Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 01-22 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 JOINT MEETING CITY HALL JANUARY 22, 1976 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in joint discussion session with the City Council . The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Robert Foreman. Roll Call : Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Scott, Engdahl , Jacobson , Horan, and Pierce. Also present were Mayor Cohen, Council- men Britts , Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen, City Manager Donald Poss and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Mayor Cohen and Chairman Foreman explained there were several pending matters which warranted prompt consideration and review. The first item consisted of the subdivision and land use policies in the southeast and southwest neighborhoods. The item was reviewed by the Director of Planning and Inspection who stated that a number of variance requests over the years for subdividing parcels at less than ordinance standards, particularly in the southeast neighborhood, had stimulated the discussion of whether smaller lot sizes should be com- prehended by the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. He stated the two areas of the City which featured over-sized or substandard lots were the R-2 areas in the southeast and southwest neighborhoods. He explained the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to encourage combination of small substandard lots into larger ones, and to perhaps encourage development of two-family dwellings within a single-family environment. Such development had not been forthcoming and instead, there was continuing interest by home builders to construct smaller single-family homes on smaller lots. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed a map of the southeast and southwest neighborhoods indicating the subject areas. In response to a question by Councilman Jensen, the City Manager stated that generally utilities had been planned and installed in the southeast area based on the planning criteria that remaining vacant land would be subdivided according to prevalent standards. The Director of Planning and Inspection also commented that a physical inventory was needed of the occupied land in the area to more precisely determine the magnitude of the re- maining parcels available for development. He stated that this could be accomplished through actual survey of the area as well as by accurate aerial photographs which were available. An extensive discussion ensued and the following consensus was developed as to evaluating existing standards as well as the feasibility of modified standards for land use and land subdivision requirements in the southeast and southwest neighborhoods: 1 . The design and capacity of the public utilities in the area must be analyzed to determine whether more intense development at a higher density than originally comprehended is feasible. 2. A physical land use inventory is necessary to de- termine the amount of available vacant land as well as property which can reasonably be expected to undergo redevelopment in the near future. 3. Planning input is needed regarding the possible impact of the proposed I-94 freeway through the southeast neighborhood with respect to possible land use requirements. The next item of business was consideration of zoning standards for yard setbacks in the residential districts. The item was introduced by the Director of Planning and Inspection who ex- plained this matter was the result of several variance requests over the years relative to property owners' requests to expand their dwellings and/or accessory buildings beyond the ordinance setbacks. He stated that more recently, the requests involved expansion of the dwellings for purposes of accommodating needs of growing families and recreational purposes. He stated there was a real possibility of a trend in the expansion of existing homes versus the once traditional approach of moving to another larger home. The Director of Planning and Inspection commented as to the planning background for yard setbacks, explaining that they were the effective means of controlling density in residential neighborhoods and of limiting the size and bulk of buildings as a matter of aesthetics and desirable physical development. He explained that in Brooklyn Center, the existing single- family and two-family yard setback requirements had been en- forced for approximately 26 years and the physical layout of the residential neighborhoods could be attributed to those standards. Extensive discussion ensued and Mayor Cohen recognized former Planning Commissioner Henry Bogucki and Mr. Jack Welsh, who briefly commented on the discussion item. Discussion of the setback standards included concerns as to the maximization of land, the perceived need for more living space by growing families, the decreasing economic opportuni- ties to move to other areas and build or purchase new and larger homes, and the feasibility of modifying long standing zoning standards at a point in time when the community is virtually completely developed in the residential areas. The City Manager commented that for several reasons, including indications that certain school districts were contemplating closing neighborhood elementary schools in the City due to population decline, there were indications that there was a trend toward smaller family units. Consequently he said, altering the standards could ultimately result in a number of over-sized homes for smaller family units, and it could be reasonably expected, based on actual experience in some portions of the City today, that such large dwellings could be converted to two-family or multiple family structures. He stated that this was not desirable from a zoning and restrictive land use perspective, and it could pose serious questions with respect to the capacity of public utilities in all the residen- tial areas. Extensive discussion ensued and a consensus developed as to the following relative to modifying zoning standards for yard set- backs in the residential districts: 1 . Alteration of existing setback standards, if warranted on a community-wide basis, should be accomplished via �. ordinance amendment rather than through granting variances. 2. Determination of prevailing community thinking as to the desirability of existing standards or to alteration of the standards is vital , including substantial com- munity input. -2- 1/22/76 3. The staff and Planning Commission should review and recommend to the Council appropriate means for eliciting community opinion and providing opportuni- ties for direct community input relative to the issue of yard setback standards. The next item of business was consideration of the feasi- bility of establishing special yard requirements for water- front residential properties. The item was introduced by the Director of Planning and Inspection who explained that the subject had been explored several times prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and current Zoning Ordinance. He stated that separate standards for waterfront properties had not been adopted, apparently because most of the waterfront properties (on upper Twin Lake and along the Mississippi River, north of I-94) , were of substantial depth in excess of ordinance standards, and most of those lots had now been developed with single family homes which met or exceeded the setbacks prescribed by the ordinance. He stated, however, that there were several lots on the Mississippi River south of I-94 and a few lots on lower Twin Lake which were platted at less than the ordinance standards and were not as deep as the other waterfront properties. He commented that most recently the question had arisen with respect to a property owner on lower Twin Lake who proposed an addition to his home in the legal front yard area. He stated that the homeowner incidentally remarked, during the discussion of the merits of his variance request, that he perceived his legal front yard to be his rear yard, since the portion of his premises facing the water was considered his frontage. Chairman Foreman stated that a review of the matter in terms of all the properties abutting water in the City, most of which were already developed, indicated that a separate set of standards for the remaining waterfront properties was not a feasible approach to resolving the setback questions raised by one or two property owners. Councilman Britts acknowledged that the central issue in the southwest area, and in particular with respect to the aforementioned application, was whether the specific property warranted a variance consideration to permit en- hancement of a single family home, given the character of that area. Councilman Britts stated that while the specific application had been denied on its merits as not satisfying the specific ordinance criteria, perhaps reconsideration was in order be- cause it was an older area, the houses were built under a former ordinance, and the small yard design was common in the area. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the platting of the area along lower Twin Lake noting that all of the lots were platted at a uniform width which was less than the ordinance standard. He stated that setback standards would necessitate that smaller houses be located on these lots. He noted, however, that most of the develop- ment in the area were the original converted lake-front homes, or multiple dwellings, and in fact the dwelling which was the subject of the application last year was a newer single family home in the area. Extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Horan suggested that while the basis of the application submitted by Douglas Quady last year involved a nonconforming situation, in that the house had been constructed at one ordinance standard which was negated by the new ordinance, perhaps attention should be directed to amending the Zoning Ordinance to com- prehend "noncomplying structures" since the actual use was within the ordinance restrictions. -3- 1/22/76 Mayor Cohen suggested that it was essential to consider the future possible development in the area, given the zoning as well as the precedent for granting variances to exceed the established setback standards. Councilman Britts inquired as to whether the application submitted by Mr. Quady could be reconsidered on the basis that the ordinance created a hardship, since what had been built was permitted under the former ordinance and the then averaging formula for setbacks; whereas , the averag- ing concept was dropped when the present Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1968. Mayor Cohen suggested that in addi- tion, the legal aspect of acknowledging such a hardship should also be investigated. Councilman Britts suggested that perhaps a determination could be made by the Building Official as to whether the structural integrity of the existing garage at the Quady residence could be reasonably expected to support a dwell - ing addition on top of the garage. He stated that if it appeared the garage were installed with the intent to later add a room on top, there may be grounds for reviewing the application in the context that the ordinance transition created a hardship for the property owner. Following further discussion it was the consensus with respect to feasibility of establishing particular setback standards for residential properties abutting water, es- pecially in the southwest neighborhood, as follows : 1 . It is not feasible to establish such standards on a community-wide basis in consideration of the size of most waterfront properties , as well as the fact that most of them are developed within existing ordinance standards. 2. Individual situations involving remaining properties abutting the water, particularly in the southwest neighborhood, should be reviewed on their merits as to whether normal construction is possible with- in the existing ordinance setback standards. Re- view of the zoning and land use planning in the area is in order and should take into account the variety of environmental factors in that neighborhood. 3. With respect to the Douglas Quady residence and pro- posed addition as requested in a 1974 variance application, there may be merit in reviewing the history of the particular property and dwelling with respect to the time frame of the adoption of the present ordinance which does not include certain provisions under which the house was origianally built. The next item of business was introduced by Mayor Cohen: Other Business : the status of the Comprehensive Plan review. Various concerns were voiced including whether an editing and updating of the present Comprehensive Plan originally adopted in 1966 were sufficient or a satisfactory basis for developing a new Comprehensive Plan for a mature community; whether available staff resources could under- take a comprehensive plan effort, including the research and analysis and production of such a plan; and to what extent the proposed legislation requiring comprehensive planning by communities in the metropolitan area would dictate the format and content of a new plan. The City Manager offered comments relative to the de- sirability of reforming the old plan versus creating a new plan which would be responsive to the actual present and future needs of the community which has matured. He stated that a new plan would be far more workable and that it would be reasonable to gain input from a retained -4- 1/22/76 source which could assist the staff in developing such a plan. He commented that the existing staff resources were limited as to availability of time and manpower and while information and analysis could be provided during a Comprehensive Plan development process , the actual conceptual and detailed research work would re- quire professional input on a consultive basis. In other business , Mayor Cohen suggest that the Com- mission and Councilmen give consideration to an in-house education seminar, utilizing the manual entitled "Local and Regional Planning in Minnesota" as published by the League of Municipalities for the basic text. He com- mented on the content of the manual and stated that he felt there would be merit in informally reviewing it for a period of a month or two so that Commission members and Councilmen could develop a better understanding of both the philosophical and legal aspects of municipal planning and development. Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Horan to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed un- animously. The meeting adjourned at 11 :10 p.m. Chairman 1/22/76