Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 01-25 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 JANUARY 25, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The:P anning Commission met in study session and was called to order',by Chairman Hal Pierce at 8:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson, Lucht, and Erickson. Also present were Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Building Official Will Dahn and Planning Aide Gary Shallcross. APPROVE MINUTES - January 11 , 1979 Chairman Pierce noted that there was no vote recorded for Chairman Pro tem, and requested that the minutes be corrected to indicate that Commissioner Hawes had been elected unanimously as Chairman Pro tem. Motion by Commissioner Hawes, seconded by Commissioner Lucht to approve the minutes of the January 11 , 1979 meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Erickson abstained as he was not at that meeting. ASSIGNMENT TO CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD Chairman Pierce announced that Commissioner. Erickson would be assigned as the neighborhood liaison to Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. Commissioner Erickson stated that he had no objection to this assignment. Commissioner Theis arrived at, 8:U7 p.m. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING MULTI-RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD The Secretary stated that he had received an inquiry from Kathy Lura, 5500 Bryant Avenue North, who sought permission to construct a garage for a nonconforming four plex in the Rl zone in the southeast area of the City. He explained that Ms. Lura had made a similar inquiry in 1977 and was told at that time that the matter would be looked into by the Planning Commission. He further stated that the question was apparently discussed informally by the Commission, but no record exists as to any recommendation regarding the matter. The Secretary explained that he had informed Ms. Lura that the construction of a garage would constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use under Section 35-111 , and that this was not permitted. She has requested that the matter be further reviewed. The Secretary pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan, in making recommendations for the southeast area, states: "Permit up to one and one half story apartment buildings at no more than 12 units per acre within the older portion of the neighborhood, but only at the intersections of arterial or collector streets. This pattern of development has already started in the older part. By restrict- ing such development to specific corners, the neighborhood 's single family character will be preserved and some of the demand for rental family living with- in neighborhoods will be met." 1-25-79 -1- He pointed out that this is a residential use in a residential zone and questioned whether a garage would add to the life of a nonconforming use, since the garage would probably only exist with the apartment and might not be considered an ex- pansion of a nonconforming use. The Secretary continued that the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges these multi-family residential structures in the Southeast Neighborhood, and that one could infer from the Plan that rezoning of specific parcels might be appropriate. Chairman Pierce asked whether the Comprehensive Plan was acknowledging existing or potential units. The Secretary responded that he felt the Plan was speaking to existing units, and that if the Plan were referring to potential units, specific corners would, in all probability, have been designated in the 1968 Zoning Ordinance. A brief discussion ensued relative to. the need for multi-residential housing in the Southeast Neighborhood. The Secretary commented that he was seeking feedback from the Commission on this issue, specifically to determine whether the building of a garage would, in fact, be an expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Lucht responded that a garage would seem to make the structure more acceptable. Commissioner Erickson added that the garage would not take up any more space than had already been devoted to off-street parking. The Secretary pointed out that the matter should be looked at in relation to similar structures and underscored the fact that the Plan acknowledged such structures and does not seem to consider them undesirable. Commissioner Theis inquired 'whether the Commission might set an undesirable precedent particularly in light of -the Howe Fertilizer question if it were to recommend in favor of allowing the garage in this instance. The Secretary responded this was a possibility, but pointed out that there were some differences between the two cases. He stated that Howe, Inc. is acknowledged as a nonconforming use without classification in the I-2 zone. Since Howe is entirely without class- ifirratinn, it wn-ld by roncirie-nd nnne7onforminn in anv 7nnp, Na arlrlpti that the t,unipreh ens ive Ptan seems to say that, the lei"iii 1 Zer opera Llon is an undesirable use in any zoning district while multi-residential uses are not looked upon in the same manner and are permitted in some zones. He pointed out that these nonconform- ing multi-residential uses in the Southeast area especially seem to be looked upon by the Comprehensive Plan as serving a needed function in that area, that being to provide multiple-family units in an area that is lacking in this type of dwelling. The Commission then discussed the status of the other nonconforming multi-family residential units in the City and their garaging provisions. The Secretary stated that 6 of the 13 structures of this type have garages already. In response to questions from Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary pointed out that parking require- ments in the Zoning Ordinance are for two spaces per unit in apartment dwellings. He added, however, that there were a number of cases of insufficient garage space and that this usually caused problems to off-street parking. Commissioner Lucht asked if there would be a problem if a variance were sought as a means of addressing this request. The Secretary responded that variance require- . ments are very strict. He pointed out that :the situation must almost deny the property owner the use of his or her property for a variance to be permitted. He went on to state that in cases where a number of properties are in a similar situation, the Council prefers an ordinance amendment rather than requiring each property owner to go through the variance procedure. Commissioner Hawes asked what the Planning Consultant would likely recommend if the problem were submitted to him. The Secretary replied that he felt the Planning Consultant might well recommend_allowing the garage. He explained that another way to look at the situation is that either the multiple-family residential units are considered undesirable and contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or they are recognized as desirable, while not conforming,, and should therefore be allowed to exist normally without expanding in terms of land or number of units. 1-25-79 -2- Chairman Pierce wondered whether the building of an accessory structure really expanded the use already occupying the land. commissioner- Theis responded that he felt it did. Chairman Pierce recommended that the Planning Consultant look at the subject and to find out what the neighbors in the area thought. The Secretary asked whether the Chairman's recommendation was the consensus of the Commission. After a pause, Chairman Pierce stated that he felt the Commission was against rezoning scattered properties. After agreeing that there were different positive aspects to the multiple-family dwellings in the Southeast Neighborhood, the Commission briefly discussed Howe Fertilizer as a possible expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Hawes asked whether Section 35-115, which prohibits rebuilding of a nonconforming use after 60% destruction, refers to one building only or to the entire business. The Secretary responded that this question was presently being reviewed in depth by the City Attorney. In response to another question from Commissioner Hawes, the. Secretary explained that Howe Fertilizer had been granted a permit to erect a temporary building to be used in conjunction with their salvage operation. He noted that the building is not to be used for storing chemicals and any storage or work associated with the salvage operation must be approved by the Fire Chief. He added that the temporary structure. must be removed by May 1 , 1979, and that Howe, Inc. had submitted a $5,000 financial guarantee to assure the removal of the structure. - Commissioner Malecki arrived at 8:45 p.m. The next .item of discussion was introduced by the Secretary who explained that a number of concerns regarding the City's definition and requirements for Special Home Occupations had been raised by both the Planning Commission and the City Council during review of Application No. 78066, submitted by Cynthia Pierce. He stated that the Council had given the staff specific direction to research Special Home Occupations as they relate to the following: �i....� J it__ 7 '�. .C..... tln...n (1 n•+� r�<��--0nv�r kn imi terl t� 1 . JI►UUIU 1.11C J�.JCLICLI UJC NcititIt, ivt iwu�c v�.�.t.lrut. vw the homeowner, or shouia employees oe aiioweds 2. If employees are allowed, should the employee remain in a support- ive role,or should the employee be allowed to become a principal? The City Council also requested a review of the definitions for Home Occupations to see if there was a need for substantive change in the ordinance as it relates to Home Occupations and/or if there is a need for clarification of the present ordinance. The Secretary framed the issue as one of degree: i .e. , to what extent does the City want to allow Home Occupations. He outlined three various positions or philosophies relating to .Home Occupations. a. One's home is one's castle and one can do with it as one pleases. b. A home is for residential purposes only and nonresidential purposes are forbidden. c. Most ordinances make a compromise between these two extremes allowing some commercial use of property which does not violate the general residential character of its use. The Secretary stated that the Commission's task in reviewing the subject of Home Occupations is to determine whether the present ordinance criteria are acceptable. He stated that the Commission must determine who is the "principal " in the Home Occupation and whether bringing in outside employees makes commercial use of the property more than incidental to its residential use. 1-25-79 -3- Chairman Pierce inquired as to the number of Home Occupations there were in the City. The Secretary replied that 24 Home Occupations had been granted in the past five years. He cited the example of a Mr. Jacobson, who hired clerical help to work in his home while he was off the premises performing duties relating to the occupation as a roofer. Commissioner Hawes stated that he felt the Rl zoning is very selective and that Home Occupations should be worked at by the person granted the permit. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, Commis- sioner Hawes stated that he felt any permitted employee in a Home Occupation must . be in a supporting role. Chairman Pierce remarked that the intensity of the Home Occupation is an important consideration. Commissioner Hawes then pointed out that one employee with two customers in conjunction with a Home Occupation might require three outside parking spaces which exceeds the ordinance limit of two. The Secretary commented that the 'ordinance could simply prohibit on-street parking. He added that it is important for the homeowner to police the parking situation partly by scheduling appointments at long enough intervals so as to avoid traffic congestion. Commissioner Theis stated that he was not in favor of the idea of limiting parking to off-street. There is also a need, he stated, to limit the absolute number of cars acceptable in a residential zone. The Commission then discussed the matter of outside employees at some length. The Secretary informed the Commission that a survey of 10 Hennepin County Municipal- ities showed that only Brooklyn Center and Richfield allowed nonresident employees. Commissioner Hawes wondered whether the ordinance provision for Home Occupation, Special was necessary. The Secretary responded that the provision for Home Oc- cupation, Special allowed the City to regulate more intense Home Occupations. Since these occupations tended to be those involving more intense use of the. property, it allowed the City the opportunity to. review and decide on, different types of Home Occupations and thereby to set limits as to the commercial use of residential property. Commissioner Hawes thought that the ordinance could perhaps stipulate the extent to which an outside employee could be involved in the operation. Chairman Pierre countare(i that the principal i .e. , the owner, could perhaps go on a vacation-, but desire to keep the business running by allowing his employee to run the business in his absence., Commissioner Erickson asked whether the City had developed a matrix of the requirements in force in other cities. The Planning Aide responded that a rough inventory had been made. up. The Secretary asked the Commission what further research would be useful in its deliberations on this matter. Chairman Pierce replied that home beauty shops and lesson giving operations seem to have the greatest impact on the neighborhood and that perhaps these should be looked at more closely. A discussion ensued concerning the enforcement of the ordinance and inspection of home occupations and other special uses. Commissioner Hawes voiced the concern that without some periodic inspection, a home occupation could expand beyond the restrictions allowed in the ordinance after a special use permit had been granted. Building Official Will Dahn explained that a list of all special uses was compiled every six months for inspection purposes, and that inspections were made regularly from these lists. He went on to state that there had been few problems with home occupations because of the conditions attached to the special use permits- and because of informal neighborhood pressure. DISCUSSION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The Secretary reported to the Commission that an amendment to the Sign Ordinance was being drawn up for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Building Official provided some background information on the Sign Ordinance and explained that it was felt that the ordinance should be amended with respect to directional . signs. 1-25-79 -4 He pointed out that a directional sign could presently be 36 sq. ft. which is the same as a freestanding sign. He stated that 16 sq. ft. seems to be adequate for directional signs, but that the present ordinance standard of 36 sq. ft. could encourage the use of directional signs for advertising purposes. GREENSTRIP REQUIREMENTS ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES The Secretary introduced the next item of discussion, that of greenstrip require- ments along major thoroughfares. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 ft. setback and.a 35 ft. greenstrip in Cl and CIA zoned property while in R1 , C2, 1-1 and I-2 zoning districts, the ordinance only requires a 15 ft. green- strip. Commissioner Erickson asked the logic of the ordinance provision at the time of implementation. The Secretary answered that parking requirements for Cl uses Ore less intense than for R5 or C2 uses. He noted that the larger greenstrips were also a device to break up the commercial landscape. The Building Official commented that the issue is one of deciding whether the uses were different enough to require 20 ft.-more of green strip for Cl uses. Chairman Pierce responded that C2 use is definitely more intense. The Building Official responded that the Qrdinance, in effect, makes a land use policy decision by requiring more land for Cl uses .through the greenstrip requirement. ' The Secretary and Chairman Pierce then discussed at some length the merits and demerits of the greenstrip requirements for Cl , C2 and R5 uses. The Secretary stated that extending the greenstrip requirement to C2 property would involve many grandfathered properties and would not be applicable to any undeveloped C2 properties along Brooklyn Boulevard and indeed perhaps not for any C2 property in the entire City. Commissioner Manson asked whether a large greenstrip requirement for R5 properties would induce children to play in front of major thoroughfares. MOTION TO EXTEND 35 ft. GREENSTRIP TO R5 FollowiTng further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hdwes to recommend 6dt the yreenstriu reyuiremenL of 35 ft: reuldif] for Cl and CIA property and that consideration be given to requiring a 35 ft. green- ,.. ....strip on all R5 property along major thoroughfares. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Pierce, Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: Commissioner Erickson. The motion passed. Commissioner Erickson voiced his concern that requir- ing a 35 ft. greenstrip for service/office buildings makes them less cost effective. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The' Planning Commission adjourned at 10:20 p.m. or&'e-,IL_/I 'Chrirfian 1-25-79 -5-