Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 02-13 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 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 13, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman + George Lucht at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Nelson had called to say he would be unable to attend and the Planner noted that Commissioner Ainas was coming from Brainerd and, due to the weather conditions, might not make the meeting. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to Commissioner Sandstrom for a new two year term to expire December 31, 1987. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 30, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to approve the minutes of the January 30, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86005 (Stephen Cook) Noting that the applicant for the first item was not present, Chairman Lucht recommended that the application of Stephen Cook be considered first. The Secretary then introduced Application No. 86005, a request for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a two-family dwelling on two combined parcels of land that together are deficient in required land area. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86005 attached) . Commissioner Bernards asked whether there were any structures on the lot. The Secretary responded in the negative. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked whether there was a problem with building a home on two lots. The Secretary stated that the property would have to be replatted into a single parcel. The Secretary further explained the location of other duplexes in the surrounding area along Russell, Queen and Penn Avenues. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Stephen Cook stated that he planned to build a double bungalow and live in one of the units. He stated that there have been some concerns expressed regarding crowding by people who live in the neighborhood. He pointed out that he also has a concern for the area since he would live there in the future and has lived in the Brooklyn Center area in the past. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the duplex would have to meet setback requirements. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He explained that the variance was only for lot area and that no other variances were implied in the application. 2-13-86 -1- PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86005) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Louis Hedlund of 5316-20 Russell Avenue North pointed out that the lot in question fell below the minimum ! requirements for a two-family dwelling. He stated that the other lots along Russell and in this neighborhood generally were larger than the minimum requirement for two-family dwellings. He also stated that the single-family lots to the south 'f and east are the same size lots as that proposed for a two-family dwelling in this case. He pointed out that the applicant would be able to put a garage three feet from the side lot line. He stated that he did not want a two-family dwelling on too small a lot. He concluded his comments by stating that he opposed the application k and recommended denial. I'4 Commissioner Wallerstedt asked Mr. Cook how the duplex would sit on the lot. Mr. Cook responded that he had not decided on a layout because plans were tentative until the variance was approved. He stated that the setbacks for a single-family home would be the same as for a double bungalow. He also stated that a single-family home on a 60' lot (which would not require a variance) would be more crowded than a two- family dwelling on a 90' lot. Mr. Hedlund noted that Mr. Cook had stated that he would occupy one of the units, but pointed out that Mr. Cook could leave at any time and rent out both units. Mr. Robert L. Hansen of 4951 Logan Avenue North, the owner of the vacant lots in question, explained the past history of providing utilities to properties in the area. He stated that the City never reimbursed him for a common sewer line along 53rd Avenue North. He stated that he lost money in providing those utilities and had always wanted to build a double bungalow on the property in question in order to I14 recoup some of the money he had put into utilities. Mrs. Hedlund of 5316-20 Russell Avenue North pointed out that all of the lots in the neighborhood that are two-family lots are much larger than the lot in question, by about 2,000 sq. ft. She stated that this lot was about 20' narrower than the other lots in the area that have duplexes. Mr. Ray Blacik of 5324-28 Russell Avenue North stated that he had owned his duplex since September of 1984. He stated that one of the selling points for his property was the large lots in the area. He stated that he had wanted to get away from the crowding that he experienced in living in St. Paul. He asked how close the duplex could come to a side lot line. The Secretary explained that the minimum sideyard setback for dwelling space is 101 , whether it is a duplex or a single-family dwelling. He explained further that dwelling space could be allowed to be 5' on one side if it was 15' on the other side. He also pointed out that the two-family dwellings in the area have the right to expand up to the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Blacik stated that he wished to express his protest against the proposed variance. Mrs. Vincent Hall of 5311 Queen Avenue North stated that she preferred one two- family to two singles. Mr. Blacik commented that the applicant could not put two single-family dwellings on the property. There followed a discussion concerning the 30' half lot which was being sold with a 60' lot to make up the lot in question. It was pointed out that the property to the south also has a 30' half lot which, if combined with the 30' lot on the south side of this property, could make up a second single-family lot. 2-13-86 -2- Mrs. Ellenwood of 5300 Russell Avenue North stated that she has the same size lot as proposed by the applicant for a two-family dwelling and she feels that it is fine for a single-family home. She stated that she opposed the variance. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked what would be the market value of the duplex which Mr. Cook would build. Mr. Cook responded that his duplex would be a smaller version of one that his brother built along Brooklyn Boulevard and that the market value would likely be between $150,000 and $175,000. Mr. Blacik stated that the market value of his double bungalow is $109,000 as valued by the City. Mr. Cook clarified that he was estimating the market value, not the Assessor's value. Mrs. Hedlund asked about the size and layout of the duplex. Mr. Cook stated that that has not really been designed yet because his plans are tenative, subject to approval of the variance. He stated that the property in question was only about 3' short of having the legally required land area. Mrs. Hedlund stated that most of the neighbors surrounding the property are opposed to the variance and urged the Planning Commission to recommend denial. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else had anything to say. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Bernards to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it was not Mr. Cook's fault that the lot in question was slightly smaller than required by City Ordinance. He stated that he did not know what other people in the area would do with the lot if they owned it, but stated that he felt a two-family dwelling in the area would enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that the lot in question is 2.34% deficient in land area. She asked at what point a deficiency becomes critical so that the variance would behave to be denied. The Secretary stated that there was no definite level. He stated that the City used to have as part of its ordinance a "70% rule" whereby lots that met the 70% of the minimum requirement were granted variances. He stated that the ordinance has to be looked at as a minimum, not an average. He added, however, that the policy on lot variances has generally been to allow a variance if two of the three standards (area, width and depth) are met and as long as the request appears reasonable. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked whether the view would be obstructed possibly or property values detracted from if the two family were built up to the setback. The Secretary stated that he could not say for sure. He asked in return whether perhaps the vacant lot devalues adjacent property. He stated that the Assessor would not likely rule that a two-family dwelling would devalue neighboring property. Regarding setbacks, he stated that the duplex would not obstruct views more than a single-family home, because both are subject to the same setbacks. Chairman Lucht pointed out that a single-family house on the lot in question could have the same floor area as a two-family dwelling. The Planner stated that one of the concerns regarding the variance was the possibility of building a single-family home on only a 60' lot and that the 30' lot might somehow go delinquent or not be properly maintained. He pointed out that a two-family dwelling on the 90' lot would be consistent with the zoning district and would make full use of the available land. 2-13-86 -3- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86005 (Stephen Cook) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 86005, on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met, and subject to the following condition: 1. The property in question shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey, said plat or R.L.S. to be filed at the County prior to the issuance of a building permit. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION N0. 86004 (Paul Worwa) The Secretary then introduced what had originally been scheduled as the first item of business, an appeal from a determination that Section 35-405 of the Zoning Ordinance permits only five children, including children of the resident family, in a family day care operation in the R3 zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86004 attached) . The Secretary also clarified the wall separation between townhouses. He stated that two one-hour walls are required by a property line separation, not by zoning designation. He gave examples of rental townhouse complexes (Marvin Gardens, Victoria Townhouses and Georgetown Townhouses) which do not have two one-hour separations between units. He also reviewed with the Commission the past revision of the ordinance which allowed day care and other permitted home occupations in multiple-family residential districts. He stated that five children was decided on as a limit because of a concern regarding possible congestion in multiple-family districts, particularly apartment zones. The Secretary also referred to the licensing standards used by the State and the County in determining how many children could go into a family day care situation. The Secetary stated that he did not have those standards at hand, but would try to get them for the Commission's review in determining what is an appropriate number of children to be allowed in a townhouse family day care operation. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked if there was a specifc recommendation from the staff. The Secretary answered that he did not recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the appeal since it seemed fairly obvious that allowing beyond five children in the R3 district would be contrary to the ordinance. He stated that the Planning Commission may, however, wish to consider a change in the ordinance to allow more children in a day care operation in a townhouse. The Secretary then paraphrased the requirements of the State law with respect to zoning. He stated that 12 children in a licensed day care operation must be allowed as a permitted single-family use. He stated that 13. to 16 children in a licensed day care operation in a multiple-family district must be allowed "unless otherwise provided." He stated that the City does otherwise provide through its limitation of five children including children of the family in multiple-family districts. The Secretary explained that he did not feel the law requiring 13 to 16 children in a day care operation as a permitted use in the multiple-family districts referred to operations within a single residential dwelling unit, though it might exist within such a district or within a complex. The Secretary stated that the Commission might want to look at land area as some kind of gauge for the number of children that could be allowed. He pointed out that single-family homes are required to have more land area than townhouses, which, in turn, are required to have more land area than apartment units. 2-13-86 -4- Commissioner Bernards asked what process there was to review the City's ordinance on this question. The Secretary answered that the staff is presently under direction from the City Council to review the home occupation ordinance. He added that the City is also involved in a law suit with Dr. Lescault regarding some of the provisions of the City's home occupation ordinance. He stated that the staff could draft an ordinance amendment for consideration by the Planning Commission on the question of day care in the R2 and R3 districts, if the Planning Commission so desires. Commissioner Bernards suggested that perhaps the resident children need not be counted. He asked whether the State limited the number of children based on a minimum floor area required. The Secretary responded that it was his understanding that it does. Chairman Lucht reiterated an interest in seeing those standards and stated that the Planning Commission could direct staff to prepare an amendment on the matter. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to say. Mr. Paul Worwa stated that the points in his letter were covered in the report. He stated that he would like to emphasize his desire for some compromise position for the R2 and R3 districts between the single-family allowance and the maximum permited for the R4 through R7 district. He stated that he felt the limitation of five children is too restrictive in the R3 district. He pointed out that his townhouse is larger than the single-family home he used to live in where he could have many more children. Commissioner Malecki again observed the need for a guide line based on square footage. There followed a brief discussion of the State regulations and the City's ordinance limitations. Mr. Worwa stated that the State regulations would allow at least five nonresident children in their townhouse. He stated that he did not know the exact square footage requirements. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked how large their townhouse was. Mr. Worwa responded that it was approximately 1400 sq. ft. Chairman Lucht asked the staff to obtain a copy of the State standards, including square footage requirements, for review by the Planning Commission in consideration of a possible ordinance amendment. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 86004 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON DAY CARE STANDARDS Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to table Application No. 86004 and to direct staff to provide further information on the State's licensing requirement for family day care for possible revision of the City's ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary asked whether there was any other direction to the staff in terms of possibly drafting an ordinance amendment. He asked whether the Commission agreed with the idea of distinguishing the R2 and R3 districts from the R4 through R7 districts. Commissioner Bernards responded in the affirmative and recommended only changing the R2 and R3 district limitations. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Worwa whether the Homeowners' Association Agreements in any way limited the number of children that would be allowed in a day care operation. Mr. Worwa stated that there was no provision in his association's agreement that he was aware of. Commissioner Wallerstedt stated that she would be interested in standards that would require quality in day care operations. The Secretary answered that the State has preempted the area of regulation having to do with the operation of day care in homes. He stated that the City regulates day care as a home occupation, that is, from the standpoint of land use. Commissioner Wallerstedt stated that she was 2-13-86 _5_ aware of the City's limitations, but wished to encourage quality in day care operations. The Secretary agreed and also stressed his support for the limit of five in apartments. He stated that to allow more in an individual apartment unit would be overly disruptive. APPLICATION NO. 86006 (Phillip Johnson/Wes Reavely) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the old Arthur Treacher's restaurant at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard to a repair garage. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86006 attached) . The Secretary also noted that he had received a call from Boyer Palmer, the owner of the apartment complex to the east, in which he expressed no opposition to the proposed special use permit. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there would be any outside storage with the operation and how much. The Secretary stated that he was not aware of any outside storage planned, but that if there were any, it would be subject to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and must be screened. In response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding permitted signery, the Secretary stated that the maximum for the freestanding sign would be approximately 90 sq. ft. and that the wall signs could be up to 30% of the wall area. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to the need for the finger of land between the service station site and the proposed repair garage site. The Secretary showed this area on the map and explained that it was needed by the apartment complex to meet area requirements for the number of units in the complex. He stated that such an arrangement should not be allowed in the future. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Phillip Johnson, the architect for the project, stated that he could answer any questions of the Commission. He explained that the exterior treatment on the west end of the building would be wood framing to compliment the brick exterior around the rest of the building. He stated that there would be a door on the west end of the building. Commissioner Malecki asked if this would be an office area. Mr. Johnson responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86006) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Malecki expressed a concern that the landscaping on the site be brought up to its original quality. She stated that it was important for the site to look nice since it is in a very visible location on Brooklyn Boulevard. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86006 (Phillip Johnson/Wes Reavely Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 86006, subject to the following conditions: 2-13-86 -6- 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 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. New parking delineators shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter in accordance with City Ordinance. 7. Site landscaping, including the underground irrigation system, shall be restored to the original Arthur Treacher's site landscape plan prior to release of the performance guarantee or a new landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the completion date in the performance agreement. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:14 p.m. and resumed at 9:39 P.M. DISCUSSION ITEM (Retail Parking Formula) The Planner then introduced a discussion of the City's retail parking formula and reviewed the existing formula and two alternate formulas which he had devised for discussion purposes. He also reviewed with the Commission a table of required parking spaces under the various formulas for various sizes of buildings. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the staff had considered the possbility of allowing smaller stalls for compact vehicles. The Planner answered that that had been looked at, but that it had been rejected because it was felt that it would not be adequately enforceable in most of the parking lots in the City, particularly retail establishments. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that such stalls are used quite frequently in parking ramps where there is a use by the general public. The Secretary pointed out that parking ramps provide concrete physical barriers which prevent larger cars from using such stalls. He explained that it would be more difficult to restrict the use of such stalls in an open parking lot and cited an experiment by Brookdale to put in such stalls in their lot which had failed. The Planner went on to explain that the alternate formulas given to the Commission would mainly affect the parking requirement for smaller retail buildings. He stated that, as the building got larger, the difference between these alternate formulas and the existing formula would narrow to become insignificant. He 2-13-86 _7_ explained that the existing formula requires more stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. for smaller buildings than for larger buildings. He added that a study by the Urban Land Institute showed just the opposite relationship between building size and parking demand. He also showed the Planning Commission some aerial photographs that had been taken over the Christmas shopping period of Brookdale and some of the surrounding retail establishments. F The Secretary pointed out that a parking requirement may be more or less excessive depending on the particular tenant mix of a building. He stated that, as the mix changed, the parking demand might also change. He also explained that parking requirements serve as form of density control to limit the amount of building that can be put on a parcel of land. He also stated that many spaces go unused because they are not very accessible to the building. He noted that proof-of-parking has been allowed in peripheral areas of some major developments where it was felt that the stalls would not be used and the space would be more appropriately kept in green area. Chairman Lucht asked what uses would be affected by the alternate formulas. The Planner explained that it would affect retail developments only, not medical buildings, restaurants, service stations or other uses allowed in the C2 zoning district. The Planner went on to explain that, typically, stores with big ticket items, such as appliances, furniture, stereos, etc., draw less parking demand than stores which deal in smaller items. He stated that it would be unwise to try to tailor the parking ordinance to fit a particular mix of tenants since these tenant mixes change and buildings would actually have less flexibility to change occupancy than if there was a single formula that was adequate for all tenant uses. The Planner discussed more thoroughly the alternate formulas. He pointed out that the second alternate formula would be more in line with what was recommended by the Urban Land Institute study, but would have a very drastic effect in reducing the parking requirement for buildings under,30,000 sq. ft.. in floor area. He noted the percentage change listed on the table. He noted that under the ULI study, office parking requirements should actually be greater than retail requirements, the opposite of the City's existing parking ordinance. He stated that other cities have parking requirements in the neighborhood of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. He noted that the first alternate formula would basically be a requirement of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. He explained that the need for 10 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area was to deal with the small convenience store operations which have only 2,000 sq. ft. and yet draw very rapid turnover traffic. There was a brief discussion regarding the implications of a reduced parking requirement. The Planner acknowledged that a lower parking requirement would probablly lead to higher density of development, at least on smaller parcels. He stated, however, that higher developement potential probably meant higher profit potential and consequently the possiblity for higher quality. He suggested that perhaps as a tradeoff for reducing the parking requirement the City should enact more detailed landscaping requirements to ensure that some of that quality did actually come about in site designs. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:32 p.m. 2-13-86 -8- . Chairman