Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 03-21 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 21, 1974 CITY HALL Call to order The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Carl Gross. Roll Call chairman Gross, Commissioners Grosshans, Foreman, Scott, Pierce and Horan. Also present was Director of Planning and In- spection Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by (3-7-74) Commissioner Horan to approve the minutes of the March 7, 1974 meeting as submitted. The mc,tion passed unanimously. Application No. 74014 The first item of business was consideration (Gene Volk) of Planning Commission Application No. 74014 submitted by Mr. Gene Volk. The item was in- troduced by the Secretary who explained that the Commission at the previous meeting had consented to hear the item as a new applica- tion during the study session. He stated the applicant was seeking a variance from Chapter 15 of the City ordinances to permit subdivision of an already platted parcel by metes and bounds description. He stated the subject land was on the east side of France Avenue N. in the 6700 block and that the contended hardship was formal platting would be unduly restrictive and unnecessary. He further explained that the subject action would involve parcels known as Lots 4, 5, and 6 of the West View Addition to Brooklyn Center. He stated the proposed action would split Lot 5, with 33 feet of its 73 feet becoming part of Lot 6 on the north, and 18 feet becoming part of Lit 4 on the south. He stated Lot 4 cur- rently was 73 feet wide. The Secretary further cz;mmentej that Lot 6 and a Pcrtion of Lot 5 ccntai.ned a d,auble bungalow which, was moved -there from 6612 Avenue N. in 1960, when. land was taken for freeway develop- ment. He stated the Council then approved a special use permit for that mc,-!e (Application Nr). (­0137) , and the ther, cllir�er of Lot 6 ap- parently- also had title tc the north 45 feet of Lot 5, although a legal subdivision had not been approved by, -the City. -1- 3/21/74 He stated further that the current owner of the double bungalow had indicated a desire to enlarge that parcel and enhance the yard of the nonconforming structure by acquiring another -ten feet of Lot 5 fram the applicant. He explained that the applicatilion comprehended this expansion. He stated the applicant represents the owner- ship of Lot 4 and the south part of Lot 5, and that he intends to build a single family dwelling on the new lot which would be 91 feet wide. An extensive discussion ensued and chairman Gross, Commissioner Horan, and CoTmmissioner Foreman indicated their concern that a con- dition of approval of the proposed subdivision should specify that only two buildable parcels would result from the action: the northerly corner parcel being 129.9 feet in width and the southerly- portion being 91 feet in width. Chairman Gross recognized the applicant who commented as to his intent to build a single family dwelling as soon as possible and he stated his appreciation for the City's concern that the matter of ownership and proper de- lineation of property lines be clarified. Chairman Gross then noted that a public hear- ing had been scheduled and inquired whether notified property owners were present. He then recognized Mr. Don OgiJ771e, 6744 France Aven,.�e N. who noted that he was the awner and a res-ide,kt cf the double b•,)ngalow on the corner propert_,y. He explai-ned that he had no ob- -lection to the subdivision and that he had reached an agreement with. the applicant as to acquiring ten additional feet to expand the sc^:,th side yard of the double b,.:rcjalcw. During a brief discussj'-cn Mr. 0,,-.-,-Ilvie in- q_il­red as to whether a two-family dwelling co,_i.ld he erected on the cor.--er parcel, should the current structure be demolished or destroy- ed by fire. The Secretary re-,ponded that the zoning would only permit the construction of a single-family dwelling, altho,:i.gh, circumstances relating tc the special use status of the particular parcel could perhaps be reviewed by the City Council. He stated that for zoning purposes the two-family existing structure was nonconforming. Action Clc,si,-.g Motion, by Ccmanissioner Foreman seconded by Public Hearing Commissioner Scutt to close t",e public hearing. The motion passed u mar im­_�._-ly. -2-- 3/21/74 Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a Approval of Applica- motion by Commissioner Horan seconded by tion No. 74014 Cc:Tmissioner Scott to recommend approval of (Gene Volk) Planning Commission Application No. 74014 submitted b, y Mr. Gene Volk, noting that the subject land is already platted; resubdivision would be unduly restrictive and unnecessary under the circumstances; the division would result in substantial lots for the existing and proposed dwellings; and, subject to the condition that the action comprehends the creation of only two buildable lots, the north parcel consisting of existing Lot 6 and the north 55 feet of existing Lot 5, and the south parcel consisting of the existing Lot 4 and the southerly 18 feet of existing Lot 5. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion of The next item of business was consideration Proposed Amendment of proposed amendments to the definition of to Special Home Special Home occupations as cited in Chapter 34 Occupation Definition and Chap-ter 35 of the City ordinances. The Secretary stated that the proposed draft had been developed in response to a Council and Commission concern regarding the intended flexibility of the Special Home Occupation provision. He explained that the proposed amendments would permit special home occupations activity within not more than one of the permitted accessory uses listed in the R-1 and R-2 district provisions. He stated that for the Purposes of those districts, such uses in- cluded an accessory building or a private s-,,,qinuning pool and tennis court. He stated the amended language also emphasized that the special use activity would be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, including the dwelling and per- mitted accessory buildings or installations thereon. He noted in addition that the former language prohibiting the use of accessory structures would be eliminated. An extensive discussion ensued. Chairman Gross recalled that during the pre- liminary hearings on developing. recently adopted amendments to the definition cf Home Occupations and Special Home Occupation, the intent had been to provide for such flexi- bility. Commissioner Foreman commented, how- ever, that during those hearings and discussions, the primary concern had been centered on the prohibition of retail sales in the residential districts, and that apparently specific con- sideration had not been given to such flexibility. In further discussion, Commissioner Horan -3- 3/21/74 stated his concern as to controlling traffic and parking in neighborhoods Vaich was related to home occupation activity. The Secretary commented that riot or language in the Home Occupation definitions but also other ordinance requirements regarding traffic and parking would apply where traffic problems might occur. Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a motion Adoption of ordinance by Con-nissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner 40 Amending Definition of Pierce to approve the proposed ordinance amend- Special Home Occupations ing chapters 34 and 35 of the City ordinances relative to the definition of special home Occupations, and to recommend the adoption thereof by the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance Amending ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 34 AND 35 OF THE Chapters 34 and 35 CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS Section 1. Section 34-110 and Section 35-900 are hereby amended to read as follows : Home Occupation, Special - Any gainful occupa- tion or profession, approved by special use permission, engaged in by tl-i.e occupant of a dwelling urit within said dwelling or invojvinc _n,_-�t more one accessory use perinitted by Section 35-310 or Section 3_5-311, a •�d which involves any of the following: stock-in-trade 4 .kncidental to the performance of the service; repair, service, or manufacturing which re- quires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; the employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person who is a non-resident of the premises; the teaching of more than one (1) but not more than four (4) nonresident students any given time; or the need for not more than two (2) parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the persons residing, on the premises; and pro- vided the activity: is clearly incidental and secc,ndary to the residential use of the premises, irlcl,-�u,dincf the dwel.lingB and permitted accessory bui iiin 9—s -or installations thereon; does not produce light Ja�r_enoise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; (does not involve the use of accessory structures;) does not consist of over-the-counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises. Examples include: barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studio, group lessons, sa,V motor- drilzen appliance and small engi.­4e repair, and the like. Section 2. This ordir-ance shall beccme effective after adoption and upon thirty (.30) days fo'llcwing its legal publication. -4- 3/21/74 Recess The meeting recessed at 9115 p.m. and resumed at 9x40 p.m. Discussion of The next item of business was discussion of Ordinance Yard the purpose and function of established yard Setback Requirements setback standards which have been maintained throughout the community. The Secretary commented that there had been several recent • inquiries and proposals submitted to the administrative office which indicated a questioning of the merit of established set- back criteria, particulary those relating to side yard setbacks. He explained that the ordinance currently specifies that a house shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the side lot line and that a garage side yard setback shall be a minimum of 3 feet. He commented that one of the particular situations being evaluated involved a rambler-type home with an attached garage situated on a standard size lot.. He stated the owner proposed to enclose an open patio area to the rear of the garage, thereby extending the wall of his house towards the side yard, flush with the existing garage wall. He commented that the wall of the house would then be less than 10 feet from the side lot line. The Secretary explained that the staff was currently evaluating past Council actions with respect to variances which had been granted in similar situations, and he commented as to the concern for possible precedent which might be set, since the community contained many similar homes for which standard variance criteria were not apparent. He also commented that a determination would be made shortly as to whether a variance from the ordinance requirements or an appeal to the Building Departments decision not to issue a permit was the proper vehicle to resolve the matter. An extensive discussion ensued. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. and Mrs, Lou Howard, 2218 55th Avenue No. , who stated their interest in the matter. The Secretary stated the item had been placed on the agenda in order to secure the reading of the Commission 's general feeling towards • this question, as a matter of developing further input in reaching a decision as to the most appropriate means of resolving the question. Chairman Gross stated that while he recognized -5- 3/21/74 the merit in a home owner being able to ex- pand the area of his house, within established criteria, it was vital to establish and adhere to reasonable standards. He stated that he did not feel granting variances was the ad- visable approach because of the inherent danger of establishing a double standard (for existing situations versus new construction) , as well as the inherent danger of establishing a pre- . cedent w1ilch might not be in the best interests of the community as a whole. Commissioner Horan stated that it was vitally important to adhere to established standards and that what applies to one homeowner should apply to another, unless unique circumstances or undue hardship was evident. He commented that it did not appear granting a variance was a solution to the problem if the merit of the standards was being questioned. Commissioner Scott commented that given the fact that virtually the entire community had been developed according to a set of given standards, she could see no basis for re- ducing them. She said that if any change were -to be made, perhaps the 3 feet minimum side yard setback for garages should be increased to 5 feet. Commissioner Foreman commented that he could see no reason for changing or even deviating from the established standards, un- less a clear undue hardship or unique cir- cumstance was established. He stated that wholesale granting of variances was not a solution if there was in fact a root problem with the standards themselves. Commissioner Grosshans recollected the basis for establishing the various yard setback re- quirements and commented that provision was made for a 3 feet versus 10 feet setback for garages because they did not constitute a liveable space. He said it appeared the con- cern over the setback requirements related primarily to owners of homes with attached garages, but that whatever determination was made as to the appropriate standards, it would apply to all homeowners -whether they had attached garages or no garages at all. He commented that the ramifications of changing established standards in a mature community went far beyond the needs and desires of one or two particular homeowners, particularly when the established variance standards were not even apparent. Commissioner Pierce stated the essential question to him was whether changing establish- ed standards would have a detrimental effect on the quality life in the community. He stated it should be recognized that the housing -6- 3/21/74 needs today are substantially different than those a decade or so ago, when such standards were set. He said if changing the standards would not enhance the quality of life in the community, then he could see little basis for such a change. Introduction of The next item of business was the introduction Proposed Housing of the proposed Housing Maintenance Code which Maintenance -the Secretary explained had been presented to ordinance the Housing Commission earlier in the week. The Secretary noted two typographical errors on pages 10 and 14, and explained the draft ordinance was presented for Cozmnission review and response to either the Housing Commission or City Council in the future. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Lou Howard, Chairman of the Housing Commission, who ex- plained the draft ordinance was to be re- viewed by not only the various Advisory Commissions, but also by various civic groups and the established Neighborhood Advisory Groups. He stated that formal hearings and joint meetings would be scheduled in the near future, and in that regard, asked that the Commission review the draft code so that appropriate commentary could be made at that time. Hevi-7w Proposed Joint In other business the Secretary reviewed a Parking Agreement for proposed joint parking agreement involving Prockdaie West Build- the ownership of the Brookdale West Office .ing and Cross of Glory Building at 5901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the L',:,thera,n Church neighboring Cross of Glory Lutheran Church. The Secretary explained that according to Section 35-720, the City Council may approve the joint use of common parking facilities subject to certain conditions which he cited. He stated in the specific instance, the con- ditions were met subject to the approval by the City Attorney of a legal encumberance to be filed on the church property title. He stated the owner of the office building had initiated the proposal since medical uses would not be permitted in the building until additional parking was provided. A brief discussion ensued. AcIF-licn Acknowledging Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by and Approving Concept Commissioner Grosshans to acknowledge and � f Prr.posed Joint approve, in concept, the joint parking Parking Agreement facility proposal regarding the Brookdale West Office Building at 5901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the abutting Cross of Glory Lutheran Church property. The motion passed unanimously. -7- 3/21/74