Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 06-25 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 JUNE 28, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Tie Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 14?- 1984 Mot` Lion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the June 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motin passed. APPLICATION NO. 84022 (Maranatha Nursing Home) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for extension of the site and building plan and special use permit approval granted under Application No. 83023 for an office and garage addition to the nursing home at 5401 69th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84022 attached) . The Secretary also explained that special use permits expire after one year if they are not renewed. Commissioner Manson arrived at 7:37 p.m. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. George Wahl, representing Maranatha Nursing Home, stated that the intent of the proposed addition and mansard treatment were to beautify the building. He complained that each level of government and each department in the City has applied more requirements than were originally applied to the approval. He stated that these requirements were added every month or so and that the nursing home was not able to determine just exactly what it had to do to comply. He continued to complain about the whole system of bureaucratic red tape and delay. The Secretary commented that Mr. Wahl had objected to the original conditions as well. He stated that problems did arise in the issuing of permits when the plans were reviewed by the State Building Codes Division. the State determined that the addition must be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system. Mr. Wahl pointed out that the Welfare Department had stated that sprinklers were not required at this time. The Secretary pointed out that the nursing home was asked to enter into an agreement to install sprinklers within three years, whether or not a major addition of the building was carried forward, and that the nursing home refused. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84022) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing regarding Application No. 84022 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 6-28-84 -1- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. George Wahl left the Council Chambers at this point. There followed a brief discussion regarding the options of the Planning Commission to approve or table the application. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84022 (Maranatha Nursing Home) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 84022 subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The addition.to the building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with NFPA standards and two fire walls shall be constructed within the existing building at locations prescribed by the Building Official. 3. The applicant shall submit in writing, prior to the issuance of permits, a statement agreeing to provide parking spaces in accordance with ordinance standards upon a determination by the City that full ordinance-required parking is needed. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Critical Area Ordinance The Secretary then briefly referred the Commission's attention to the Draft Critical Ordinance contained in the agenda. He noted that the Critical Area Ordinance had been before the Planning Commission before and stated that he had no explanatory comments to make at this time. He noted that the ordinance uses standard language to accomplish the requirements of the Critical Area Act. He explained that after the ordinance is adopted, it will be the City's responsibility to regulate development of the river bank. Chairman Lucht asked whether the district boundary had to extend over to Camden Avenue North, south of the freeway. The Secretary stated that staff had requested a change in the district boundary to be along the I-94 right-of-way, but that the State was unwilling to make another executive order to-amend the order that created the Critical Area District. The Secretary stated that he did not think there would be any effect on the land to the west of the freeway. Commissioner Simmons, who lives between Camden Avenue North and the freeway, asked whether the Critical Area Ordinance would affect her. The Secretary responded that the ordinance would have no practical effect on her property. In response to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding sign regulations, the Secretary stated that they were left out because signs are not really visible from the river anyway and will not be so under the existing Sign Ordinance. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend adoption of the Critical Area Ordinance as drafted by staff. Voting in favor: 6-28-84 -2- Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. b. Upper Twin Lake Residential Inventory T ef The Secretary then brily introduced an inventory of residences along the east and north side of Upper Twin Lake in Brooklyn Center. He stated that the inventory was an outgrowth of concerns about the number of possible two family dwellings in this area of the City. He noted that the inventory does not seem to indicate very many two-family dwellings, but that there is evidence that a number of possible conversions could take place in this area. The Planning Assistant then showed two maps, prepared by the Assessing Department, showing all of the dwellings in the City which have walkouts and another showing all of the dwellings in the City with two kitchens. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the definition of a kitchen has been upgraded by the Assessor in the past two years so that a number of homes which have "accessory" kitchens were considered to have two kitchens in the past, but now are only considered to have one kitchen. He noted, therefore, that the map and the inventory to some extent understate the presence of potential second dwelling units. The Secretary explained that the definition of a kitchen is different for the Assessor than it is for the Planning and Inspection Department which looks at a kitchen under the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Simmons asked what the inventory was supposed to tell the Commission. The Planning Assistant explained that the Commission had studied very briefly the idea of zoning land adjacent to Twin Lake to R2 a month previously. He stated that the inventory was to develop a justificiation for either rezoning or not rezoning the land to R2. He stated that the area around Twin Lake does not appear to have a predominance of two-family dwellings and that an R2 zoning would not be justified on the basis of the inventory. He noted, however, the presence of a number of walkouts in the inventory and pointed out that this type of dwelling offers a second entrance which is usually necessary for two-family dwellings. The Secretary briefly discussed the definition of a second dwelling unit and distinguished a dwelling unit from a sleeping room which has no separate kitchen or separate access. He did point out that sleeping rooms must have proper means of egress. There followed a discussion of the purpose of establishing the R2 zone in 1968. The Planning Assistant stated that one concern was obviously to prevent the proliferation of two-family dwellings throughout all R1 zoned areas of the City. The Secretary added that another purpose was to encourage the consolidation of small lots in the southeast portion of the City to be used for two-family dwellings. It was noted that this policy objective failed to be realized and that in 1976 the City formally recognized these substandard lots as buildable separately. The Planning Assistant also pointed out that a by-product of creating the R2 zone was to make two- family dwellings in the R1 zone nonconforming uses and subject to all of the provisions of Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he could see some advantages to rezoning the area near Twin Lake. Commissioner Simmons stated that single-family residences in the area would pay for a less restrictive zoning. The Secretary stated that most people do not have a problem with an owner, in his dwelling, renting out an accessory unit to someone else. The problem arises, he said, when new owners come in and rent out both units to nonowners. He stated that he was expecting to find a compact area of duplexes around Twin Lake that could logically be rezoned to R2. This, however, 6-28-84 -3- does not appear to be the case. He noted that the walkouts and two kitchen residences in the City are spread out and not concentrated. He stated there was no way that a small area of the City could be rezoned to R2 and confine the problem to that area. The alternative, he said, may be to do away with the Rl zone altogether and to allow two-family dwellings throughout the entire City. The Planning Assistant stated that it was very difficult to monitor the conversion of interior space to a second dwelling unit. He noted that changes can take place gradually which, in the end, create the situation where a two-family dwelling may exist. He also pointed out that the demographic profile of Brooklyn Center was moving toward an older population of empty-nesters who might wish to rent out some of their excess space to single people or young couples. This, he noted, would be another impetus to convert areas for second dwelling units. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding what the City's response to conversion for second units should be. The Secretary discussed the possibility of licensing no more than one unit per property in the Rl zoning district. (This would mean that a single dwelling could be rented out, but that a second dwelling unit could only be rented out if the owner were present) . The Secretary stated that this might fly in the face of normal zoning law, but that under licensing law, licenses are looked at as privileges not rights. Commissioner Sandstrom asked the staff to look into what other cities have done regarding the issue of accessory apartments. There followed further discussion regarding the subject of accessory apartments and how or whether to legalize them. The Secretary recommended against handling such units through a special use permit procedure. Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Ainas suggested considering a license arrangement. ADJOURNMENT Fo lowing a brief discussion of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Simmons to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning C sion adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Mai i. m 6-28-84 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84022 Applicant: Maranatha Nursing Home Location: 5401 69th Avenue North Request: Extension of Special Use The applicant requests an extension of the special use permit approved on June 27, 1983 for a garage addition and an office addition at the Maranatha Nursing Home at 5401 69th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east and south by single-family homes, and on the west by a three-storey apartment complex in Brooklyn Park. The nursing home is acknowledged in the Rl zone under the category of noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an R1 district. We will not review the details of the proposal here, but would refer the Commission to the minutes and staff report for the original application (attached). The major concerns with the original application were: 1) deferral of 11 parking spaces 2) fire protection of the building and 3) a proposed mansard treatment around part, rather than all of the building. There may be a major addition to the building in the next two to -three years and consideration of extending the mansard should be taken up at that time. We would recommend, with respect to parking deferral , a condition requiring the applicant to state in writing his willingness to install parking to meet ordinance requirements if the need for such parking were determined by the City to exist. With respect to fire protection, the applicant has complied with Condition No. 2 of the original approval to install smoke detectors in all sleeping rooms. The delay in construction of this project has occurred over the determination by the State Building Codes Division that any addition to the building must be equipped with a fire sprinkler system. As the Commission may be aware, building plans for all institutional uses, including nursing homes must be reviewed by the State. The State Building Codes Division has advised the City that any addition to the nursing home should be fire sprinklered and that the entire building should be fire sprinklered at the time of a major building addition. In the meantime, the existing building should be divided into three smaller areas by the construction of fire walls at certain locations in the building. It is the City's responsi- bility to enforce the Building Code. Staff have taken the determination of the State and applied it to the proposed project. The applicant has not yet decided whether to proceed, given the requirement for fire sprinkling. In the meantime, he seeks an extension of the original approval . Based on the foregoing, staff recommend approval of the requested extension with the following conditions to be applied to the special use permit: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The addition to the building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with NFPA standards and two fire walls shall be constructed within the existing building at locations prescribed by the Building Official . 3. The applicant shall submit in writing prior to the issuance of permits, a statement agreeing to provide parking spaces in accordance with ordinance standards upon a determination by the City that full ordinance-required parking is needed. 6-28-84 i I