Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 11-10 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 10, 1976 CITY HALL Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in special session consisting of a joint discussion meeting with the City Council and was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairperson pro tem Cecilia Scott. Roll Call Chairperson Scott, Commissioners Engdahl, Pierce, Kohrt, and Jacobson. Also present were Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Kuefler, Fignar, Jensen and Britts, and Councilman-elect Lhotka. Also present were City Manager Donald Poss, Administrative Assistant Ron Warren, and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Chairperson Scott explained the purpose of the joint discussion session was to review the pending matter of side yard setback standards for one and two family dwellings which had been extensively discussed by the Commission and the Council,. She stated that the City Council had recently determined there was merit in amending the zoning ordinance side yard setback provisions and that a purpose of this meeting was to review some of the concerns the Planning Commission members had voiced and to reach a mutual understanding of the issue and the proposed disposition. The Secretary reviewed a memorandum concerning the experience with attached garage construction at various side yard setbacks, as well as a draft ordinance amendment which would provide for a reduced side yard setback for dwellings in certain circumstances. He stated the analysis of garage construction used the base year of 1969 when the present zoning ordinance standards were adopted permitting accessory buildings to be within three feet vs. the former five feet from the side property line. He stated the analysis showed that of the 344 attached garages permitted since 1969, 15% were located three feet from the property line, and 27 (8%) are four feet from the property line, for a total of 78 garages (23%) permitted at less than five feet. He stated the analysis further shows that 54 garages (16%) were permitted at five feet and that 201 attached garages (58%) were permitted at more than five feet from the side lot line. The Secretary then reviewed a draft ordinance amend- ment which, if adopted, would: 1 . Delete the present language adopted in 1974 which permits additions to dwellings less than ten feet from the lot line only behind attached garages. He stated this would be included in the new language. -1- 11-10-76 2. Provide that dwellings could be closer than ten feet, but not closer than five feet, from one of the interior side lot lines subject to certain restrictions which would assure that the other side yard would be the minimum ten feet and would not be obstructed so access to the rear yard would be provided; and that the wall of the dwelling facing the yard of less than ten feet would have no openings. 3. Clarify the ordinance section by presenting various provisions in separate paragraphs. He stated the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 35-400` (3) would read as follows: In the case of permitted one family and two family dwellings the dwelling may be located less than ten feet but not less than five feet from not more than one of the established interior side lot lines, provided: (1) All other yard setback requirements are met; (2) The remaining minimum ten foot interior side yard between the dwelling and the lot line shall not be used for any accessory building; (3) The exterior wall of the dwelling facing the interior side yard of less than ten feet shall contain no openings including doors or windows or provision for mechanical equipment. An extensive discussion ensued among the Commissioners and Councilmen as to the basis for the proposed ordinance amendment and as to the substance of the proposed language. Mayor Cohen suggested that each of the members be polled as to their position on the recommended ordinance amendment. Councilman Britts stated that he perceived a community need at this time, similar to that perceived in 1969 when the interior side yard setback for accessory buildings was reduced from five feet to three feet. He stated that he favored the proposed five foot minimum setback for dwellings, since it was realistic and that it was consistent.with the variances granted over the years .for. interior side yard setbacks for dwellings. He stated it was his recollection that no variance had been granted for less than five feet, and that in fact many of them had been for more than five feet but less than ten. He referred to an analysis of previous variances for side yard setbacks which was prepared by the Department of Planning and Inspection which confirmed that. Councilman Britts also stated that he saw the need for an effective separation between dwellings but that he felt the proposed standard was reasonable and he did not care to achieve that standard by continued variances. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he felt the ordinance standard should not be changed at all and that he had not agreed with the most recent variance requested by Mr. Jack Welsh which was approved by the City Council. He stated the recent attitude survey conducted by the Jaycees showed that 75% of those surveyed did not want the ordinance standards changed and he did not feel the ordinance should be changed in reaction to a few parties whose circumstances, in his opinion, artually did not warrant a variance. 11-10-76 -2- Councilman.Fignar stated that he had a concern relative to the attached garages built since 1969 which were less than five feet and whether the new language would be equitable in those instances. A brief discussion ensued and it was determined that the intent of the proposed ordinance language does not apply to those situations where the garage is built less than five feet, were, for the most part, double garages vs . the more prevalent situation in the community of older homes with attached single garages. Councilman Kuefler suggested that the community need is generated not only by growing families but also the need for more usable accessory storage space which cannot be accommodated through the use of a single attached garage, and thus resulting in property owners building larger double garages or accessory buildings in their rear yard, thereby effectively rendering the attached single garage less suitable for storage than for logical expension of the dwelling itself. Councilman Jensen stated that he agreed with Councilman Fignar's concern that any reduced ordinance standard should encompass all existing situations permitted by the ordinance, namely to allow a minimum setback of three feet rather than five feet. Commissioner Kohrt stated he.agreed with Councilman Kuefler that the five foot minimum setback was a perceived community need and that there was no need to reduce it to three feet. He stated that at this stage of the community's development it would seem reason- able to respond to the real community need for providing the five foot minimum setback, and that he did not see any negative ramifications. Commissioner Jacobson stated that she understood the statements in favor of the five foot minimum setback, but she failed to see how the Planning Commission or Council could deny a request from someone whose attached garage was less than five feet and who desired to expand the house. She stated that all things considered, she did not feel the ordinance standards should be changed and she referred to the results of the Jaycee attitude survey. Commissioner Pierce stated he agreed with Councilman Kuefler and Commissioner Kohrt and stated that effectively the ordinance has been changed through the granting of a number of variances over the years. Mayor Cohen stated that the ordinance standards should not be changed either through amendment or through continued variances. He stated he felt people could work within the ordinance standards and he commented that the ordinance standards, including variance provisions, are designed as a protective device and not as a hinderance. He stated that his concern, based on past experience with ordinance standards and variance granting, is that continued variances in any one zoning district are potentially applicable to other zoning districts in less desirable situations as seen by the courts. He stated the key Issue is determining what the minimum acceptable standard was and to stand firm on that reasonable standard. He stated that if, in fact, the community -3- 11-10-76 desires`change, then the ordinance should be changed as being responsive. He questioned whether there was a perceivable community desire for change. Commissioner Scott stated that she was against changing the ordinance, but that she agreed with Commissioner Pierce that, in effect, the ordinance has been changed through continued variance granting and that the proposed language was simply a realistic recognition of that fact. A brief discussion also ensued relative to possibly changing the standards for a variance and the City Manager emphasized that the variance standards were designed to protect all property owners in all zoning districts and that any changes to those standards, as well as granting of variances outside of those standards, could be potentially applied to any situation. `Chairperson Scott and Mayor Cohen stated that it was the majority opinion that the ordinance interior side yard setback standard for one or two family dwellings should' be amended and that the proposed five foot setback should be clearly established as being the minimum standard for dwellings. There being .no'further business, the special joint discussion meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Chairperson Pro Tem 1`1-10=76 -4-