Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 02-25 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER February 25, 2016 1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda • Motion to Approve the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for February 25, 2016 4. Approval of Minutes • Motion to Approve the February 11, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. Chairperson'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 in these matters. 6. PLANNING ITEMS a) Re-Consideration of Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding Decks and Porches as an Allowable Encroachment into Certain Residential Yard Setback Areas and Adding New Definitions of Decks and Porches. Requested Planning Commission Action: • Discussion; • Motion to Approve New Ordinance Language - OR- Motion to Table Matter for Future Meeting Date. 7. Discussion Items 8. Adjournment PC Minutes 02-11-16 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 11, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Koenig at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Vice Chair Alexander Koenig, Commissioners John MacMillan, Carlos Morgan, Stephen Schonning, Rochelle Sweeney, and Susan Tade were present. Chair Randy Christensen was absent and excused. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve the agenda of the February 11, 2106 meeting. The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 14, 2016 There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tade, to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2016 meeting. The motion passed. 5. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION Vice Chair Koenig explained the Planning Commission’s role as 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 in these matters. 6. PLANNING ITEMS 6a) ISD #281 – ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS; PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2016-002; CONSIDERATION OF A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPLICATION OF A 32’ X 32’ CLASSROOM ADDITION AND A 32’ X 20’ ENTRYWAY ADDITION FOR THE NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; 5421 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD PC Minutes 02-11-16 -2- DRAFT Vice Chair Koenig introduced Application No. 2016-002, Consideration of Site and Building Plan Application of a 32’ x 20’ Entryway Addition for the Northport Elementary School; located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Benetti presented the application and noted that legal notice was published in the local Sun- Post and notice letters were delivered to all neighboring properties within 150 feet of the subject site. He stated that the Commission may elect to allow public comments if any homeowners or members of the public wish to be heard on this matter, but no Public Hearing was scheduled. He provided background; the scope of improvements; access and site issues; drainage and utilities; landscaping; and lighting information on the project. He recommended that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2016-002, the Site and Building Plan for the new classroom and entryway additions for Northport Elementary School, subject to the noted conditions. Vice Chair Koenig called for questions and comments from Commissioners. Vice Chair Koenig asked how the classroom will be utilized. Greg Dehler, Wold Architects & Engineers, replied it will be a resource room. Vice Chair Koenig asked about the handicap accessible entrance. Mr. Dehler explained that the ramp and stairs will be eliminated and built on the inside. He stated that this type of route was added to all the other entrances at the school. Vice Chair Koenig stated he has observed the renovation process as he lives near the school. He feels the new exterior is attractive and he asked if the new addition will match the current exterior. Mr. Dehler answered affirmatively. Commissioner Morgan commented that schools are becoming life centers that encompass the community. Mr. Dehler stated that most of the schools in the district are utilized for extended hours and the resource room addition does provide more breathing room for the school. Vice Chair Koenig stated that this is a good choice over mobile classrooms. Commissioner Morgan asked how long construction will take. Mr. Dehler stated that it will be completed this fall. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-002 SUBMITTED BY ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS. PC Minutes 02-11-16 -3- DRAFT There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-02. Voting in favor: Vice Chair Koenig, Commissioners MacMillan, Morgan, Schonning, Sweeney, and Tade. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed. The Council will consider the application at its February 22, 2016 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. 6b) RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING DECKS AND PORCHES AS AN ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT INTO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL YARD SETBACK AREAS AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF DECKS AND PORCHES. Mr. Benetti provided background and additional suggested revisions to the ordinance language and definitions. He asked for feedback on either a six or an eight foot encroachment on decks; an eight or ten foot encroachment on the enclosed or unenclosed porch; and either a 160 or 200 square foot width of an enclosed or unenclosed porch. He showed examples of front porches on homes in Brooklyn Center. Vice Chair Koenig asked for pros and cons on the encroachment dimensions. Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel stated that they don’t want the front additions to be used recreationally, and they want the addition to accentuate the front of the house. These additions are meant to bring people to their front yards to observe or visit with neighbors. He stated that the question is how to make sure we enable residents to go to their front yards, yet keep the front of the house in a manageable perspective. Vice Chair Koenig commented that the City’s goal is to create a friendly, livable environment to enjoy. We would want to avoid over-congregating and creating a fearful environment. Mr. Eitel stated the typical cement stoops throughout the City are aging and costly to replace. He stated that terraces are currently allowed by code. He believes that enabling an addition to the front is good because typically people don’t use their front doors due to small foyers. Vice Chair Koenig stated it is important to address the usability of the front yard to make homes in the City more attractive to younger people. He asked about Councilmember Graves comments on page three of the City Council Work Session. Mr. Eitel stated that he thought she was in support of the less costly option of a deck but didn’t want to see large decks. She wanted the deck to have more of a residential feel as opposed to a recreational feel and she felt decks were more economically feasible. PC Minutes 02-11-16 -4- DRAFT Commissioner Tade asked about the deck encroachment. Mr. Benetti stated that this allowance is only for homes that are at the 35-foot setback. He stated that staff’s research verified that most of the houses in the City are set back at 35 feet. Vice Chair Koenig stated he is favor of a six-foot encroachment on decks and an eight-foot encroachment on porches because it would minimize the potential gaudiness and give folks more yard space. He stated that porches can add value so they should be able to go larger. Commissioner Tade asked about railing requirements for decks. Mr. Benetti replied that according to code a deck has to have a railing if it is 30 inches above the ground. Commissioner Sweeney stated that she likes the new definitions, especially the removal of “heating or unheated”. She feels that this would eliminate the area being used as living space. Commissioner Koenig commented that it is good that enhancing aesthetics is being looked at because Brooklyn Center is an aging community and needs to keep looking at ways to enhance itself and attract vibrancy because it is so near to Minneapolis. Neighborhood aesthetics are important to people looking for homes. Commissioner Morgan commented that the City has had a reputation as a worker community, but with the proposed senior living complexes it may get the reputation that it is taking care of seniors. Discussion took place about the City’s seniors and their preference to stay in the city. Mr. Benetti asked if the Planning Commission was in agreement with Vice Chair Koenig. Commissioner Schonning stated his preference to error toward the maximum at eight and ten feet. Mr. Benetti stated that this issue will be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting to receive input from Chair Christensen. He encouraged Commissioners to e-mail staff to let them know of any additional thoughts or comments if they have any after the completion of this meeting. He stated that he would like to build Planning Commission consensus on these new, suggested changes; possibly consider bringing back to the Housing Commission; and then to the City Council. He would like to announce the ordinance changes in the City’s spring newsletter. Commissioner Schonning moved and Commissioner MacMillan seconded to table the discussion until the next Planning Commission meeting to enable Chair Christensen’s input. The motion passed. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS PC Minutes 02-11-16 -5- DRAFT 7a) REVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND VISION PROPOSED BY SAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A MARKET RATE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE OPPORTUNITY SITE. Mr. Eitel presented the Southern Opportunity Site Conceptual Master Plan that includes market rate apartments to appeal to millennials. He stated that it will include a performing arts center and talked about street construction; phasing of the project; parking; and the Economic Development Authority’s role in the project. Commissioner Morgan asked what the rent would be for a two-bedroom apartment. Mr. Eitel replied that rent would be $1,500 for a two-bedroom apartment. Commissioner Morgan commented one could buy a $150,000 home and equal the monthly rent. Commissioner Koenig stated that the rent may be high, but will hopefully entice people such as Maple Grove residents that want to live closer to Minneapolis/St. Paul to move to the City. Commissioner Sweeney asked when the apartments would be ready to rent. Mr. Eitel replied that they could be rentable next year. He also talked about marketing to millennials who are more open to renting versus buying. Commissioner Sweeney asked about the investment into marketing the apartments. Mr. Eitel replied that the developer will do the marketing and that marketing will be important. Commissioner Sweeney asked if there was Section 8 housing close to this project. Mr. Eitel responded that there would not be. He talked about the lawsuit with the Metropolitan Council the City is involved in that maintains that the Met Council’s policies resulted in concentrated areas of poverty. He also talked about the income generated by the apartment units to commerce. Commissioner Morgan commented that Brooklyn Center was known for affordable housing in the metro area. Commissioner Sweeney stated her support of Brooklyn Center but also talked about the need to do an amazing sell job because of people’s perception of the City. Commissioner Morgan stated he doesn’t know if people would pay $1,500 rent in Brooklyn Center because we don’t currently have anything like that. He thinks it will take strong marketing to address the negativity. Commissioner Sweeney spoke about the benefit of the City’s proximity to Minneapolis and the need to market this to young people. She asked why people would choose St. Louis Park over Brooklyn Center. PC Minutes 02-11-16 -6- DRAFT Discussion took place regarding the cost of apartments in the inner ring suburbs and Minneapolis. Vice Chair Koenig agreed with Commissioner Morgan that the City currently doesn’t offer higher end apartments so it may be worth the gamble on the part of the City and developer as it could enhance the future economic viability of the City. Commissioner Schonning talked about the tendencies of millennials to not care about living near crime and embracing multicultural areas. He stated that the City needs more amenities because they are social people and they want to walk. Commissioner Morgan stated that the City’s diversity is a strong drawing point. Commissioner MacMillan asked about the timeline. Mr. Eitel replied that the Commissioners will see applications in the next three months and that it will be under construction in 2017. 7b) REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL’S 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, AS PART OF THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Benetti stated that this item will be tabled until the next meeting and that the purpose was to inform the Commissioners and point out forecasts that are troubling to City planners. Vice Chairman Koenig asked how it relates to the Opportunity Site project. Mr. Eitel replied that the Metropolitan Council is concerned with a regional perspective. Discussion took place regarding the current and forecasted population for the City. Commissioner Morgan stated his feeling that it is important and should be marketed that the City is the first major minority City in the State. Vice Chair Koenig stated that incentives are needed to keep the City a place that people want to come to and choose to live here. He stated that as Brooklyn Center grows and businesses come in, there will be more job opportunities and the City will go back to its original roots of working folks. He feels Brooklyn Center is poised to take advantage of changes like the raise in minimum wages. 8. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ________________________________ Chair City Hall Community Center Police & Fire Departments 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 6645 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-1853 763.569.3300 Fax: 763.569.3494 763.569.3400 Fax: 763.569.3434 763.569.3333 Fax: 763.561.0717 Planning Commission (763) 569-3335 MEMORANDUM TO: City Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist/Planning Commission Secretary DATE: February 25, 2016 RE: Re-consideration of Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding Decks and Porches as Allowable Encroachments in Front Yards Attached for Planning Commission’s review and re-consideration is the same working copy that Planning Staff presented to the Commission at the February 11th meeting. As the Commission is aware, upon completing the discussion of this item that night, you chose to table this matter in order to allow all commissioners an opportunity to weigh-in and provide comments to these suggested changes. Please remember the original definitions are noted under each sub-heading in gray shaded text; while any new or added text is noted as underlined text. As part of this ongoing discussion, Staff is also seeking a final determination on the deck and porch standard sizes as noted in yellow highlighted text. If you have any questions or comments prior to next Thursday night’s meeting on this item, please call Gary at (763) 569-3305 or Tim at (763) 569-3319. Thank you. PORCH & DECK ENCROACHMENT STANDARDS LANGUAGE REVISIONS [WORKING COPY] Original Proposed Definition DECK - A horizontal, unenclosed platform, without a roof which may be attached or unattached to a structure, including any attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features not more than 36 inches above the platform, and whose platform, if attached to a dwelling, is larger than permitted for a landing, not including steps and ramps. Revised Definition DECK - A horizontal, unenclosed, above-ground, level platform without a roof, which may be attached or unattached to a principal dwelling, including any attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features not more than 36 inches above the platform, and which platform is functionally related to a principal use. An unattached deck is considered an accessory structure in any yard, wetland, floodplain, or river corridor critical area. Original Proposed Definition PORCH, ENCLOSED - A horizontal roofed platform, attached to a dwelling, heated or unheated, with a wall system that consists substantially of screens, windows, and/or doors. If said structure provides main access into a dwelling, a reasonable sized landing, including steps or ramps leading into the porch shall be permitted. Revised Definition PORCH, ENCLOSED - A horizontal roofed platform attached to a dwelling, with an integrated wall system consisting of roof support members such as pillars, posts or columns, and which consists substantially of screens, removable storm-windows, and/or doors. Revised Definition PORCH, UNENCLOSED - A horizontal roofed platform attached to a dwelling, with a roof support system consisting of pillars, posts or columns, which may or may not have railings or knee-wall railings no higher than 36-inches from the platform level, and consists of no screens, windows or doors. PORCH & DECK ENCROACHMENT STANDARDS LANGUAGE REVISIONS [WORKING COPY] Revised Standards for Allowable Encroachments (note: new language is underlined; and yellow highlighted texts are dimensional options for Planning Commission to discuss/decide) 8. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements: a. In any yards: Off-street open parking spaces; ramps and landings providing handicap accessibility to a principal structure; terraces; awnings; canopies; front entry steps and landings not exceeding 10% of the area of the yard; roofed portico or enclosed vestibule not exceeding 36 sq. ft. in size; chimneys; flagpoles; air conditioner condensers; temporary seasonal swimming pools; opaque fences, hedges, or walls provided they shall not exceed four feet in height in front yards and provided they do not impede vision within the sight triangle described in Section 35-560, or a clear view of the address of the principal building. Fences, hedges, or walls may exceed four feet in height alongside interior property lines. No fence, hedge or wall shall be allowed which constitutes an unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. b. In rear yards: Recreational and laundry drying equipment; arbors and trellises; balconies limited to 15% of the yard area; breezeways, open porches; detached outdoor living rooms (patios). c. In front yards and corner side yards: Decks may encroach up to six feet (6’) / eight feet (8’) into the setback areas provided: 1) the entire encroachment, including stairs and attachments, must not exceed 100 square feet in area; 2) the deck provides access to the main entrance of the principal dwelling; 3) the floor of the deck is no higher than the threshold of the main entrance to the principal dwelling; 4) the underside of the deck, when viewed from the street, must be screened with a decorative lattice, skirt board, landscaping or combination of materials to at least fifty percent (50%) opaque; and 5) the deck must be constructed with quality materials, maintained in in good condition, and architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling as much as possible. PORCH & DECK ENCROACHMENT STANDARDS LANGUAGE REVISIONS [WORKING COPY] d. In front yards and corner side yards: Enclosed or Unenclosed Porches may encroach up to eight (8) feet / ten feet (10’) into the setback areas provided: 1) the porch must maintain a minimum 25-foot setback from the front lot line; 10-foot setback from a side interior lot line; and 20-foot setback from any street corner side-yard lot line, with steps and/or accessibility ramps excluded from this provision; 2) the width of the porch shall not exceed 20-feet along the front edge of the dwelling, and the maximum allowable size of the porch shall not exceed 160 sq. ft. / 200 sq. ft. in area; 3) the floor of the porch is no higher than the threshold of the main entrance; 4) no part of an enclosed porch may be used for year-round living space; 5) in cases where a corner lot dwelling has separate front-door entrances on each street-side, only one porch encroachment is allowed; 6) the underside of the porch must be screened with a decorative lattice, skirt board, landscaping or combination of materials, which is at least fifty percent (50%) opaque when viewed from the street; and 7) all new elements and features of the porch, including the roof, must be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling.