Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 08-26 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONt OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION AUGUST 26, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were ' Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, and Planning -Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1982 Commissioner Malecki pointed out that she had not been present at , the meeting and could not have moved to close the public hearing on Application No. 82030 . It was suggested that Commissioner Simmons had made the motion. Commissioner Simmons arrived at 7:33 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the August 12, 1982 Planning Commission meet- ing as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS — Draft Ordinance Amendments a) Home Occupations j Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced a compilation of draft ordinance amendments , beginning with certain amendments which would allow permitted home occupations in the R4 through R7 zoning districts. (See Draft Ordinance Amendments attached). The Secretary briefly reviewed the definition of a Home Occupation listed in Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that under the Zoning Ordinance, uses which are not listed are prohibited. Therefore, he went on, since home occupations are not listed as _permitted uses in the R4 through R7 zoning districts, they are prohibited. He also noted the difference between permitted and special home occupations. The Secretary pointed out that permitted home occupations and special home occupations are allowed in the R1 and R2 zoning districts at present, and that only permitted home occupations are allowed in the R3 zoning district. He explained that under the draft ordinance. amendment, permitted home occupations would be allowed in Rl through R7 zoning districts and special home occupations would only be allowed in. the R1 and R2 zoning districts. The Secretary also explained that one of the draft ordinance amend- ments would limit the day care in multiple family districts to- five children per dwelling unit including those children living within the dwelling unit. He also pointed out that signs advertising home occupations would not be permitted in the R4. through R7 zoning districts. 8-26-82 -1- I Chairman Lucht then recognized Mrs . Jennifer Le. Mrs. Le explained to the Planning Commission that she recently moved to Brooklyn Center ` rom Duluth and that for the past two years she had been licensed by the State,, for child care. She explained that the apartment that she rents has a private entrance on the ground floor and that it faces a playground and not a street. She stated that she felt the concerns regarding day care in multiple family buildings were not a factor in her case. She pointed out that, to allow her to take care of other children in her apartment, would allow her to stay at home and take care of her own child. She also explained that State regulations would limit her to four other children in her apartment. Commissioner Manson asked whether four would be allowed in this apartment only or any apartment. Mrs. Le explained that infants are treated dif- erently than toddlers and toddlers are treated differently than ,�: � - preschool children under the State regulations. . She explained that Stat e-formulas allow fewer children if there are infants involved. Commissioner Simmons stated that she agreed with the points made by Mrs. Le and added that the ability to take children to another f place in the apartment building was important. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that, technically, the ordinance *,prohibits even babysitting if that is a gainful occupation. He -I stated that the City staff become aware of the- desire -to have home day care when they receive notice from the County that a person '"dishes to be licensed for day care in an apartment. He stated that the question before the Planning Commission was whether permitted home occupations would have any adverse impact on other apartment units. He added that the proposed ordinance amendment would not .1-... supersede lease arrangements which might prohibit certain home -- occupations. He recommended that zones R2 through R7 be treated alike because 'of party walls between dwelling untis There followed a brief discussion of whether apartment owners would_ be notified of perspective home ,occupations. The Secretary stated that the possibility of notifying the owner of the building had been discussed by the staff. Mrs. Le pointed out that the State licensing procedure requires that the consent of the property owner be given before a license for day care in an apartment can be issued. The Secretary stated that the City would still notify the owner because the City does not wish to imply that the Zoning Ordinance necessarily supersedes a lease agreement. Commissioner Manson raised the question of individual music instruct ion as a possible problem in apartments, but added that, under City Ordinance, noise should not be perceptible beyond the premises and that this would be a controlling factor. The Secretary added that ` owners and managers of apartments would certainly have rights and responsibilities to control such home occupations within their buildings. Chairman Lucht asked whether theY' City could require .,that permission be granted by the property owner prior to engaging in a home occupation. The- Secretary explained that the permitted home occupations would not require any City approval and that, in general, they are so innocuous that the general public might well be unaware of their existence. He added that the City's Zoning Ordinance would not supersede a lease agreement if the lease agreement were more strict than the ordinance. Chairman r ,ucht stated that he had no problems with the proposed changes. 8-26-82 -2- - ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE CHANGES REGARDING HOME OCCUPATIONS Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend adoption of the ordinance changes regarding home occup ations contained in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the draft ordinance amendments contained in the Planning Commission agenda. Voting in ' favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. b) Outside Storage in the I-1 District The Secretary then introduced draft ordinance language which would allow outside storage of materials and equipment for noncommercial uses in the I-1 zone. He stated that the concept had been reviewed with the City Attorney and that the Attorney had considered the . concept legal and consistent with other provisions of the ZQninc ` Ordinance. The Secretary noted that Section 35-413 would also be amended to include the outside storage of materials in conjunction with noncommercial uses required for .the public welfare provided such storage is screened from public view with opaque materials, similar to fuel storage facilities in the I-1 zone. . In response to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding the MTC, Bus Garage, the Secretary explained that the bus garage had bee approved as a use -"similar in nature" to other uses in the I-1 zoning district. He pointed out that buses have often been" left outside on a temporary basis at the bus garage and have not been screened. He stated that under the proposed language, MTC could be looked at as a noncommercial use eligible for outside screening. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE OF MATERIALS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson tQ:=° '`x" recommend adoption of proposed ordinance language to allow for out- side storage of materials and equipment in conjunction with non- commercial uses required for the public welfare as contained in the language submitted in Sections 6 and 7 of the draft ordinance amend- ments prepared in the Planning Commission agenda. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the City might be setting too high a standard for others who may wish to engage in outside storage in the I-1 zoning district. The Secretary stated that the opaque screening to be used by the City would be cheaper than a. building to house the outside storage._ Commissioner Simmons also pointed out that the action to allow outside storage in the I-1 zone was a lessening of the existing standard, not a tightening. c) Setback Deduction in Multiple-family Districts ` The Planning Assistant briefly explained the draft. ordinance amend-. ment to eliminate the setback deduction from footnote l of Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Assistant stated that the elimination of the setback deduction would only affect the calculation of allowable density on parcels zoned R4 , R5, R6, and R7, not an elimination of the setback requirements themselves. He also explained that other subsections of footnote 1 would be re-. lettered under the proposed language. He added that there are no existing .apartment developments which were built below the standard 8-26-82 -3- which applied before the setback deduction was imposed and that, therefore, ,there would not be large numbers of new apartments built,_. , on multiple-family land in the City. The Secretary explained that eliminating the setback deduction would greatly enhance the develop- ment-potential of small parcels of land zoned R4 or R5 in various corner locations in the City. He mentioned the parcel at 50th and France Avenues North as an example. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LANGUAGE TO ELIMINATE SETBACK DEDUCTION IN THE R4, R5 , R6 AND R7 ZONING DISTRICTS Motion by Commissioner Ma ec l--secon ed by Commissioner Ainas to recommend adoption of ordinance ldngpage eliminating the deduction of setback areas abutting public right-of-way =on-•developments in.,,the R4, R5, R6 and R7 zoning districts for the purpose of calculating allowable residential density. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, ' Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. d) Commercial District Requirements The Secretary briefly reviewed the proposed changes in the lot size for Cl and C1A parcels and the lot width provisions for Cl, C1A and C2 parcels. The Secretary explained that the proposed changes were recommended in the City's updated Comprehensive Plan and that they were intended to limit the number of accesses onto major thorough- fares. The Secretary also reviewed a proposed ordinance provision from the Comprehensive Plan which would limit or prohibit access to C2 uses from residential streets. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LANGUAGE ALTERING THE STANDARDS FOR LOT WIDTH AND AREA FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND LIMITING ACCESS FOR C2 USES ONTO RESIDENTIAL STREETS Noting that the proposed ordinance anguage was taken from a up- dated Comprehensive Plan, there was a motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend adoption of the ordinance language contained in Section 1 and Section 2 of the draft ordinance amendments in the Planning Commission agenda. Voting. in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. e) Density in R6 Zone and Minimum PRD Area The Secretary then briefly reviewed draft ordinance provisions which would reduce the minimum area for Planned Residential Developments to 5 acres from 15 acres and would reduce the maximum allowable density in the R6 zoning district to 20 units per acre from 24 units per acre. He explained that the reduction in the density for the R6 zone was related to the senior citizen's development which, it appeared, would be an R6 development, but which the City staff did not wish to propose at as high a density as permitted under the Zoning Ordinance currently. In answer to a question from Commis- sioner Simmons, the Planning Assistant explained that R6 uses are four to five stories in height. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LANGUAGE TO REDUCE THE DENSITY IN THE R6 ZONING DISTRICT TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LAND AREA REQUIRED FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL., DEVELOPMENTS FM °l5 TO 5 ACRES Following further brief discussion, there was a motion by Commis- sioner Versteeg seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend adoption of the language pertaining to R6 density and the mimimum area for 8-26-82 -4- Planned 'Residential Developments as contained in Section 8 and Section 9 of the draft ordinance amendments submitted in the Planning Commission agenda. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADDITIONS The Secretary then ri.efly reviewed some technical additions which had been made to the updated Comprehensive Plan regarding sewer use projections, environmental policies and airport policy. The Secretary explained that the updated Plan had not yet been adopted because the City had sought to eliminate certain land from the Critical Area described in the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary explained that this did not appear to be feasible at this time, but added that the Critical Area regulations would have little effect on the property in question. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9 :13 p.m. C airma 8-26-82 -5- 1 1 1