Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 08-23 PCM 1 MIN'UTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING CO'."°ISSION OF THE CITY OF PROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION AUGUST 23, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The 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, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained Commissioners Simmons and Manson had informed staff that they would be unable to attend the evenings meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 9, 1984 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the August 9, 1984 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki and Nelson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Ainas and Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 84031 (Rod Bernu) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct 12 townhouse units on the existing lots within the Earle Brown Farm Townhouse development on 69th Avenue North and York Place. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Plannning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. . 84031 attached) . The Secretary also noted that the grading plan submitted for the project was not complete. He explained that staff had received revised plans late that day. He stated that the grading plan was not adequate, but that most of the revisions requested in the staff report had been completed. Neveretheless, he • recommended that the conditions in the staff report be adopted. Chairman Lucht noted that the new plans show 15' wide driveways, rather than the 18' driveways recommended by staff. . The Secretary explained that staff had not requested that existing driveways less than 18' be widened, but'that any new driveways serving the units be at least 18' wide. He stated that some of these driveways have been changed on the new plans. Commissioner Sandstrom inquired as to the size of the units. Mr. Bernu answered that they were about 1,000 sq. ft. of living space with two-car garages. Commissioner Sandstrom also inquired as to the price of the units. Mr. Bernu showed the Planning Commission the materials to be used in construction, the Enercept system, and stated that he expected the units to sell in the $70,000 range. Mr. Bernu also explained that the existing platted townhouse units would be used as they were and that no replatting of the property would be necessary. He added that he would put in the 18' wide driveways requested by staff. The Planning Assistant noted that well-insulated houses sometimes develop moisture problems and asked whether heat exchangers would be installed to relieve this 8-23-84 -1- moisture problem. Mr. Bernu stated that a fan system recommended by Enercept would be installed. He added that each unit would have a high efficiency gas furnace and that moisture from washer, dryer and range would be vented out of the home. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Bernu whether he understood the condition requesting an additional parking lot light. Mr. Bernu answered that he would add such a light in the area recommended. The Secretary noted the additional guest parking shown on the plans, equal to roughly one stall per townhouse unit. He stated that it would be preferable to spread these stalls out in the common area, but that this was difficult to do in some portions of the site. Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting, explaining that although there is no public hearing on the application, neighboring residents may offer comments if they wish. Mrs. Betty Anderson, one of the existing residents in the complex, pointed out that the fence along the south side of the development had been installed by Sheehy Construction, but that, on the west side, the fence belonged to the single-family homes to the west. The Secretary stated that the existing opaque fencing is adequate to meet the requirements of the City ordinance, but that if it should be removed, the burden would be on the townhouse association to replace the fence. Mrs. Anderson stated that she preferred vertical siding to the horizontal siding proposed for the new townhouse units. She stated that vertical siding would blend better with the existing units. She also asked why there were no basements in the proposed townhouses. Mr. Bernu stated that the addition of a basement would add to the cost of the townhouses and that he was seeking to put quality into the upper levels of the townhouses. A gentleman presently living at about 70th and Willow Lane, and who described himself as a potential resident of the complex, stated that he was frankly disappointed with the proposed townhouses. He stated that they were not as high quality as the existing units, that they were an inferior type of structure. He stated, based on the information he had about the proposed units, that he would not buy one Ms. Mary Ann Sanderson, also a resident of the existing complex, stated that she felt the units were inferior, but that they were far superior to what was originally proposed by Mr. Bernu. She stated that she felt the townhouses being built in Brooklyn Center at present are pretty cheap. She stated that there was a need for more rambler-type townhouses that appeal to elderly residents. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission could not make a decision based on the size of the units, basements, etc. He stated that those are the concerns of the developer as he tries to appeal to the private market. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that basements are generally needed for resale value. Chairman Lucht answered that most townhouses in Brooklyn Center don't have basements. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84031 (Rod Bernu) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 84031, 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. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by-the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 843-84 -2- 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the. City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all common parking and driving areas. 7. The plans shall be revised to provide for the following: a. a grading plan b. indication of B612 curb and gutter around all common parking and driving areas. c. driveway widths of no less than 18' in locations where the driveways are not in d. the addition of 20 guest parking stalls in the common area e. relocation of trees scheduled for the future Shingle Creek Parkway boulevard to other areas on the site. f. an additional lightpost in the common area north of the northeast quad home. 8. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement for common area utilities prior to the issuance of permits. g. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer as-built utility information prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The grading and utility plans must be revised and certified by a registered architect or engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary noted that staff had no material to offer the Planning Commission on two family dwellings. He then referred the Commission's attention to a draft ordinance amendment regarding spatial limitations for home occupations. The Secretary reviewed with 8-23-84 -3- -A- the Commission the background of the Dr. Lescault application which involved a chiropractor who wished to expand the office within his home. It was judged by the Planning Commission and City Council that such an expansion would make the home occupation more than incidental and secondary to the residential use of his property. The Secretary then read the draft ordinance which would allow up to 35% of the gross floor area of the dwelling or 500 sq. ft. whichever is less to be devoted to the home occupation. In the case of special home occupations, up to 70% of the basement floor area or 700 sq. ft. could be devoted to the home occupation, whichever is less. Commissioner, Sandstrom asked how this ordinance would compare to existing situations. The Planning Assistant explained that the City does not have information on the area devoted to home occupations. He pointed out that most special use home occupations are conducted in either the basement or a garage. He added that, based on the information he has received from the Building Official's inspections and inquiries over the phone, the limits suggested in the draft ordinance would probably cover the vast majority of home occupations. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether other cities have these types of regulations. The Secretary responded that many cities have provisions for home occupations, but that Brooklyn Center's are probably more precise than most. The Secretary pointed . out that, under the ordinance, a home occupation would still have to be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. He stated that the draft ordinance was an attempt to put numbers on what is meant by incidental and secondary. He added, however, that such an ordinance would, to an extent, put the City in a box in evaluating home occupations. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the merits of placing limits or not placing limits on the amount of space that can be devoted to a home occupation. It was stated, on the one hand, that a definite spatial limitation would make it easier to make a determination in cases like those of Dr. Lescault. On the other hand, it was noted that any limitation would be imperfect and would ultimately lead to conflicts in certain cases. Chairman Lucht suggested that the Planning Commission and staff hold off on making any recommendations at this time, but gather history on the space used in home occupations for awhile and perhaps reconsider the ordinance at a later date. The Secretary asked the Planning Commission how it felt at this time about the whole idea of having an ordinance regarding spatial limitations. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt such an ordinance was needed to better define "secondary and incidental." Commissioner Nelson stated that he felt an ordinance would be too restrictive. He stated that the amount of space devoted to a home occupation should be a consideration in determining whether it lives within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, but that it would be a mistake to put specific limits in the ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he did not feel there was a big problem with the amount of space devoted to home occupations and saw no reason at this time to adopt an ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:04 p.m.