Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 07-01 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 3 AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 1, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tern Nancy Manson at 7: 39 p.m. . ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tern Nancy Manson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Chairman Pro tern Manson explained that Chairman Lucht was unable to attend the evening's meeting because he was out of town and was, therefore, excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 17, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the June 17, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tern Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 82023 (Bergstrom Realty Company)_ Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary mentioned that the applicant's representative for Application No. 82023 requested that the application be tabled until brought back at the applicant's request.' Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 82023 until resubmitted by the appli- cant. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tern Manson, Commissioners Malecki Simmons, Ainas,, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. - APPLICATION NO. 82028 (Deborah Tobako) The Secretary t en intro ed the FIrst business item, a request for a special use permit to conduct ceranu cs classes in the basement of the residence at 5636 Girard Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82028 attached) . The Secretary also pointed out that the special use permit granted to Mrs. LaVonne Malikowski of 5507 Logan Avenue North did not comprehend any on-street parking. He . stated that in that case Logan Avenue is a busier street and that there is a bus stop roughly in front of the Malikowski residence which made on-street parking less appropriate in that case. He stated that the Planning Commission, in this case, would have to determine that there is a need for on-street parking to such an extent that the home occupation would not be feasible without allowing on-street. parking. Commissioner Simmons stated that it seemed to her the ordinance requires the Planning Commission to monitor the need for on-street parking for this home occupation. She added that she did not feel it was fair to. limit home occupations in ways that other residents are not limited with respect to on-street parking. The Secretary stated that the ordinance sets up criteria to review home occupations on a case-by- case basis. He stated that this home occupation will likely grow and 7-1-82 -1- that the Planning Commission may want to require that the application be brought back later for review regarding the need for on-street parking. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he agreed with Commis-' sioner Simmons that other residents seemed to have more rights than persons having a home occupation. He stated that he did not see a need for restricting the right of a resident who has a home occupation to not have any on-street .parking. Commissioner Simmons explained that when the ordinance was amended instituting the procedure of making a determination of need for on- - street parking, the number of persons allowed in a class, as part of a -home occupation, was increased from- 4 to 10. She stated that re- quiring all parking to be kept off-street may lead persons with art classes to build bigger drivedays and pave a substantial portion of their front yard. She stated that this would not seem to be consistent with preserving the residential character. of the neighborhood. The Secretary acknowledged that this could be a result of restricting parking to off-street. He pointed out, however, that there are - parking restrictions generally on all residents which limit on-street parking `to 6 hours during the day and 4 hours at night. Chairman' Pro tem Manson stated that she felt the ordinance allowed the Planning Commission the option of permittirfg on-street parking when a home occupation is not feasible without it. She then called on the appli cant and asked whether- them-were any additional comments. Mrs. Tobako stated that she had nothing further to add. _ `-Commissioner Simmons asked how many cars could fit on the driveway. Yi Mrs. Tobako answered that five cars could normally fit on the driveway, possibly six if they were small cars. She also mentioned that there is an alley behind the house which is unpaved. Commissioner Simmons -asked Mrs. Tobako whether she could do without on-street parking. *rs. Tobako stated that based on the size of the class already signed up, she would not need on-street parking, but added that she expected class size to change over time. and would like to have the option of parking on the street. Commissioner Ainas asked whether Mrs. Tobako had talked with neighbors about the anticipated need for on-street parking. Mrs. Tobako answered in ,the ,a ;frmative and stated that those neighbors she has talked with have not objected. Commissioner Ainas stated that he wondered about the reaction of the neighbors because he had driven down that street the night before and saw many cars parked along the street in front of other people's houses. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to comment on the application. No one present spoke. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There followed a lengthy- discussion regarding the determination of need for on-street parking. Commissioner Simmons stated that the ordinance allows Mrs. Tobako to have 10 students, but that without on street parking of at least two spaces, it would be impossible to have the number of students which the ordinance permits. The Secretary stated that a limit of two on-street parking spaces might still ;7--1-82 -2- constrain the number of students in the class. He reviewed the three'+ considerations for allowing on-street parking in association with home occupations and suggested that a finding be made that on-street parking was necessary and feasible, or not. In answer to a question from Commissioner Ainas, the Secretary stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission would paint itself into a corner if it allowed two pn-street parking spaces for the proposed home occupation. He stated that each home occupation has to be looked 'at on a case-by-case basis. He explained that different circumstances can lead to different con- ditions applying to the approval of a home -occupation or could lead _ to disapproval of a homy occupation. ACTION RECOMMENDING, APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82028 (Deborah Tobako) 4 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 82028 in consideration of a finding that the proposed home occupation would not be feasible without on-street parking, and subject to the following conditions : 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the. facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. No more than 10 students shall attend. any one class in accordance with Section 35-406- of the Zoning Ordinance. Y 4. All parking shall be off-street on space provided by the applicant to the maximum extent feasible. On-street parking shall be limited to two spaces in front of the - , applicant's property as the need arises. TV • w� �=5. The hours of operation shall be no more than: Monday to - -Thursday, 6 : 30 p.m. to 9: 30 p.m. and Saturday, 10 :00 a.m. to 14.00 p.m. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the :Building Official prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. _ Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tern Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons; -Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The -motion =passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO.NO. 82020 (Hussman Investment Com an The Secretary then introduced the next item of usiness, a request by Hussman Investment Company to rezone from R1 to R3, two parcels of land at 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North and a remnant parcel presently part of-. the City's Maintenance Annex at 69th and Dupont Avenues North. The Secretary--reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82020 attached) . -Chairman Pro tern Manson observed that when the Hi Crest Square Estates rezoning was --dealt with, the Planning Commission recommended that the rezoning not be effective until the plat was filed. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the Planning Commission could recommend the same condition here as retell even if the applicant does not suggest it. 3-1-Rrq tea : . -3- The Secretary answered in the affirmative. — - ,Commissioner Simmons stated that the City has no control over the type of development once the land has been rezoned,. as to whether the t roject is owner-occupied or rental, or the quality of the units. The Secretary agreed, stating that the final step is not taken until the land to be rezoned is .actually described in the Zoning ordinance. Commissioner Simmons alluded to a- portion of the minutes to the North- east Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting in which the members present preferred "quality townhouses" -over "cheap single-family houses." Commissioner Simmons stated that with the mortgage market of today, _ there can really be no promise that townhouses will be of high quality any more than single-family. She asked whether the neighbors under- stand that reality and the .fact that the City cannot control the quality of the townhouses. Chairman Pro tern Manson stated that she """I believed that the neighbors liked the concept of an owner-occupied development where there would be site and building plan review by the - City Council. She stated that she felt a plat creating the individual townhouse lots should be filed before the rezoning takes place. Commissioner Simmons stated that she favored a plat and site and build- ng plans to be submitted prior to the rezoning, but asked whether a flat would actually guarantee ar_ 6wner-occupied development. The Secretary answered that a plat would not guarantee that the project would be owner-occupied, but that it does .set up the mechanism for the townhouses to be- sold. In response to another question from Commtss- ioner Simmons, Chairman Pro tem Manson explained that the procedure of requiring a plat prior to the rezoning was discussed at the neigh- borhood meeting. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that, based on his knowledge of the real estate market, it is not really feasible to build townhouses for rent at this time. Chairman Pro tem Manson then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. James Merila, representing Bergstrom Realty Company, stated that, of the townhouse projects which have been subdivided, 98% of the town- house units are owner-occupied. Commissioner Simmons stated that that may have been the Case in the past, but that things change over time. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the rental section of The _ , Ponds has been subdivided and that that project has probably not ;. been included in the figures quoted by Mr. Merila. He added that The Popds rental section was subdivided in the anticipation that the units would be- sold after seven years. The Secretary explained that the rental section of The Ponds was built under a federal subsidy and that normally subsidized townhouse units must be rental for at least 20 years, but that in this case the period was reduced to seven years after which the units could be sold as condominiums. issioner Simmons asked whether Hussman Investment was willing to ,fr provide site plans as a condition of%',the rezoning. Mr. Merila answered that the applicant would-like some indication from the Plan- <;r ;nog Commission as to whether they would approve the rezoning before w� AAncurring the cost of developing a preliminary plat and site and building plans. There followed a brief discussion regarding the procedure for acting on the rezoning. The Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission first look at how the rezoning meets, or does not meet, the guidelines for rezonings and the Planning Commis- sion may then indicate to the applicant that they would like to see °a plat before acting on the rezoning. 7�4-82 -4- ,t . PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pro tem Manson then reopened the public hearing on Application No. 82020 . She asked whether anyone present wished to comment on the . application. Mrs. Melba Evanson of 800 - 69th Avenue North stated briefly that the property in question should remain R1. She contended that the proposal constituted spot zoning which is forbidden under the City's Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Paul Rosso of. 7 Ortman Street, Minneapolis, stated that the Com- prehensive Plan map recommending mid-density residential for the area north of his sister's zesidence does not recommend rezoning the property to' R3. Mr. Rosso stated that the realignment of 69th and 70th Avenues North had not been finalized. He stated that he had attended a MN/DOT hearing on the Highway 252 project and pointed out that comments can still be made until July 12, 1982. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that the realignment of 69th and 70th is not the question before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rosso answered that the realign- ment is an important assumption in the request to rezone the property to R3. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the application. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Russell Fierst of Hussman Investment Company stated that the owner would Piave no objection if the Planning Commission -asked for site, landscaping, and platting plans before going to the City Council. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that she would like the rezoning, along.- with ..the, site plans and plat, to.. come back to the Planning Commission for approval as4'a 'package before going "to the City Council. Commiss- loner Sandstrom stated that he concurred completely with that judgment. The Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the merits ot. the rezoning and then table the application until a plat is submitted. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the roadway going by the property had, in fact, been approved. The Secretary stated that the City Council has ordered the project and is proceeding to condemn land for right-of-way acquisition. He added that the City has approved a; .con- ceptual plan for signals at '70th Avenue North and a cul-de-sac at 69th Avenue North. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the rezoning -would be approved with approval of the site plan. Chairman Pro tem Manson explained that the rezoning and the site plan would be approved under separate actions. Mrs. Melba Evanson stated that she has not sold her land for right-of-way. to the City. The Assistant City . Engineer explained that the rest of the land needed for the right-of- way has been acquired. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close . the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Pro tem. Manson then polled the Planning Commission as to their feelings regarding the -proposed rezoning. Commissioner Malecki -zstated that, as far as the guidelines for rezonings, the proposed townhouse project would be a benefit by adding affordable housing to the community. She added that she did not see any guidelines which were not met by the rezoning. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked whether 7-1-82 , -5 Commissioner Malecki considered the proposal spot zoning. Commis- mot.; signer Malecki answered that, inasmuchas the rezoning falls within the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, - she did not consider - it to be spot zoning. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the rezoning was in line l"With the long range plan recommendation for mid-density residential development in that area. She noted the existence of an R4 develop- ment to the east. She stated that she sympathized with the concerns of the property owners . She added that the concerns of the property. owners would probably be met if thd"kequirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions expressed by the Planning Commission were met by the applicant. Commissioner Ainas stated that he had x� � ' reviewed the guidelines carefiilly' and has concluded that .the rezoning proposal -is not spot zoning and should be approved. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there was neighborhood opposition. Chairman 'Pro tem Manson explained that, initially, all of the property owners abutting the land in question were opposed to the rezoning. She stated that at the last neighborhood meeting all of the neighbors s` = recet the Evansons acquiesced to the rezoning. She explained that 066ft- of the neighbors liked the 4.ctea of the City Council review of Fite plans which is required of an R3 development, but not in the case of single-family. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he did -not consider the .proposal spot zoning. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether Brooklyn Center has a history of spot zoning. The Secretary answered that he was not aware that there had been any spot zoning in Brooklyn Center since the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan in the latter 1960 'x. He explained that spot zoning would have to be determined by a court and he was not aware of any case in which the City was found guilty of spot zoning. Commissioner ' Versteeg stated that he did not feel the approval of the application . '," %would constitute spot zoning. .. He stated that he would go along with " ,the 'ehange in zoning to R3. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that her initial feeling was in favor of single-family homes of the quality that could be built for a reason- I able price five to ten years ago: She stated that right now she felt ! ien'rezoning to R3 is proper if accompanied by a plat and site plan. .; ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 82020 (Hussman Investment Company)_ on y Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to �•` ab Y` —Application No. 82020 until the applicant returns with a plat td. site and building plans for the land in question. Voting-in F for: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, ykv- Saftstrom, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion raMt4d unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary briefly directed the Commission's attention to a memo- $_. '`' ndum.prepared by the Assistant City Engineer regarding drainage g '-;- s. He explained that the memo includes a review of three ponds . . -s0mewhat similar to that- proposed for the Hi Crest Square Estates `SeVelopment located .in Brooklyn Park. He also asked the Planning Commission to review the City's ordinance requiring fencing of outdoor � idning. pools. He stated that these considerations would be reviewed rheft'`'the site plans- come back before the Planning Commission. -6- _ The Secretary also pointed out that a site plan illustrating the setback deduction had been prepared for the Planning Commission's in- formation. He explained that the staff did not recommend-changing the building setbacks, only eliminating the setback deduction from the method for calculating the number of units allowed on multi-family zoned properties. . There followed a lengthy discussion -regarding drainage ponds. Com- missioner Simmons expressed concern for young children possibly falling down into the water and argued that the City should require barriers to prevent this from happening. The Assistant City Engineer stated that some risk is involved with any body of water and left it to the Planning Commission to decide whether the proposed pond design repre- sented an acceptable risk or unacceptable risk. The Secretary pointed out that there are a lot of liabilities in life and that he was not sure that the City has the responsibility for eliminating all risks associated with the projects it approves. The Assistant City Engineer stated that he was not convinced about what should be done. He ex- plained that the memo looks at other manmade bodies of water similar to that proposed for the Hi Crest Square Estates development. He assured the Commission that the staff are not taking a position on the question until they have direction from the Planning Commission and City Council. He explained that the memo was intended purely as an. informataonal tool. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9 ;44 p.m. Chairman 7-1-82' -7- 1 1