 3411, 3413, 3415 and 3417 65th Avenue North to be three-bedroom units. The proposal would involve taking 24 two-bedroom units and remodeling them into 16 three-bedroom units. 8. Other Business 9. Discussion Items 10. Adjournment { r Y Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90014 Applicant: Leslie Andresen Location: 6821 Perry Avenue North Request: Home Occupation/Special Use Permit I The applicant requests special use permit approval to install and operate a home barber shop in the basement of the residence at 6821 Perry Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the east by Perry Avenue North and on the north, west, and south by single-family homes. The Korean Presbyterian church is to the northwest. Home beauty shops are a special use in the R1 zone. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) describing the proposed home occupation and a floor plan of the house. The home occupation will be conducted in two rooms in the basement, a waiting area 17.5 x 10.5' and a styling area approximately 11' x 10.51 . Mrs. Andresen plans to operate on an appointment-only basis. Hours of operation would be Tuesday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ; Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The site plan submitted shows a wide single car driveway (14 ' ) widening behind the house to a double car driveway. It is at least possible for two customers to be parked at the same time behind the house. Entrance to the shop would • generally be from the rear of the house. No nonresident employee is proposed. Ingress and egress would be via the stairs to the basement in an emergency, there is a legal egress window in the basement. Mrs. Andresen states that she will keep the areas safe and clear, that she will carry extra insurance for the shop, and will be subject to routine inspections by the State Barber Board, and will practice proper sanitation. She also plans on having a sign to let people with appointments know they're in the right place, however, that sign may not exceed 2.5 sq. ft. She states she will not accept walk-ins. She expects most customers to be neighbors, friends and relatives. Mrs. Andresen closes by noting her 11 years experience, 8 as a master barber. She is licensed with the State. One of the primary issues with most special home occupations is parking and customer traffic. Generally, on-street parking is prohibited, though the Zoning Ordinance comprehends it under certain conditions. The applicant's driveway contains ample parking space for two vehicles. The applicant has indicated that there would be no more than two customers present at any one time since appointments would be spaced one half hour apart. The proposed floor plan shows a barber chair and a shampoo chair as well as' a waiting area. We would recommend a condition that no more than two customers be present at one time. This would have to be enforced on a complaint basis relating to on-street parking. 6-14-90 -1- f f I Application No. 90014 continued Altogether, the proposal seems to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least 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. • 6-14-90 -2- i • • , City of Brooklyn Center Planning and Inspection Dept. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 May 14, 1990 Dear Planning and Inspection Department Members , I am planning to open a home barber shop, so I am applying for a special use permit. The barber shop will be located in the basement of my home. It is totally separate from living space. The shop will be in two rooms that are open to each other. One will be the waiting area, it is approx- imately 17.5 ' x 10.5 ' in size. The other room will be the styling area, it is approximately 11 ' x 10.5 ' in size. I will operate by appointment only! My hours will be Tuesday through Friday: 9 AM - 5 PM, Wednesday evenings : 7 PM - 9 PM, and Saturdays : 9 AM - 4 PM. As you can see from the enclosed lot plan there is plenty of off-street parking. There will be no non-resident employee. People will enter by the rear entrance and go directly down the stairs to the shop. They will leave the same way except in case of an emergency where the stairway was blocked. In that case we will leave by an egress window that meets the code. I will make sure the indoor and outdoor areas are kept clean and free of hazards by locking up all chemicals and keeping walkways and the stairway clear of anything that anyone could step on or trip on. I have arranged to carry extra insurance for this purpose. I will be subject to routine inspections by the State Barber Board and will practice proper sanitation. There will be a 2 ' x 2.5 ' sign just to let people with appoint- ments know they are in the right place. I will not accept walk- ins. My customers will be mostly neighbors, friends, and rela- tives. I expect to stay small with only word-of-mouth advertising. I have been barbering for over eleven years. I have been a Master Barber for eight of those years. My barber license number is 0331. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. Respectfully, Leslie Andresen 6821 Perry Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 lLl t � I t u M I I ' f f a_ � a i • �� N ,t '. iii Qa f • t ' ku � OZ J Qi- i s j �u f U I L I w li (_ •L I V1 kl) LU cb ! n I " I ', I ll . 1 U—���u of y II 44 .. f —qn Ic i I I ( l -tz -•-� �--i��� L . _ I� ` ��i ' I I ..y"� -'3!� ICJ 6l Q; I I I 1 IN _ I • - _ - - kI I t L .- -- III I 1 I i 1 ' sl I I I q� 46 i. I I i v,q� - � -- r` - �. I i �I �� I -- - - Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: • (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the, special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- . inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. I r r Irk N Y � . 11 � ,�. ♦� = = // .`I�_ __ .._ � a ���� �, Nom., .��� •� ..1 � a MR ME IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM ii ra ld 111■ � � . � . .. _ � M Ins �.. 1/ � � N ■. r srrr .. �u��■■�uuu��tt�� � �, IIIIIU11111 - �NtW�tNUUy��� �� t�%��%�1 ■/IttuNt�� _ '� � � ■u�tnuuuttu����C :• � t��t�u� t��wut� : � - - �. • .N Nwt�/1■ all �itt� ■ut■■■m all �� ■■ �' �- mm mm mom I I �i i i I Planning Commission Information Sheet • Application No. 90016 Applicant: Joseph Jacobson Location: 1821 Irving Lane Request: Special Use Permit/Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a saw sharpening home occupation in the garage of the residence at 1821 Irving Lane. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by Irving Lane, and on the east, south, and west by single-family homes. Saw sharpening and home occupations involving the use of a garage are special uses in the R1 district. The applicant has submitted a brief letter (attached) in which he describes the proposed home occupation. He notes that his equipment and activity would be located in the attached 18 ' x 25' garage. He has indicated over the phone that he would not use more than half the garage and that a car and other items could still be parked in the garage. The proposed hours of operation would be from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (days are not specified) . Mr. Jacobson states that there will be no customer parking because all work will be picked up and delivered. No non-resident employee is proposed and no signery will be used. A fire extinguisher and a phone are both located in the garage. No state license is required. Mr. Jacobson concludes by saying that the amount of noise created by sharpening is barely audible beyond the garage doors. Saw sharpening operations are specifically mentioned in the definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance as a special home occupation. Also, Sections 35-405 and 35-406 indicate that the use ` of a garage in a home occupation requires a special use permit. Staff have no special concerns with regard to the proposed home occupation, other than perhaps the possibility of the equipment causing interference with TV and radio reception. A condition of approval should be included to cover this. Altogether, the proposed home occupation seems acceptable under the Zoning Ordinance and approval is recommended, subject to at least 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. 3 . The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 8:30 a.m. , nor any later than 9: 00 p.m. • 6-14-90 -1- I I Application No. 90016 continued 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. 6-14-90 -2- , ) I f June 1, 1990 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ATTN: Mr. Gary Shallcross, Planner Dear Sir: Per your request, I am submitting the following information regarding the saw sharpening business I plan to do in our garage. A. Nature of Activity: Sharpening of circle saws, hand saws, scissors, and miscellaneous items. B. Location: 1821 Irving Lane; equipment and sharpening will be located in the garage (18' x 25' attached garage). C. Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. D. Parking Space: No parking spaces required as all work will be picked up and delivered at designated places. E. Non-resident Employee: None F. Means of Ingress & Egress: Our house and garage doors will be used. G. Safety Measures: A fire extinguisher and phone are both located in garage. H. Expected Signery: No advertising will be done on premises. I. State License: None required. As additional information, the amount of noise created by sharpening is barely audible beyond the garage doors. Your favorable consideration of this Special Use Permit would be very much appreciated. es ctfully mitt , Joseph A. Ja son 1821 Irvin Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Enclosure: Application for Special Use Permit i 35-400 12. In instances where an existing one or two family structure in a residential zoning district is deficient in its setback from the front, side, or rear property line by not more than 30% of the setback requirement, the structure may be expanded along the existing building line, provided there is no greater encroachment into the required yard area. This provision in no way permits the expansion of a conforming structure resulting in a setback less than established by this ordinance. Section 35-405. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1. No home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 2. No home occupation shall involve the use of any accessory structures or installations. + 3. No home occupation shall involve the use of equipment other than that customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4. No home occupation shall involve the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. 5. No home occupation shall involve the employment on the lot of persons who are not members of the family residing on the lot. 6. No home occupation providing day care shall serve more than twelve (12) children in the R1 district, five (5) children in the R2 and R3 districts, or five (5) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in other residential districts (R4 through R7) . This subsection is not intended to supersede any lease arrangements which may be more restrictive. 7. No home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 8. No automobile parking related to the home occupation shall be permitted on the street. v/ Section 35-406. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1. All special home occupations shall require approval of a special use permit pursuant to Section 35-220 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 2. No special home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation must be a permitted use under Section 35-310 d e - an Section 35 311 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 3. A special home occupation may use equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 35-406 I 4. No special home occupation shall employ, at any one time, more than one f person who is not a member of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 5. No special home occupation may include the teaching of more than ten (10) students at one time who are not members of the famil y occupying the dwelling unit. 6. No special home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the special home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 7. No automobile parking related to the special home occupation shall be permitted on the street provided, however, that upon a finding hat the special home p me occupation is not feasible without on street parking, the City Council may authorize parking on the street based upon a consideration of Section 35-220.2 and of the following: a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage. b. The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street. C. Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. hbo g rhood. 8. No special home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 9. No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. Section 35-410 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN R3, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 DISTRICTS. 1. All storage shall be contained wholly within an enclosed building. 2. The incineration of waste matter shall be conducted in approved equipment located within the building wherein the permitted use is conducted. Equipment shall be considered "approved" when approved by the zoning official and sanitarian. 3. Where a proposed R3, R4, R5, R6, or R7 development abuts an Rl or R2 district other than at a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established. There shall be provided a protective strip not less than 25 feet wide in the case of R6 and R7 uses and not less than 15 feet wide in the case of R3, R4 and R5 uses. The protective strip shall contain an opaque fence or a Council approved substitute e. The protective strip shall be landscaped and not be used for parking, garages, driveways, off-street loading or storage. The screening device design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the multiple dwelling area. A proposed fence shall be no less than four feet in height and shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right-of-way. I I �t.:ASy Si ' I I �•t.�•�� t�•ar•ns �. � M ,� 1>� ■ .. �. ■_� ;vin ri s� ■�■Yt�d W /� a s I` MUM ow MUS MW IN IN NOR as MUM -- + • �� N M1• MM • acs nn1 _ 1.S _ IMMS . . 1 1 111111 A L • '' • r •• YY N L • 1• � .. �����•�1 silo. � /�■■/■U E Emig Ms Ml ■Wt///U/1 � 'ion =�s� �� � — i I I I i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90015 Applicant: Teasdale and Associates Location: 3407 through 3417 65th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 footnote 1 c. of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than 10t of the units in the Garden City Court apartment development to be three-bedroom units. The proposal would involve taking 24 two-bedroom units in the complex and remodeling them into 16 three-bedroom units. The total number of units in the complex would be reduced from 72 to 64. The percentage of three-bedroom units would, therefore, be 25%. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the north by 65th Avenue North, on the east by the Beard Avenue apartments (three 12 unit buildings) , on the south by Builder's Square, and on the west by Garden City elementary school. The complex presently consists of six 12 unit buildings served by a private cul-de-sac street. The two and one half storey apartment buildings are permitted uses in the R5 district. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he explains his proposal and briefly addresses the Standards for a Variance (see Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Mr. Teasdale explains that recent changes in the laws pertaining to the awarding of low income housing credits and the allocation of tax exempt bond financing have made it a requirement that a minimum of 25% of total units in a multi-family project be three-bedroom units. Low income housing credits, he states, are the major vehicle for the provision of rehabilitation funds on a multi-family project. Mr. Teasdale points out that the number of rental units has increased while the number of renters has declined or is projected to decline. This will lead to vacancies unless a project is upgraded. One area of the rental market that is expected to experience increased demand is moderate cost three bedroom units. Mr. Teasdale states that Brooklyn Center is vulnerable to future vacancies with the high number of one-bedroom units. Mr. Teasdale points out that his proposed remodeling will reduce the number of dwelling units in the complex and should result in an increase of only 6 to 10 children in the complex. Mr. Teasdale concludes his letter by stating that it is in the City's interest to allow more three-bedroom units since it will allow for rehabilitation of rental projects which should benefit the neighborhood. Otherwise, there may be declining demand for smaller units which will result in decay in the future. As to the variance standards, Mr. Teasdale states that the Garden City Court apartment project is for sale, but will be worth less to potential buyers if rehabilitation funds cannot be used to upgrade it. Rehabilitation funds are only available for a project with at least 25% three-bedroom units. Therefore, the existing 10% limit . in the Zoning Ordinance causes an economic hardship for the present owner. 6-14-90 -1- Y` i • Application No. 90015 continued Regarding uniqueness, Mr. Teasdale admits that the same circumstances could apply to other apartment developments. Mr. Teasdale states that the situation was not created by the current owners. (Apparently, he means that the hardship has resulted from the adoption of the 10% limit by the City in 1974, not by actions of the owner. ) Finally, Mr. Teasdale states that the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, but should, in fact, prove beneficial to other property in the area. Staff Response We would acknowledge that there is validity to many - of the applicant's arguments. Not only will rehabilitation funds not be available, but market demand will also be less if conversion to three-bedroom units is not allowed. The result, as has been pointed out, may be that there will be fewer people renting the units, less income to work with, and consequently perhaps a lower standard of maintenance. This may be considered a hardship not only for the owner, but for tenants, neighbors, and the City as well since a deteriorating project is in no one's interest. Also, this hardship results from the imposition of the 10% limitation in the Zoning Ordinance which was adopted in 1974, after the project was built. The applicant argues that the rehabilitation of the project allowed by the relaxation of the 10% limit on three-bedroom units will benefit other property and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. There may be some concern on the part of the neighborhood about the likelihood of more children at the complex with greater impact, both positive and negative, on the neighborhood. The number of dwelling units would actually decline by 8; so, the number of additional children might be fairly limited. In any case, the City probably cannot legally adopt and execute a housing policy which is discriminating against children. The main standard which is not met in this case is uniqueness. This complex is really not unique at all. It may be, therefore, that a more appropriate way of dealing with the issue would be to change the ordinance to either alter or eliminate the 10% limit on three-bedroom apartments. In 1988, there was a proposal by Robert Zappa to build a 12 unit building with 11 three-bedroom units. The Planning Commission considered the ordinance at that time and recommended no change. The application was forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation to deny. The applicant never showed up at the City Council meeting and the application was tabled. No action has been taken on the issue by the City Council. At the time the Zappa application was considered by the Planning Commission, staff conducted a survey of 16 other municipalities with respect to their ordinances regarding three-bedroom apartments. Half the cities (8) had requirements for additional land area for three-bedroom units (as has Brooklyn Center) , but none of them had any provision similar to the 10% limit on three- bedroom units. 6-14-90 -2- II �', �I I Application No. 90015 continued We have asked the City Attorney o comment on the 10% limitation, , as to whether it would likely be found legal in light of fair housing legislation and court decisions. He has conveyed to us a memorandum prepared in 1988 regarding the subject. The case law on ordinances similar to Brooklyn Center's is limited because this type of provision (the 10% limit on three-bedroom units) is fairly rare. Two cases are cited in the memorandum. In one case, the ordinance was upheld as a legitimate means of controlling density of development. A similar ordinance was declared invalid in another case since it had the effect of excluding children. In both cases, the impact of children on available school facilities was cited as a basis for the ordinance. In one case, this basis was deemed legitimate; in another, it was not. We expect another memo from the City Attorney on this subject and will forward it to the Commission as soon as it is available. The Commission is encouraged to consider both the purposes and effects of the 10% limit on three-bedroom units. It may well be that a legal challenge to our ordinance would be successful. Another way of addressing the density concern is to require more land area for three-bedroom units. The present ordinance requires 250 sq. ft. of additional land for each bedroom over two in a given unit. This sort of provision is more common and more neutral in its effects than the 10% limit. The City Attorney has suggested in the 1988 cover letter (attached) that the City consider additional land requirements for three-bedroom units over the 10% limit. This is a possibility, or just increasing the land requirement for all three-bedroom units so long as the requirement is reasonable and is related to density concerns, not an attempt to exclude children. We will be prepared to discuss this matter further at Thursday's meeting. 6-14-90 -3- 35-400 1. In the case of residential uses, the minimum land area shall apply to each dwelling unit and shall be computed and adjusted as follows: a. The minimum land area required per unit shall be reduced by 250 square feet per efficiency unit in a multiple family dwelling; and no more than 10 percent of the units in such a dwelling may be efficiency units. b. The required total minimum land area may be reduced 500 square feet for each required parking stall in or under a multiple residence or otherwise completely underground. v1c. The required total minimum land area shall be increased 250 square feet for each bedroom in excess of two in any one multiple family dwelling unit, and no more than 10 percent of the units in any multiple dwelling shall have more than two bedrooms. d. Where development is contemplated in R3, R4, R5, R6 or R7 Land Use Districts, the minimum land area per dwelling unit may be reduced, as hereinafter provided, upon a finding by the City Council that the following standards have been met: 1. The proposed development is in a section of the City which is in need of public open space facilities. 2. The property owner has demonstrated a willingness to convey lands to the City for public open space purposes. 3. The physical relationship between the buildings within the proposed development and the proposed open space area afford to the occupants thereof a reasonable measure of visual relief from the mass and bulk of the buildings within the development. 4. The physical relationship among the buildings within the proposed development afford to the occupants thereof a reasonable measure of visual relief from the mass and bulk of the buildings within the development. 5. The physical relationship between the buildings within the proposed development and the proposed open space area afford to the occupants thereof a reasonably proximate recreational area. 6. The proposed development plan provides, through landscaping, plantings, natural or artificial buffering, or placement, that vehicle storage facilities, vehicle and pedestrian traffic movements, and other accessory structures and uses within the development are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian activities and allow the maximum use of open space areas, both public and private, for recreational purposes. i Teasdale & Associates, Ltd. May 19, 1990 4530 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, Mn. 55416 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn Attn: Gary Shallcross Re: Request to add three bedroom units in excess of 10% to Garden City Court Apartments Dear 'Mr. Shallcross, I am enclosing a request for a variance in the zoning for Garden City Court Apartments located at 3407 through 3417 65th Avenue N. in Brooklyn Center. The complex currently consists of 66 two bedroom units and 6 one bedroom units. The current owners are selling the project after 25+ years of ownership. The complex is in good physical condition and has no major deferred maintenance items. • The State of Minnesota in the legislative session just completed making changes in existing laws pertaining to the awarding of Low Income Housing Credits and the potential allocation of Tax Exempt bond financing. These changes made it virtually a requirement that projects attempting to get Low Income Housing Credits and any potential tax exempt bond financing include a minimum of 25% of total units in a multifamily project as three bedroom units. This rule is in direct conflict with the current Brooklyn Center Ordinance that prohibits a project having more that 10% of its units as three bedrooms. The significance of the Low Income Housing Credits is that it is the major vehicle for the provision of rehabilitation funds on a multifamily project. In the case of Garden Court an inability to utilize these credits would mean that any potential purchaser would receive no incentives in this manner for rehabilitation. The project would continue to operate in its current manner. The situation in Brooklyn Center for rental units is the same as is facing much of the Metropolitan Area. The number of apartment units have dramatically increased while the rental population has decreased or is projected to decrease. Those rental units which are upgraded will do well while those unable to do that may suffer higher and higher vacancies coupled with a lowering in quality of the residents. Those projects which are able to upgrade will be a credit to their f' i communities while those unable to do that will struggle as owners attempt to combat increasing vacancies. The one area which is projected to have increased demand is in the area of moderate cost three bedroom rentals. An area such as Brooklyn Center which has a high proportion of one bedroom units is particularly vulnerable to the decreasing demand for this type of unit. Garden Court which currently has 72 units would be decreased to 64 units as a result of the conversion of 24 the two bedroom units to three bedroom units. We believe that the population of Garden Court would actually remain about the same and that the total number of children would only increase by about 6 to 10. Our request is that Garden Court be permitted to put in three bedroom units through this conversion. It is our opinion that this will assist the project and the neighborhood through the rehabilitation and maintain the project into the future. In addition by not considering a rule change Brooklyn Center would cut itself off from several sources of rehabilitation funds and perhaps get in a position of having a large number of rental units for which there is not demand and the decay that inevitably follows. We appreciate being able to present this point of view and are available to answer more questions or provide data if requested. Sincerely, Harol T asdale Teasdale & Associates, Ltd. DISCUSSION OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR VARIANCE-GARDEN CITY COURT APARTMENTS Prepared by Harold Teasdale May 19, 1990 1 . The current owners of Gardent City Court are attempting to sell the project and have a buyer in hand. the potential buyer is planning to do substantial rehabilitation on the project. The ability to do this rehabilitation is dependent upon the buyer ' s ability to utilize various Federal and State Programs to justify the rehabilitation which is not warranted strictly due to economic reasons. The programs all hinge on the project having 25% or more three bedroom units. The current owner will experience a a real loss in equity ( after owning for over 25 years) and the project will not receive rehabilitation if this regulation is adhered to. 2. The conditions for this request could arise in other multifamily complexes although this is the only one curently affected. 3. This situation was not created by the current owners. 4. The granting of a varianance in this instance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and, in fact, should prove beneficial to other property in the area. ti 35-240 applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of Ahis notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. V 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. • c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3• Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. • 1 ei 1 t LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & • Drawz a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Piece Went August Minneapolis i► 1988 Minnesota 55402 Talaphone(612)333-0543 Tetecopier(6121333-0544 J.Dennis O'Brien Mr, Icon Warren John E.Drawz City of Brooklyn Center David J.Kennedv 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Joseph E.Hamilton Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 John S. Dean Glenn E. Purdue e Zoning Richard J.Sohieffer ; Code Limitation on Number of Three-Bedroom Charles L LeFevere Units Herbert P.Lefler til James J.r'Qrnson,Jr' Dear Ron Thomas R.Gait Steven S.Schmidt John 0. Kressel Attached is a memorandum regarding the validity of the James M.Stromman g q Ronald H. Batty provision in the Brooklyn Center City Code limiting the WilGamP.Jordan number of three-bedroom units which may be constructed in William R.Skafierud an apartment complex. Rodney D.Anderson Corrine A.Heine David 0 Beaudoin As the memorandum explains, the courts are not in aryFra.TsSk agreement with the constitutionality f such a Les M.AltmonBia limitation. However, the code y Timothy J.Pawl" significant constitutional issue, pand lit may dbe$advisable ur i A.Spcnhaim June A. Bergh to consider some amendment to the code to reduce the risk DarcyL Hitesmen that the City could become entangled in a constitutional David C.Roland challenge at some future time. One such amendment might Karen A.Chamartik be to require that for each three-bedroom unit above ten Paul D.Baertschi Arden Fritz _ percent- an additional amount of land, perhaps in excess of 250 square feet, .be added. Clayton L LeFevere,Retired Herbert P.Lefler,Retired If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:rsr Enclosure Z d 113AL465 S3.10H 60:OT 06. TT t.inr 0000000+00000bb9jbt15 M E M 0 R A N D U M • DATE: August 2, 1988 TO: Charlie LeFevere FROM: Karen Chamerlik RE: File 7-672; VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE OF RESTRICTING PERCENTAGE OF BEDROOMS IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES ; FAIR HOUSING ACT, 42 U.S.C. 65 3601-3619 INTRODUCTION A Brooklyn Center ordinance imposes square footage requirements on apartment complexes on a per unit basis. For every unit with more than two bedrooms, an additional 250 square feet of land is required with a credit for every efficiency apartment. The ordinance places additional restrictions limiting the percentage of units which do not contain one or two bedrooms. Specifically, an apartment complex may not consist of more than ten percent of either efficiency apartments or apartments with more than two bedrooms. In other words, at least 89 percent of -the units of an apartment complex must be one or two bedroom apartments. The first part of this memo summarizes the small amount of case law interpreting ordinances which place similar restrictions on the number of bedrooms permitted in an apartment complex. The second part of this memorandum summarizes the operative pro- visions of the Fair Housing Act. I . RESTRICTIONS ON BEDROOMS There have been few litigated cases arising from ordinances which place percentage limitations on the number of multi-bedroom units in apartment buildings. The two cases which squarely address the issue reach opposite results. In Malmar Associates v. Board of County Commissioners, 272 A. 2d 6 (Md. 1971) , the Maryland Court of Appeals examined an ordinance which prescribed percentage limitations on the number of bedrooms in apartment developments. The ordinance limited the number of two-bedroom apartments to forty percent and the number of units with three or more bedrooms to ten percent . There was also a provision for increasing the number of large apartments if the increase "would be consistent with surrounding land use, zoning, and the availability of adequate public facilities and services. " Ma, lmar, 272 A. 2d at 12. Plaintiffs argued that the ordinance • was unconstitutional on two grounds, as an unreasonable 8*d N3 ,19 'v S3W-JOH ©t:OS 06. TT t Ulf 0000000+00000VV9zbb; restriction upon the use of private property having no relation to the general welfare; and as a denial of equal protection of the law. The Court sustained the ordinance, stressing that the population of the county had doubled in the past decade and created unusual problems for the county government. There had been testimony at trial that exceptions to the ordinance could overcrowd existing and planned school facilities in the area. The Court determined that the limitations on the number of bedrooms were a reasonable means to achieving the stated purpose of density control and that density control was related to the public health, safety and welfare. With little discussion the Court also rejected the argument that the ordinance denied equal protection of the law to residents seeking to acquire multi-bedroom units through condominium or cooperative ownership and to members of families with four or more persons who could either not afford to or did not wish to Purchase single-family dwellings to enjoy multi-bedroom apart- ments . The Court said that the means used in the ordinance for a reasonable relationship to the purpose of achieving density control and concluded that the classification adopted by the ordinance was not unreasonable or unjustifiable. A similar ordinance was held invalid in Molino v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Glassboro, 281 A.2d 401 (N.J. Super. 1971) . In that case the ordinance in question provided that at least 70 percent of all units in any given garden complex could have no more than one bedroom. No more than 25 percent could have two bedrooms and no more than 5 percent could have three bedrooms. Id. at 403. At trial, it was conceded that the ordinance was designed to keep children out of Glassboro because more children would require more schools and result in higher taxes. The Court held- that the purpose of restricting the population of Glassboro to adults and excluding children was not valid and that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause: The effort to establish a well-balanced community does not contemplate the limitation of the number in a family by regulating the type of housing. The attempt to equate the cost of education to the number of children allowed in a project or a community has no relation to zoning. The governmental cost must be an Official concern but not to an extent that it deter- •- mines who shall live in the municipality. With all our advances and expertise, it is doubtful that the cost for educating children can ever be a profitable un- dertaking. There is a right to be free from discrimination based on economic status. There is also a right to live as a • family, and not be subject to a limitation on the 2 v.d H3Ma5 �C S31•1-10H OT:OT 05, TT t inr 0000000+000007rgvrs 5 � number of members of that family in order to reside anyplace. Such legal barriers would offend the equal protection mandates of the constitution. Id . at 405 -406 . The Court therefore held that the ordinance was null and void. At least one commentator agrees with the Molino Court. See Williams, American Land Planning Law at 56 .01 ( "Such a flat prohibition of families with children - or rather on such fam- ilies who rent housing rather than owning it - is certainly highly dubious in constitutional law. " ) In Suffolk Housing Services v. Town of Brookhaven, 397 N.Y.S. 2d 302 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977) , plaintiffs, unpropertied individuals a and taxpayers, brought an action challenging Brookhaven ordi- nance which restricted multi-family development. The ordinance required multi-family developments to contain an additional 1,000 square feet per bedroom where more than one bedroom was proposed in an MF--1 zoning district and an additional 1,000 square feet of site for each additional bedroom in an MF-2 district . The town had imposed written covenants and obtained the agreement of developers to limit the number of bedrooms in multi-family housing complexes. Plaintiffs argued that the restrictions had a disproportionately harsh impact on low-income persons, especially minority groups, who had to rent because they could not afford to purchase. The plaintiffs' action survived a motion to dismiss brought on a challenge to plaintiffs ' standing. The New York Courts never addressed the merits of the case, although the holding on the standing issue was affirmed. CONCLUSION Although there is little case law on the subject, the New Jersey courts have struck down an ordinance similar to Brooklyn Center's as an attempt at exclusionary zoning. In the New Jersey case, the purpose of limiting the number of children in an area was not a legitimate goal. In contrast, the Maryland Courts have upheld such ordinances finding that restricting bedrooms was reasonably related to ' the purpose of controlling density and preventing overcrowding of school facilities. II . FAIR HOUSING ACT The Fair Housing Act ( "FHA" ) , 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601 - 3619, prohibits discriminatory housing practices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. "Discriminatory housing practices" are enumerated in §3604 , 3605 and 3606 . In summary, it is unlawful to do the following acts because of a person' s race, color, religion, sex or national origin: 1 . Refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer or refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of a dwelling; 3 - S'd ti13Pt 89 -� S31d-10H t t:O T or TT r nlf 0000000+00000rC9�Cb; 2 . Discriminate in the terms or conditions of sale or rental of a dwelling; 3 . Print or publish notices or advertisements with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicate preference or limitations based on race, color, reli- gion, sex or national origin; 4 . Represent that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale or rental when such dwelling is in fact available; 5 . Induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent by representations regarding the entry or perspective entry into the neighborhood of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex or national origin; 6 . For a bank to deny a loan or other financial assistance on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin; and 7. Deny any person access to or membership or participa- tion in any multiple listing service, real estate brokers organizations, etc. on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Act applies to dwellings owned or operated by the Federal Government, or financed with the aid of loans, grants, or contri- butions by the Federal Government and dwellings provided by the development or redevelopment of real property purchased, rented or otherwise obtained from State or local public agencies receiv- ing Federal financial assistance. The Act does not apply to single family houses sold or rented by an owner as long as the house is sold or rented without the aid of a person in the business of selling or renting dwellings and without the publica- tion of notices or advertisements which would violate the Act dwellings occupied by no more than four families are also exempt- ed if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of the living quarters as his residence. 42 U.S.C. 536 .03 . A. copy of the Act is attached. KAC:lb7 4 - 6'd H3At+,89 S34-10H 3T:0Z 06, Zi wf 0000000+00Q0or"Zr7s y �1 gall OEM MM MIM MM MM mm ■ iii .. �� .� �� cII�,�II ♦ s a - 11M IMMI ZZ wo MBIIFIRA ICI Aft :., � -■■■u■ ��u�� 111111111 1111/l Illb• - ■iA- 1 ■■////■■�Q \� ■ �� �C �■/// III MINE N �.. �� '• - ,••!•-•-.•.•-•-.►;•i� � ,110 �� w Mimet 11� 1111/ ♦ ■fir m� a a •: i 11111 IM M MINES IM MCI Z� L•� loam gill MIM 1=110IM.. Ban wov _ X1111 �� �� � �� ����■�� mass MO slims MM IMM 0U s lowdo LUWA mow Sum t� '�_a,. �►��1� , � � � �� tea. ow sm I • i •1 1 Y `3 I .� �, � �ICI 4 j AI -14 CIL LU is ID 4175, IT w C� A N I. 1 0 ry lij V"\ IA La u in 30'Santicicy Sewer EQsemen+ Doc.No. 51 10 4 30' 5-treel• Eoueernerif Do,-.I• • 10 65TH`\ AVE E NO. tly a 51.2--10.. lz-5- Brick V&-5-Brick (if 3417 0 t5 4D 4 I9 0 19 0 9 ``30'. IPFEQ' se mi No. d,• 44 urninouS • %.a Parks T'l- qo 4- 135.53-•-. 3 5.5 vi uj i t 401 7• Go Ir CO W CO tr 03 in 4 . in IA N in 'D 1p 41 0-z O. 0 C, 00 03 TO ir 0 --m 0 qW, T 9 y 0 0 E V 83 -0 C 90 1 1n 45 47 parxi lactuminous, .36 CID 0 N C-) in . �!,1 11 T'r 0 so 0 a. 0 0 I p 0 %n 19 Ol l' p c 0 z r U, BftA C. < (00 Q I(Go 5. —pa.sr paid