Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 08-02 PCP s REGULAR MEETING August 2, 1973 1 .. Call to order-. 8:00 P.M. 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: July 19, 1973 4 Chairma,n� s Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold Public Hearings. in the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. Orville Wilda 73021 Preliminary Plat Approval and Variance Approval for Rear Yard Setback 6732 Lyndale Avenue North. 60 ;,adder of Learning (Betty Smith) 73023 Special Use Permit Approval for Nursery and Day Care Center at Beach Apartments. 7. Brook, Park Realty 73024 Preliminary Plat AppxcavaR for petrel at 5649 Fremont Avenue North. 8., Anoka--Hennepin School. District 72068 Renewal of Special Use Permit for continued use of temporary modular classroom at Evergreen Elementary School. 9. Discussion items: a. council moratorium on multi residential development; interim study of pertinent ordinance provisions. b. Home occupations C. NonconformiAg Residential uses in Residential Districts „ dm Comprehensive Plan Review. e. Land use Policies i.a 5.AK 4 Neighborhood. 10. Other Business. 11. Ad jouarpment: i r PLA2�tz�' ING CO+MUSSION INFORMATION S] ET Application No. 73021 Applicants Orville Wilda Locations 6732 Lyndale Avenue North Request: preliminary Plat Approval and Variance for Rear Yard Setback The item was tabled at the July 19th meeting, to permit the applicant the opportunity to revise the proposed plat, and to permit notification of neighboring property owners of the proposed variance. The new lot complies with minimum dimensions of Chapter 15. The setback from the existing house to the new lot line is 22 feet; thus, the variance acknowledges an 18 foot deficiency. There is merit to the variance request, given the size of the existing lot; the desirability from a planning perspective, of platting a new lot at the east end of the property; the con- sistency with the policy of conformance with the minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance; and the size of the "old" lot which will permit the location of any future house so to conform with the 40 foot minimum rear yard setback. The record should note that approval of a variance is for the setback of the existing house only. Incidentally, there is an old stoxage shed on the "near" lot, near Willow Lane. it 'is recommended that this structure be removed prior to any construction of the "hew" lot. Approval of the preliminary plan: would be subject to the following: 1. Final plat is Subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to Council approval; 2. Final plat is subject to requirements of Chapter 15. � . - � \ | . � . _Im&/ - & j J ; ~ ' � . � \ � � s PLANNING C(MMISSION 1NFt3MA'1 ON SHEET Application No. 73023 Applicant: Ms . Betty Smith, et a1. Ladder of Learning) Locations Beach Apartments., 4201-4207 Lakeside Avenge Requests Special Use Permit The applicant has submitted material regarding the scope and intent of the use (attached) A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Concerns include maximum cap=acity of the facility; hours of operation; and adequate safety provisions. A copy of the state certification of the personnel must be filed with the City. • We will be prepared to discuss technical requirements and regulations. ._.... ,..+eyk+w+ww,+wv:+r,...+w.w+ .___ a.L�;_�.� a...�:� '... __ ....... .. �_ -. _...•.... '• h r. JOY "r 1973 Statomerit ot proposed site s In: rsgard to the size of this nursery school, we wish to make the following statement: lie are t?ainting a luxury-class, two-bedroom with balcony, ground- floor apartment whibb*,)has two bathrooms, and has a total square footage of 1080{(or enough space for about thirty children according to State Department of Welfare standards), 2) this apartment has a garbage disposal, refridgerator, stove, dishwasher, and two sire'Omditioners, 3) this site'haw ample playgeound arda and equipment which we have permission to us' for the school. Mrs. Kassel of the State Department of Welfare office must, of course, approve if this• facilitq''for this particular use, and we hope t6,1_have her approval before August 2, 1973. duly 30, 1973 Statement Describing Nature, Scope, and Sixe of Proposed Uses The prime objective and purpose of the Ladder of Learning Nursery School is to provide for -the working mother of the.,Twin Lake area a homelike atmosphere .end educational experience for her child that will. greatly further the social and educational maturity of her pre-school youngster. To insure this,objeetive, we will provide 1) experiences in water-play activities, 2) other, actieites including music and art experiences that will ll develop large and .sma muscular abilities at a preschool level, 0) activities to advance their linguistic ability in both E�nglish and Spanish. These sctivities will develop a more mature attitude in the child preparing . 'bit ti* a kindergarten program. To further prepare him, we will place special em�h4is on a reading--readiness program since Mrs . Smith, the direetorT is a reading specialist due to twenty-one years of teaching of which fifteen years were.-dedicated, to reading problems. Because of this experience and traintag, Mrs.'Smmit'h 'was selected by St-. Cloud- University to train student teachers for a period of six Fears. She also has other experience that directly affects her ability to bppervise this school because- she has worked -at Mt. Sinai Nursery School in Minneapolis. 'In addition to these qualifications, Mrs . Smith has earned a 13fletime State of Minnesota Certificate in Nursery School and Primary Education. Due to the -extreme rise in the cost of living, many mothers are forced to seek outside employment to supplement the family income. We feel that a nursery school staffed by two --state-certified teachers and a sociologist will ease the parents concern that their child Will be cared for by qualified people dedicated primarily to the welfare -of children. Every effort will be made to insure that the child will be cared for inn happy and social atmosphere. Respectively submitted, Mrs. Betty Smith Mrs Peggy McGrath Mrs. Mary Ellen Manske PLANNING COM41SSION INFORMATION SMET Application No. 73024 Applicants Brook Park Realty Locations 5649 Fremont Avenue North Requests Preliminary Plat Approval The application is in response to the condition of approval of Application no. 73011 (Ronald Fleisher) , that the subject lot be subdivided within 90 days of approval (may 21, 1973) . The preliminary plat indicates the lots as approved in the variance action comprehended by Application No. 73011. The °new" lot is 71 feet wide and the deficiency of 4 feet was noted and approved by the earlier action. The Directox of Public Works will be prepared to comment further. Recommendation is for approval, subject to the following: le Final plat in subject to review by the City Engineer prior to Council approval] 2. Final plat is subject to requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. ti.Ok%I.;:x'S O7N INU£7PWATIOzyt SKEET Application No. 72068 AppliCanto Anoka-Hennepin and. School Dist. Locations 7020 Dupont _Avenue N. (Evergreen School) Request: Annual review and renewal of Special Use permit for a temporary classroom structure. The permit was approved by the Council on August 28, 1972 for a one year period. The applicant states the structure will be needed for the coming gear. There have been no complaints or problems regarding the use of the building. • TO-. BrooRlyn Center �Ilanntng Commissioners Blair Tremere, Searetary SUBJECT3 Variety of Matters DATA August 2, 1973 1. At the duly 23rd City Council meeting a 120 day moratorium was established on all multi -residential developments not approved by the City Council. During the moratorium a seedy is to be conducted regarding the follca,,ling ordinance provisions for R3 through R7 districtsg 1) recreation area; 2) light,, air and view; 3) open green spacef 4) parking and storage facilities. The Council has directed that It-ohe Planning Comrtiission serve as the coordinating body for the various policty determinations w1hich may be required, following an in depth Investigation by this affica. it is "suggested that some cons.ideration be given to a defined organizational structure such as the establishment of ad hoc committees, The moratorium period currently in effect will terminate on approximately Hovember 19, 1973, which is the date for the regular City Council meeting. 2. We have received a preliminary inquiry as to the establishment of a parochial elementary school utilizing th6 facilities of the Berean Free Church, 6600 block on limboldt Avenue North. The individual who called indicated that all "private parties involved" had approved the school, which is proposed to serve grades K through 8, commencing this fall. When the party was infoxmed of the need for special use permit and the related investigation of the adequacy of the facilities by the building inspector, she became somewhat disturbed. Ber reaction was even more aggravated when she was informed of the regular meeting schedule of the Planning Conunission and she has requested that the Commission consider hearing her application (not yet subinitted), at the August 16th study meeting. Because of the serious nature of this proposal we are undertaking, at this time, a preliminary invasi�.igation of the adequacy of the facilities for the proposed activity. A determination is in order as to whether the item, if submitted and processed, could be considered at the study meeting. '3.'CTtz Broo!'Ilyn Center Planning Commissioners zROm4, 7Uair Tremere, Secretary SUBJECT., Comments Relative to Pmposed Ordinance ,amendment Excepting Single Family Dwellings in Residential Districts Uthev Than R1 from b7onconforming Use. DATE: August. 2, 1973 A.' BASIS POR PROPOSAL The' Council in late 1972 directed the Planning Commission to consider the feasibility of adopting an ordinance provision which would accept single family homes, in the commercial district., from the nonconforming use section. The apparent intent was to determine whether the same considerations en- joyed by single family homeowners in the R1 district could be applied to owners of said nonconforming homes. The Planning Commission informally determined such action would not be advisable, in light of established City planning polices discouraging the use of houses for conneroia3 pur poses, and prohibiting residential occupancy of commercial structures. The goal regarding ultimate development of commercial zoned land with bona fide commercial uses. was also a determinate factor. on May 24, 2973, the Commission considered an application submitted by Nx. Mike Harrer, 6521 Brooklyn. Boulevard, re questing variance approval, froin Section 35 Ill (nonconforming uses) to permit construction of an addition to his single family dwelling located in an R5 district" The application was tabled to permit evaluation and consideration of the non - conforming use ordinance provisions, particularly as they te - late to nonconforming single family uses within residential districts Zoned other than Rl or R". The concern cantered around the idea that the basin residential use is compatible throughout the spectrum of residential districts; and, that- the upkeep and even expansion of single family dwellings represent an. asset to the commanit»v, i.e.. more so than a hinderance to the Evolution of the "Land to higher residential uses. The primaa:y concern is with paragraph three of Section 35 Ill. . A nonconforming use of a building existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be extended through - out the building provided no structural alterations e>wcept: those reomired by ordinance, law, or oche:; regula- tion are made therein. 2 i111--erpretation of the section prohibits the addition of livijig areas, bedrooms, and basement extensions an option which in most circumstances is available to single faidiiy honneowners in the RI or RZ distric -,s. Our investigation showed that only existing single fanily homes on R3, 8.4, and R5 parcels would be inVolved - and the incidenende of such dwellings is relatively small throughout the community. The basic question is, by which means could this exception best be achieved? B. EVALUATION OF VARIOUS METHODS One method would be via variance approval such as that represented by the subject application. This is not desirable from the position that even a few variances from a given ordinance section, such as this, suggest a weakness or impractibility of that particular section. Purthermore, variance approvals indicate that the standards or criteria for variances have been met; in this case, it seems that such compliances is impractical if not impossible. In fact, the subject section provides for some exception ("as required by ordinance, law, or other regulation") . To demonstrate "Circumstances unique and dist-inctivell to an "individual property" would be highly unliltely as Well. Furthermore, most conceivable hardship circumstances would be created by the owner, and thus another criterion for as variance would probably not be met. 2. Another method might be via special use permit. Section 35-220 provides in part: Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district, but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in that district. H.'owever, two of the standards for such permits render this option questionable: 1) the establishment of such a use will not impede the norAial and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses perruitted in the district: 2) the use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. An amendment Providing for the added special use would be recnaired for each and every one of the applicable residential districts. Page 3 3. The amendment of paragraph three of Section 35-1211, with appropriate language specifying the particylar situation, appears to be the most fersible tueans. That sectioa could be amdended to read as foll.owsb A nonconforming use of a building existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be ex- tended throughout the building, provided no structural alteration except those required by ordinanoe, law, or other regulation are made therein. &xcepted from the structural alteration limitation are single family dwellings located in residential districts- other than RI Or R2, provided any 'structural alterations or additions shall conform with the rirements of the RI district. ._. ectu-- There was discussion at the May 24th meet:inq that Mr. Harr2r's application for a variance could serve as a vehicle to carry any proposed ordinance change through to the Council. If .it were determined by the Commission that such an ordinanae dhange should be made, the following action is recommended: Mr. Harrer's application would be placed on the August 16th study meeting agenda: and a recommendation for denial, of the applica . tion would be made in conjunction with a recommendation that the ordinance be amended to provide for the above described exception. On the other hand, if it were determiner) by the Commission that no ordinance change is required, Mr. Harrer's application for a variance could be considered at the study Meeting and a evaluation could be made on its merits. Such consideration however, should be made in light of point number one, above.