Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 06-20 PCP 2C, 1974 6, 19j4 Je mission is an advisory cha Llnil ilin' 1, Z, The pjannjj,�S Cow bcdyo Onz of the Comission's functions -Ls t� hold pubiic Hearings. in the wn�-,ters concerned in these hearings, the Canwission makes recommendations to the City Council. The c-,ity Council makes all final decisions on Uftese matters. 74033 Ur-St; tabled at 5, )-;rooh p,--ic'k 73027 Amsn..,,e, An't ed',pr;oV nf Church Property .. 63.rd and -Per.z-,y: Avavaes 'Northl . 7. proposed OrdJnnp-cvr twer:kierts to Section 35-400 G. -'Aqcn;qsair4'4%, T'tMt5'- o RAeview Plan pendinq 9. Adjournment-. Appliczaticn No. 74033 Applicants Brooklyn Center Jaycees Locations €800 Bryant Avenue No. (Vacant) Requests Special Use Permit The application was tabled at the June 6 meeting to permit the applicant to conduct an informational session regarding the pro- posed use and the outreach Community Center program. Such a meeting was held an June 13 in the Social Hall (the Secretary, Chairman Cross and Corifftiss Toner Foreman were present) . The applicant seeps a special use permit to operate a supervised home for developmentally disabled persons, per the provision of Section 35-310 for "other non-commercial uses required for the public welfare in an R-1 district, as determined by the City Council. " 'The intent is tc provide a setting in which the outreach clients may acquire basic Tame liming skills through daily ex- perience in a standard home envircnment. The applicant contends that the outreach Program promotes the public welfare by providing a means for integrating the developmentally dia'abled into society as dependence upon institutions is phased down. Whereas it is the stated intent of this program to draw upon the resources of the residential environments the basic issue is what the impact of the ,proposed use �woulyd have upon the established residential -character of the single family neighborhood. The guesticn before the Cmauission is one of fact finding and degrees shat is the nature of the special use and to what extent is it cem- patible with the established permitted use? As a zoning matter, it should be evaluated in terms of ordinance criteria for a special use; wads more speciiically in terms of density and physical characteristics of the proposed group home. The planned house has :six and potentially seven bedrooms= two levels: four and one-half baths-I and one cooking-eating area. The applicant proposes residency by a supervisory couple and two children an the upper level, and occups,tnr y by six outreach clients an the lower level. The special character: of the use involves: 1. The structure and premises. The lot is 85' x 120' and 43 similar in size to other R-1 lots in the area. The Planning Commission, No. 74033 Continued -- ?gage 2 homes in the neighborhood, including the new develop- on Bryant, do not have more than four bedrooms. 2. The number of persons. The proposed group or "family" would be ten, which exceeds "permitted" occupancy by not more than five unrelated persons. According to the applicant's information the use in volves the family of the supervisor plus the group of clients. T.11is would most logically be consistent with the ordinance provision for boarding care home. The spaecial character in either case is the degree to which the use departs from the R-1 character of the neighborhood. The number of residents is a significant criteria in defining the point at which the home becomes a satellite institution rather than a single family type home with a 5p?cially permitted use as in the case of day care or faster care facilities. 3. Other uses of the facility Whereas "programs" are potentially tenuous and transferrable to various locations, struct=ures relatively are not. The issue is whether the proposed ho'rae is adaptable to single family occupancy. Obviously the special permit is not a rezoning, but the home is generally "single purpose" in design for group living purposes. Significantly, boarding care homes are a permitted special use in the R-4, R-5 and C-1 districts. However, family day care and foster care uses are permitted Home occupations in the R--1 district. Also. there is & - group home in an R 1 dist;rIct, occupying an existing larger houses another group home, formally acknowledged, is in a large existing house in the R-5 district. There is little doubt as to the intent and capabilities of the Outreach Program. Location of the physical facilities and the magnitude of the hate operations are matters, of discretion and policy, however-----specifically in light of community zoning requirements. It is evident from tlEe applicant's information that a great deal of planning occured with respect to the needs and desires of the Outreach concept, prior to any inquiry as to zoning and policy requirements. It is conceivable that Such inputs may have resulted in selection; of another site in the cm-munity, and a less acrimonious solution to the establishment of an outreach group home. , r cC3Iwaissio?+ ,''.=, :)p 1 9 ca t ion No. 74033 Continued - Page 3 The application ought to be evaluated on its merits, void of emotional and social. connotations. A special use permit would be subject to the following recommended conditions 1. The maximum number of unrelated Outreach clients shall be five. 2. Permanent parking on the premises shall be limited to vehicles owned and operated by the resident-parents. 3. The use is subject to all applicable ordinance and code requirements and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation of the permit. F F• EL xyj TTT a I s r MEMORANDUM Proposed Amendments to Section 35-400 Developed in Response to City Council Initiated Moratorium and Study of Multi-Residential Density and Yard -`� Requirements. FROM: Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Inspection DATE: June, 1974 On July 23, 1973, the City Council took action establishing a moratorium on all multi-residential development and ordered a study with regard to the following factors for the multi-residential districts : 1 . Recreation area 2 . Light, air, and view 3. Open green space 4. Parking and storage facilities Since that time the Planning Commission has- carried the matter consistently on its agendas and has discussed various approaches which might be taken to adjust the requirements of Section 35-400 so to be consistent with the size of remaining undeveloped multi- residentally zoned parcels throughout the City. During the course of the study, Neighborhood Advisory Groups were consulted and their input was provided to the Commmission by the respective commissioner-liaisons. This effort eventually led to the development of a joint ad hoc committee comprised of Councilmen Robert Jensen and Tony Kuefler, and planning Commissioners Pat Horan, Hal Pierce, and Robert Grosshans, who met early in May of 1974 to review the progress and possible approaches which might be taken in revising the pertinent ordinance requirements. It was the intent of this joint committee to provide staff with some direction as to the development of specific ordinance amend- ments and it was determined the following considerations should be reflected in the final proposal for Planning Commission and Council review: 1. Increase the minimum land area requirements for smaller parcels, specifically those less than 3 acres in size. 2. Exclude required yard setback area abutting streets from the calculations of maximum number of units per- mitted on sites in the R-4 through R-7 districts. In this context, this office has developed recommended ordinance changes in Section 35-400 as noted below: Memorandum Cont'd. 3 June, 1974 than 3 acres, with a proportional differentiation between the minimum land area required per unit. The proportional relationship is compared with current re- quirements in Table 1. The proposed increased land area requirements u' .rements for sites less than 3 acres was developed on i a proportional basis considering such factors as units per acre and percentage of an acre occupied by a dwelling unit. Included in Table 1 is information showing the same data for the R-3 district. C. Inventory of ExistinMulti-Residentah� Zoned Sites. Table 2 consists of an accounting of remaining identifiable parcels throughout the City which are zoned R-4 through R-7, and indicates the approximate square footage and acreage of those sites. There are only two of twenty-one identifiable parcels which are 3 acres or larger. The "area" numbers correspond to those indicated on a large exhibit map which will be available for presentation at respective Council and Planning Commission meetings. CONCLUSION: The proposed ordinance changes have been designed in consideration of the two primary concerns noted above: increasing the minimum land area requirements for small freestanding and remnant parcels (less than 3 acres) ; and, to exclude required minimum greenstrip and yard setbacks abutting streets. The language changes and the changes in the minimum district requirements were developed mutually with the overall intent of spea7king to the issues set forth by the City Council in July of 1973. Incidentally, it is our recommendation that the format of Section 35-400 be altered as reflected in the accompanying exhibits.