Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 05-26 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 MAY 26, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki , Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Marren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary noted that Commissioner Ainas had called to say that he would be unable to attend this evening's meeting because he was leaving town on a business trip. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 12, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the May 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons; Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson. DISCUSSION ITEMS Manufactured Housing_ The Secretary then introduced the first discussion item, a draft ordinance amend- ment to allow manufactured homes and earth sheltered homes in the R1 and R2 zoning districts. The Secretary briefly noted that the ordinance would require all new homes to be a minimum of 18' wide and 18' deep. He explained that staff had researched existing dwellings and found a few that were less than 18' in their least dimension. Therefore, he explained, the ordinance would apply only to new dwellings. Commissioner Simmons noted that the ordinance also allowed earth sheltered homes.' She asked why these needed to be included. . The Secretary stated that earth sheltered homes are not considered dwellings in some communities . Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether, according to the ordinance language, air conditioning systems would be required in new dwellings. The Secretary answered that the language used in the definition of a manufactured home was taken from the state law and that staff did not intend for air conditioning systems to be required in single-family residences. He stated that staff would look at the language again and perhaps revise it slightly to clarify the intent, but he asked that the Planning Commission take action on the ordinance amendment. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MANUFACTURED HOUSING Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend that the . City Council adopt an ordinance amendment to allow manufactured housing in the R1 and R2 zoning districts. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. `Doting against: none. The motion passed. 69th AVENUE AS MAJOR THOROUGHFARE The Secretary then introduced the second discussion item, the classification of 69th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare. He explained that the Hahn Addition had brought to light the fact that 69th Avenue, east of Brooklyn Boulevard, is no longer a County road and, therefore, no longer a major thoroughfare. He stated that staff would recommend that the Planning Commission act on an ordinance amendment classifying 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway as a 5-26-83 -1- major thoroughfare Commissioner Sandstrom noted that the ordinance designates. France Avenue between Highway 100 and 50th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare. He asked why France was not considered a major thoroughfare up to 53rd Avenue. The Secretary explained that France Avenue is a state-aid street in the industrial area and that it is only a collector street north of 50th. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING 69TH AVENUE NORTH AS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment establishing 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway as a major thoroughfare. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Maiecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DEVELOPMENT AT I-94 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD/COMPREHENSIVE. PLAN The Secretary then read a memorandum from the Planning staff regarding the pro- spective development at the southwest corner of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the implications such a development would have for the Comprehensive Plan. He showed the Planning Commission a site plan of the development and stated that 'there would probably be an application sometime in June. Commissioner Simmons noted that the plan looks like a residential development, but asked whether the Planning.Commission could limit the office use to a one- storey condominium arrangement. The Secretary pointed out that an office use would be a special use permit in the R5 zone and that this might give the Planning Commission greater latitude in deciding what to approve. He related the history of the special use provision for .offices in the R5 zone. He explained that the office building at 70th and Brooklyn Boulevard was allowed by a special use permit after the Council had decided not to rezone the land from R5 to C1, but to allow office uses by special use permit in the R5 zone. Chairman Lucht stated that the land in question has not been rezoned from R5 to R3 in accordance with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary explained that the general policy with regard to the new Comprehensive Plan was to withhold any rezoning action until a development plan is proposed. Chairman Lucht noted that there is more control over an office development in the R5 zone, since it is a special use. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that access to Brooklyn Boulevard in this location was poor. The Secretary agreed, but stated that that problem would exist with any type of development in this location. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether it would be possible to allow access onto the exit ramp from I-94 to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the Highway Department would .never permit such an access to be gained onto their exit ramp. Chairman Lucht asked whether it would be possible to gain access to the site from Indiana Avenue at the northwest corner of the site. The Secretary recommended against allowing access in this location since it would bring commercial traffic into a residential neighborhood. He also recommended against this kind of access even if the property were developed residentially. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that an office development would -create mostly daytime traffic. There followed a brief discussion regarding access to the property from Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the City would wish to prohibit left turns onto Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Assistant stated that the perspective applicant had anticipated that it would be a right-in, right-out access only. He stated that if it was necessary to extend the median, this could perhaps be required as a condition of the special use permit. 5-26-83 -2- Chairman Lucht asked about the covenant on the surrounding property. The Secretary briefly explained that a covenant had been placed on all of the property surrounding the lot at the southwest corner of 1-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard to prohibit any commercial development of those lots. He stated• that the covenant was recently renewed for an additional ten years. There followed a brief discussion regarding the acceptance of an office development relative to acceptance of townhouses. It was generally agreed that an office development would probably be as acceptable as any other kind of development in that location. The Secretary asked the Commission whether the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to allow for offices in areas which the Plan has designated for mid- density residential . Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he thought a good job had been done on the Comprehensive Plan, but that that did not mean it could not be changed. Commissioner Simmons stated that if the Comprehensive Plan were amended, it should not allow just any type of office, but something that was low- rise and compatible with a residential •use. The Secretary stated that an ordinance amendment could be drafted to allow office uses in the R3 zoning district by a special use permit and only up to the height of the normal townhouse (two stories) . Commissioner Manson asked whether, if the Plan were changed, the commercial area would eventually be affected by the change. The Secretary explained that most of the other land along Brooklyn Boulevard is already developed and that redevelopment pressures would have to buiid before a .land use change would actually take place. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether offices are allowed now in the R3 zone. The Secretary explained that offices are only allowed in the R5 zone by a special use permit and in the C1 zone as permitted uses. Commissioner Simmons stated that the height and bulk should be limited in the R3 zone if offices are allowed in that zoning district. The Secretary stated that that was a possibility. The Planning Assistant stated that one of the most important questions to answer with respect to a possible plan amendment was whether the various .types of land uses along the Boulevard should be strictly segregated or whether some mixing of uses could be allowed. He stated that retail and service uses should probably be separated from residential uses, but that office and townhouse uses are often interchangeable in their impact on surrounding property. The Secretary stated that single-family uses have a hard time existing along Brooklyn Boulevard with the high traffic counts north of Highway 100. Commissioner Simmons questioned the wisdom of trying to preserve single-family in that area with the noise and other impacts of the traffic and commercial uses. The Planning Assistant pointed out that Commissioner Ainas, when calling to say he was unable to attend the evening's meeting, stated that he felt Brooklyn Boulevard should be primarily commercial from Highway 100 to 71st Avenue North. Chairman Lucht asked whether it would be possibleTto alto ooffices as part that planned residential development in the was a possibility. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not want the Boulevard to look like it does in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary agreed and stated that the Plan allowed for a fair amount of service/office use along the Boulevard, but that it confined commercial/retail development to certain nodes at Brookdale, 63rd Avenue North and 69th Avenue North. ACCESSORY APARTMENTS The Secretary ten asked the Planning Commission to review a couple of publications from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding accessory apartments in single-family neighborhoods. Commissioner Malecki asked what the City's current regulation• was. The Secretary stated that accessory apartments are not presently permitted in single-family neighborhoods. He stated that it is possible to rent up to two sleeping rooms without a separate kitchen unit. He stated that allowing 5-26-83 -3- accessory apartments would amount to setting up a separate dwelling unit. Com- missioner Simmons stated that she was interested in setting up a small unit within her own home. The Secretary stated that accessory apartments have often been accepted if they are owner-occupied. Commissioner Sandstrom stated. that land was getting shorter and shorter and it was necessary for more housing to be available on less land. The Secretary cautioned that the Planning Commission should not take a short term view of the problem of housing. He stated that if an accessory apartment were approved in a single-family dwelling, it was very likely that someone would want to use the property as income property and rent it out essentially as a two-family dwelling. Commissioner. Simmons recalled that she had obtained a special use permit because the renters that she had in her home were not members of her family. She stated that at that time family members could have a separate kitchen within the dwelling and not be considered a separate family. The Secretary stated that the exchange of money is not always necessary for a rental situation to be in effect. He stated that informal arrangements can sometimes be worked out, but that in essence, a second dwelling unit sometimes exists. The Secretary also explained that the R2 zone was created to do away with the provision of the old Zoning Ordinance which allowed a second dwelling unit on a lot by special use permit. Commissioner Versteeg asked how many people are allowed in a single-family home. _ The Secretary stated that occupancy is governed by the Housing Maintenance Ordi- nance which allows one resident for the first 150 sq. ft. of habitable floor space and one additional resident for each 100 sq. ft. of additional habitable floor space. He also said that there is a limit of two residents per habitable room. The Secretary also explained that there is provision in the ordinance for a . "family° of up to five unrelated persons in a single-family dwelling. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that there are a great many needs for housing and at the same time there are many homes with only a single occupant where an accessory apartment would make sense. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission should take the long run view and concern itself with equal protection. He recommended not allowing the accessory apartment by a special use permit since that could lead to some people being treated differently. He stated that it would be better to license an additional housing unit within the Rl zone as a matter of right. He stated that the accessory apart- ment would really set up an R2 zone. He recommended allowing the license for only one unit in the R1 zone so that if there was an additional dwelling unit, at least one of the units on the premises would have to be owner-occupied. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt accessory apartments could be controlled through this type of licensing. The Secretary agreed that that might be possible, but warned that some people would want to buy a house with an accessory apartment for an investment to rent out both units. Commissioner Simmons stated that the whole reason accessory apartments have come about was to allow the existing resi- dents to stay in their homes by gaining additional cash flow from renting out an ' accessory unit. The Secretary stated that he did not think allowing accessory apartments would 'increase school enrollment in the district. Commissioner Simmons disagreed and stated that she thought it would help the school district. The Secretary acknowledged that there were positive aspects to accessory apartments, but pointed out there are negative impacts as well . He stated that it would tend to erode the single-family character of the residential neighborhood and might conceivably put greater pressure on the sewer system. He also stated that more traffic would be generated. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the overall occu- pancy of a dwelling would be the same. It would just be divided up into two units rather than one. Commissioner Sandstrom also stated that he felt the accessory apartment would have to be allowed eventually. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Sandstrom seemed to be changing his mind by arguing for greater density in this case, 5-26-83 -4- f whereas he voted against greater° density in the Bernu Townhouse Project. ! SERVOMATION BUILDING The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission a request by Iten Chevrolet to use the Servomation building for truck rental and leasing. He explained that, when Iten Chevrolet had previously brought in a plan to use the building, they had resisted improvements to the Iten Chevrolet site requested by the City. He ex- plained that they now wish to rent the building to a separate corporate entity, Iten Leasing. The Secretary explained that automobile and truck rental is not a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, only in the I-1 and I-2 zones. He ex- plained that rental of cars and trucks has been allowed as part of an automobile dealership, but not as a separate use. He stated that the Itens argued that the rental of trucks was only part of the operation and that it should be classified as equipment rental . He stated that the staff recognized that there may be some rental of equipment, but that the rental of trucks is listed as a separate use in the Zoning Ordinance and should be treated as such. He concluded by saying that he felt an ordinance amendment was necessary to allow automobile and truck rental in the C2 zone. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the leasing operation was really part of the auto dealership. The Secretary pointed out that truck rental is allowed in the I-1 zone, but that auto sales are not. He stated that outside storage is not permitted in the I-1 zone and that this is probably why auto sales were not permitted. He stated that he felt automobile and truck rental should be allowed in the C2 zoning district. Commissioner Maiecki asked why automobile and truck rental had ever been excluded. The Secretary stated that automobile and truck hental was never listed in the C2 zoning district and that he was not sure if this was left out consciously or not. He did note that it was allowed specifically in the "I-1 zone. The Secretary stated that he felt automobile and truck rental was not inappropriate in the C2 zoning district. Commissioners Malecki and Simmons agreed. The Secretary stated that he would bring back ordinance language to allow automobile and truck rental in the C2 zoning district. CANCEL AUGUST 25, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Secretary explained that he and the Planning Assistant would be taking vacation immediately prior to the August 25, 1983 study meeting and asked that the Planning Commission cancel its August 25, 1983 study meeting. By consensus the cancellation was agreed to. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m. r Cha rma 5-26-83 -5- 1 1