Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016 05-26 PCP
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 26, 2016 1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda • Motion to Approve the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for May 26, 2016 4. Approval of Minutes • Motion to Approve the May 12, 2016 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) Senior Housing Partners Planning App. No. 2016-003 Property Address: 5401 – 69th Avenue North PUBLIC HEARING – Consideration of a Site and Building Plan for a 34-Unit Senior Independent Living Facility- part of Phase II of the 2012 Maranatha Homes Planned Unit Development Requested Planning Commission Action: • Direct Staff to present Planning Report; • Motion to open Public Hearing; take public input; • Motion to close Public Hearing; • Commission discuss requested item: • Motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-05 b) Matt Zdon Planning App. No. 2016-004 Property Address: 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East PUBLIC HEARING – Consideration of a Variance to Allow Reduced Setbacks for a new 20’ x 20’ Garage in the R-1 One Family Residence District Requested Planning Commission Action: • Direct Staff to present Planning Report; • Motion to open Public Hearing; take public input; • Motion to close Public Hearing; Discussion • Motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 26, 2016 c) Anthony “Rick” Nelson Planning App. No. 2016-006 Property Address: 5323 Dupont Avenue North PUBLIC HEARING – Consideration of a Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation of a Silk Screen and Image Printing Business in the R-1 One Family Residence District Requested Planning Commission Action: • Direct Staff to present Planning Report; • Motion to open Public Hearing; take public input; • Motion to close Public Hearing; • Commission discuss requested item: • Motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-07 7. Discussion Items a) Review of the City’s Liquor License Ordinance and Discussion on Potential Development Issues that may be influencing decisions in locating new restaurants within Brooklyn Center. 8. Adjournment PC Minutes 05-12-16 -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 MAY 12, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Christensen at 7:36 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Chair Randy Christensen, Commissioners Jack MacMillan, Carlos Morgan, and Stephen Schonning were present. Commissioners Rochelle Sweeney and Susan Tade were absent and excused; and Commissioner Alexander Koenig was absent and unexcused. Also present were Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel and Michaela Kujawa-Daniels, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 3. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION Chair Christensen 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. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 28, 2016 There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2016 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS 5a) APPLICATION NO. 2016-005 PARENTS IN COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. - CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LICENSED DAYCARE FACILITY IN THE C-1 SERVICE/OFFICE ZONE, LOCATED AT 6415 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD Chair Christensen introduced Application No. 2016-005, consideration of a Special Use Permit to Operate a Licensed Daycare Facility in the C-1 Service/Office Zone, to be known as The Aubrey Della Early Childhood Family Development Center (See Planning Commission Report dated May 12, 2016 for Application No. 2016-005). It was noted that legal notice was published in the local Sun-Post and notice letters were delivered to all neighboring properties within 350 feet of the subject site. PC Minutes 05-12-16 -2- DRAFT Mr. Eitel stated Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2016-005, with the conditions noted in the Planning Staff report and also similar in the Resolution. Mr. Eitel provided background on this site and stated in 2007 this site was a different childcare facility and the license for the business had been revoked by the Department of Human Services (DHS). He noted this is the reason for the Special Use Permit being requested to Operate a Licensed Daycare Facility in the C-1 Service/Office Zone. Commissioner Morgan asked for clarification on the location of where the center will be located and referenced a map on the power point presentation that Mr. Eitel provided. He also asked why the Department of Human Services had revoked the previous facilities license. Mr. Eitel replied the license was revoked due to operational issues. He stated that is why this is an application for a special license, to operate a similar business previously licensed in this location. OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2016-005 Chair Christensen recognized residents in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2016-005, at 7:52 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen called for comments from the public. Rico Alexander, Minneapolis, MN - Head Start Director, shared some history on the Head Start Program. He stated they are a nationally recognized and award winning non-profit organization that has been around for over 40 years. He noted they currently provide services to over 2,000 low-income children and families in the Hennepin County area. He stated they mainly serve Brooklyn Center but plan to extend to North Minneapolis residents in the near future. He also noted they will provide busing transportation for the children they serve, which will not cause any issues with traffic in the area as well. Commissioner Morgan asked how the busing will work and where the children will get dropped off within the location. Mr. Alexander replied they are still in the process of finalizing the best location, but have decided they will either drop the children at the main front entrance or the bus will pull around the back and drop the children at a backdoor entrance. Mr. Alexander stated a main part of the Head Start Program is to provide nutrition to low-income children and families and to provide more than the typical three meals a day provided to all children attending the facility, they partner with local food shelves and once a month have a food shelf at two of the biggest Head Start locations to provide their families with the food and nutrition needed for their homes as well. Commissioner Morgan asked if this food shelf service will be provided at the Brooklyn Center location. Mr. Alexander replied that they typically hold the food shelf at the two largest PC Minutes 05-12-16 -3- DRAFT locations which are both located in Minneapolis. He did note that should the Brooklyn Center location grow and if they need was great, they would accommodate the needs of the families they serve. Mr. Alexander stated the only issue they currently have with the location is cosmetic work that needs to be corrected. He noted the fencing is a top priority as outlined in the application and they will have that repaired prior to opening. Mr. Alexander reiterated it is important to understand PICA (Parents in Community Action, Inc.) is a parent founded and run organization. They provide services to many backgrounds and are the leading forefront for Head Start Programs. Commissioner Morgan asked what issues they anticipate will occur in the future that they plan to overcome as a program. Mr. Alexander stated the first issue is lack of space; and noted they were fortunate to get the space in Brooklyn Center, but not always so fortunate in all areas. Mr. Alexander also stated a second issue they plan to overcome is finding quality staff members to train and provide the best services to the families they serve. Gretchen Hengemuhle, Senior Advisor for Head Start stated the services they provide are only as good as their staff and that is why they provide extensive training and offer many educational opportunities for their staff. She stated they invest in their own people to start the process of being able to invest in children’s futures. Commissioner Schonning stated he is very pleased they will be serving their community and is looking forward to their presence. He noted the only issue he sees as an eminent work order is that they repair the fence. Commissioner Morgan echoed these sentiments and asked when they plan to open. Mr. Alexander replied they hope to open June 14, 2016 and look forward to getting their programs open and provide services to the community. Chair Christensen stated he was happy about what they will bring to the community and in agreeance with Commissioners Schonning and Morgan that the only issue is repairing the fence prior to opening. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING) There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2016-005. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen called for questions and comments from Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-005 SUBMITTED BY PARENTS IN COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. (PICA). PC Minutes 05-12-16 -4- DRAFT There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-04. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Schonning, MacMillan, and Morgan. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its May 23, 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. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 6a) Liquor License Issuance and Fees Associated Commissioner MacMillan requested discussion on a previous topic regarding liquor license acquisitions within the City. He asked Mr. Eitel if he had received any information on the reasoning for the City having fees that are about 60% higher than surrounding cities. Mr. Eitel stated he followed up with the City Clerk and was informed the licensing fees and regulations have been in place for 20 years at least and the cost to gain a liquor license is about $14,000.00. He stated once you have an established liquor license and history, he believed the cost of the fees comes down. The Clerk confirmed there didn’t seem to be any apparent reason the fees have remained the same for so many years. He stated the assumption is the amount for the license just hasn’t been questioned in the past. Chair Christensen stated he would like to bring this topic up to the City Council and get a discussion going on the agenda. He stated his concern is that the high cost of a liquor license could deter businesses from opening in Brooklyn Center and they want to ensure they are remaining business friendly, so he would like to look at options make this more affordable. He asked if he should draft a memo as a home owner and bring it to the City Council at Open Forum or if it is best to get this item on the agenda as a Planning Commission item. Mr. Eitel responded his best course of action is to provide a memo and request this topic as a Planning Commission item. He noted he will draft a memo for them to get that topic started. Mr. Eitel also noted what has been expressed to him as the major problem for businesses seeking a liquor license within the City is the requirement that the business has to have a certain percentage of seating capacity in order to obtain the license. He stated many businesses such as Chipotle do not meet that seating capacity, yet they would like to obtain the license to provide liquor to their customers. Chair Christensen and Commissioners MacMillan, Schonning, and Morgan agreed to add this topic to the next agenda as a discussion item. PC Minutes 05-12-16 -5- DRAFT There were no other discussion items. 7. OTHER BUSINESS None at this time. 8. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. ________________________________ Chair ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 26, 2016 Application No. 2016-003 Applicant: Senior Housing Partners Location: 5401 – 69th Avenue North (Maranatha Senior Living Campus) Request: Site & Building Plan Phase II - Senior Independent Living Apts. INTRODUCTION Senior Housing Partners (“SHP”), a division of Presbyterian Homes and Services and owners of the Maranatha Senior Living Community campus, is requesting consideration of Site and Building Plan of a proposed 34-unit, senior independent living apartment facility, for the property located at 5401 – 69th Avenue North. This is considered the Phase II of the previously approved Maranatha Homes Planned Unit Development of 2012. Although City Code does not require an official public hearing on site and building plan applications, per the direction of the City Council, the city has elected to consider this matter and application under an official and duly noticed public hearing process. Comments from the general public should be allowed and noted for the record. Written notices have been mailed to property owners within 350-feet of the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: MF- Mixed Enhanced Current Zoning: PUD-MIXED R-5/R-6 (Planned Unit Dev./Multiple Family Residence) Surrounding Zoning: North: R-3 Multiple Family Residence & R-1 One Family Residence East: R-1 One Family Residence South: R-1 One Family Residence West: (City of Brooklyn Park – Multi-Family Residence) Site Area: 7.06 acres Setback Standards: Under R5 and R6 zoning district, new residential buildings must comply with the following standards: Land Area Width Front Rear Side Corner District (SF/Unit) (1) (Feet) (2) (5) (6) (3) (5) (2) R5 (See Sec. 35-410) 2,700/unit 100 35 (4) 40 (4) 15 (4) 25 (4) R6 (See Sec. 35-410) 2,200/unit 100 50 (4) 40 (4) 20 (4) 50 (4) 4. When a building of 2-1/2 stories or more in an R5, R6, R7, C1A or C2 zone abuts an R1 or R2 zone, the setback of this building from the R1 or R2 property shall be no less than twice the height of the building. • Application Filed: 03/28/16 • Application Deemed Complete: 04/07/16 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 05/27/16 • Extended Review Period Deadline: 07/26/16 ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 2 Conformity to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes Subdivision Ord.: Yes Sign Ord.: Unknown/Not under consideration at this time Variance Needed for Request: No BACKGROUND The subject property was redeveloped in 2012 under a newly established planned unit development (PUD) which allowed for the removal and development of the old, three-winged single story nursing home facility, and replaced with the new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility and related parking areas. This new nursing care facility was constructed on the far west edge of the properties, and a land that held the old nursing home was cleared and held for the Phase II of this PUD project, which consists of this new 34 unit senior apartment complex. The Maranatha PUD originally called for a 38-unit apartment facility, but Senior Housing Partners elected to proceed with 4 lesser units to accommodate larger units for future residents. At the time of the 2012 PUD approval, SHP indicated to the Planning Commission and City Council they intend to complete the proposed Phase II within 3-5 years of approval. The nursing care facility officially opened in 2014. SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS The 2016 submitted site plan is very similar to the plans submitted by SHP with the Maranatha PUD in 2012. The 2012 master plan indicated a chevron or angled shape building connected to the new nursing care facility, and noted as: “Future 2-1/2 story, 38-unit independent facility w/ 60 underground parking stalls” (see illustration below). ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 3 The new 2016 Plan illustrates a comparable layout, but is now reduced from 38 units to 34 units; is increased from 2.5 stories to full 3 stories; and provides 39 parking spaces underneath as opposed to the 60 spaces identified in the original 2012 Plan. To make up for this deficit, the developer is proposing to add 32 surface parking spaces along the east side of the new apartment building. Parking related issues (for this new development and the site in general) will be addressed later in this report. The 3-story structure will contain parking on the bottom (first) level and the upper two levels for living spaces. This change form 2 -½ to 3-stories was due to the higher than expected water table in this area. This high water table issue was discovered in planning the 2012 improvements, which necessitated SHP’s plans to re-design and remove a small basement level under the new nursing care facility. SHP’s engineers initially thought the new 2-1/2 story building would be fine at this proposed location; however, follow-up tests of this area revealed a higher than expected ground water, which necessitated pushing the building to a full 3 story height instead of a partial or below grade parking level. The height of the “future 38-unit building” in the 2012 Master Plan was never noted or officially acknowledged, but it was determined the likely height of a 2.5 story building would be approximately 35-40 feet based on this projected story height. The proposed 3-story building under this Site Plan consideration is measured with an overall height of 48 feet; and a mean height of approximately 40 feet. The R-5 Zone allows for 2-1/2 to 3-story buildings; while the R-6 allows 4 to 5 stories in height. Maximum building heights or measurements are not indicated in the City’s Zoning Code Section 35-400, Minimum District Requirements, but the following setback standard is noted for certain ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 4 multi-family residential districts: 4. When a building of 2-1/2 stories or more in an R5, R6, R7, C1A or C2 zone abuts an R1 or R2 zone, the setback of this building from the R1 or R2 property shall be no less than twice the height of the building. As part of the new PUD approvals in 2012, the City created and approved a new “MF-Mixed Family-Enhanced” land use category, which provided the basis of creating a new planned unit development zoning on the site, with a mix of R-5 and R-6 Multiple Family Residence as the underlying zoning district. The new land use and PUD zoning allowed the developer to site the building with certain and approved setbacks, and allow for reduced parking spaces that were determined not necessarily needed in a senior housing complex. The 2012 plan indicated a setback from the adjacent R-1 District to the east of 100-feet. This enhanced setback was encouraged at that time in order to provide adequate buffer space and allow for sun-light to the neighboring single family uses. Under this current plan, the setback remains at 100-feet, which still meets the underlying R-5 and R-6 Zone standards, and the approved 2012 Planned Unit Development Agreements. Staff does not believe the increase of this facility from 2.5 story to 3 story, or the reduction from 38 to 34 units is cause for PUD Amendment or major revision to the PUD Agreement between the City and SHP/Presb. Homes. There are no expected major changes with the ponding or drainage basins throughout the campus site. Architectural The original PUD was approved with an overall architectural and elevation plan as part of those approvals. All buildings were required to incorporate 4-sided architecture in their designs, meaning all four elevations must provide a nice, consistent use of material on all four sides of the buildings, including rear elevations. Most of these architectural materials are consistent with the previously approved building materials the City called for under the original Maranatha PUD Agreements. This new senior apartment building will include similar cement lap-board and shingle-style siding; rock face CMU blocks; white vinyl windows; color coordinated asphalt shingles, and ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 5 composite columns for the outer balconies. All residential units will have a separate balcony affixed to each unit. The new apartments will range from smaller 1 bedroom units of 687 to 798 sf. in size, to the larger 2 bedroom units ranging in various 927 to 1,190 sf. in size. An elevator will also be provided for the residents. Access & Parking In 1987, the City approved Maranatha’s plans to construct the 64-unit senior apartment (now assisted living) facility. Although this facility required 130 parking spaces; the site was approved for 95 spaces, with 35 proof-of-parking spaces to be reserved if needed. Prior to the removal of the old nursing home and construction of the new facility in 2014, the entire Maranatha site consisted of 110 parking spaces. City Zoning Code Section 35-704 MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, the following standards are required for these uses: 1. Residence a. Two spaces per dwelling unit 4. Miscellaneous b. Rest homes, nursing homes, sanitariums, and homes for the aged and for children: One space for every four beds plus one space for every two employees and one space for each staff doctor. Under the 2012 Planning Report, and giving consideration to these current parking standards, staff noted the existing assisted living facility, new nursing care facility and future 38-unit apartment would have required 261 spaces to meet the parking needs for these combined uses. The original Maranatha Master Plan illustrated 104 spaces, with up to 87 “proof-of-parking” spaces situated along the northwesterly, easterly and southeasterly areas of the fire lane (refer to images below): As part of the 2012 PUD consideration, Maranatha submitted a Traffic and Parking Study by Westwood Engineering, which included findings and conclusions that included the following: ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 6 1) The trip generations (vehicle movements in and out) of the site under Phase I will not change; and the trips under Phase II should be minimal; 2) Based on the turning traffic off 69th Avenue, these numbers are not warranted and therefore turn lanes are not recommended; 3) For assisted living facilities, ITE suggests a 0.41 space/unit standard; for skilled nursing care facilities a 0.35 space/nursing bed standard; and for independent living facilities a 0.59 space/unit standard. Based on these reduced standards, the existing assisted living and nursing care under Phase I would only require 61 spaces (versus 185 by City Code). With Phase II, the total number equates to 83 spaces (versus 261 by Code). 4) The study also included a table which provided a “typical daily demand” of on-site parking, which was determined to be a low of 5 spaces to a high of 80-90 spaces used. 5) The study suggests the City consider utilizing a compromised standard, between the City Code, ITE and Peak Demand thresholds, and further recommended that “Rest Homes, Nursing Homes…” standard of 1 per 4 beds and 1 per employee be used for the nursing care and assisted living, which equates to 73 needed spaces for just these two uses. The independent living under Phase II would be held to 2/unit, or 76 spaces, for a total of 149 spaces. Assuming the new Phase II independent living building can contain 38 underground spaces, this would require at least 111 outside parking stalls, or 7 short of what is planned or illustrated on the new Development Plan. When the 2012 Maranatha PUD and Site/Development Plans were given final consideration, Staff recommended the developer add the 14 proof spaces and 16 proof spaces as shown in the diagram in the upper left, which would have provided 134 parking spaces for the overall site. The City Council elected to exclude the 14 spaces proposed along the curve of the fire lane, and recommended just the 16 spaces on the far east edge. This left the senior housing site with a total of 120 parking spaces, which is how the site lays out today. The proposed senior apartment plan indicates 39 under-building spaces, which is 21 less than the original 60 spaces proposed under the 2012 Plan. To make up for this loss, the Developer is proposing to install an additional 32 surface parking spaces along the east side of the new apartment building, which will bring 71 new spaces available to the site, or 191 total spaces. ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 7 Staff is aware of some on-site parking issues that have arisen since the new nursing care facility opened in 2014, particularly during the days when staff shift changes overlap, which creates some illegal parking by staff or visitors in the drive-aisles and fire lane. To the best of Staff’s knowledge, there have been no complaints of vehicles parking on 69th Avenue or nearby residential roads. As part of the original Westwood Engineering traffic study, and Maranatha representatives testifying that residents of the new 34 unit apartments are less likely to own or operate a vehicle, the 71 additional parking should be adequate to serve the overall function of the campus, and provide additional parking spaces during the peak shift change periods, or when higher than normal customers visit the site, such as holidays or special events sponsored by Maranatha. Staff has made it very clear to Senior Housing Partners that the over-parking and illegal parking of vehicles in the fire lanes must be managed accordingly. Continued violations may result in the Police and/or Fire Chief to issue citations if the problems persist. The southern point of the new parking area that ties into the fire lane road will need to be blocked for vehicles, but have approved break-away gates or bollards (per Fire Chief approval) that currently exist on the site. Staff is also requesting the curbed areas for the drive aisles/fire lanes be painted/marked with bright red or yellow paint to discourage and prevent parking in these driveway areas, with signs indicating “No Parking-Fire Lane” or similar along these areas. The subject site is accessed from 69th Avenue North by means of two separate driveways, one of which was slightly relocated and both improved when the new nursing care facility was developed. There are no plans to modify or increase access points under this plan. ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 8 Grading/Drainage/Utilities The Applicant has provided full grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which have been reviewed by the City Engineers. Comments and recommendations regarding these plans are attached for the Commission’s review. Sanitary sewer and water main service lines were stubbed in at the time of the Phase I construction period. B6-12 curb and gutter is to be provided around all new driving and parking areas. The plans call for minimal grading in this area to construct this building; and the areas around the nearby pond will be protected and restored upon completion of this project. This ponding area will also be protected by a new concrete block retaining wall system. Landscaping The Applicant has submitted a new landscape plan that relates to this new senior apartment plan. Plans call for six (6) new shade trees along the east side of the apartment, with either White Oak, Elm, Linden or Maple variety. Plans also call for 10 deciduous understory trees, consider of Japanese lilacs, river birch, serviceberry, crabapples, and hawthorn trees. The site is also finished off with over 108 ornamental shrubs and bushes, including dogwoods, spirea, honeysuckles, junipers and yews, spread out along the outer perimeter of the building. All trees and landscaped areas will be irrigated. The new plan also calls for a new retaining wall along the south and west sides of the building, to protect the slopes and impacts to the nearby drainage pond, which will not be affected under this new building plan. Lighting/Trash The site plans also contained a photometric and light plan. All new lighting should meet or exceed those requirements established under Section 35-712 of the City Code, which specifically require that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or down-cast shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than 3 foot candles measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. All new (final) lighting will be analyzed and reviewed prior to issuance of any building permits. These plans call for five new pole lights along the west edge of the new parking area, with LED, cut-off style lamp heads. The southerly area of the fire lane roadway will also have 5 new pole lights with similar LED, cut-off style lamps to light this area. Additional (minimal) lighting is also being provided near the garage entrance into the building. The photometric plan illustrates the illumination and expected (calculated) cast-off of light glare on to the adjacent properties, which appear to be minimal and meets City Code. Plans are absent of any new dedicated trash enclosure. Staff assumes that the trash will either be inside the garage space or provided for in an approved, fully enclosed structure per City Code. The City will not allow any outdoor trash enclosure in the new parking area or fire lane adjacent to the single family neighborhood. If placed near the garage door entrance (first level parking garage), the Owners must demonstrate this to be a safe and effective area for refuse truck loading and vehicle access. Any enclosure must be constructed of materials that match the principal ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 9 building; and the final design and placement of any enclosure shall be made by the City Planners and City Engineers. CITY ENGINEER REVIEW The City Engineer has provided a review and comments regarding this Site and Building Plan in the May 18, 2016 memorandum, which is included as part of this report. Please note that some of these conditions may be applicable at time of future building permit review and approvals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2016-05, which provides a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2016-003, and which comprehends the approval of the updated Final Development/Site and Building Plan of the subject site, which is an integral part of the 2012 Maranatha Homes Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1) The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memos, dated May 18, 2016. 2) The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3) The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4) The location and placement of all fire safety features, including any additional hydrants, fire lane gates, and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief. 5) The Applicant shall paint, stripe or mark (with an approved paint) the curbed sections of all fire lanes and drive aisles to restrict employee and visitor parking and post signs indicating “No Parking-Fire Lane” or similar along these areas. 6) Any outdoor trash enclosure must be constructed of materials that match the principal building; and the final design and location of any enclosure shall be approved by the city planners and city engineers. 7) Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 8) Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 9) The Developer shall submit a site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall ________________ App. No. 2016-003 PC 05/26/2016 Page 10 be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of all site improvements. 10) An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 11) Plan approval is exclusive of all signs on this site, including any new freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to separate sign permit submittals and approval. 12) All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 13) Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 14) The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 15) Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. Attachments • Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-05 • City Engineer’s Review Memo – dated 05/18/2016 • Site and Building Plans M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 18, 2016 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works – Maranatha Phase II Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for site plan review on March 25, 2016, for the proposed Maranatha Phase II: Civil Site Plans – Dated 3/25/2016 Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit: Demolition and Erosion Control Plan 1. No comment. Grading Plan, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 2. No comment. Utility Plan 3. No comment. Paving and Geometric Plan 4. Provide area to facilitate vehicle turnaround on proposed parking along the east side of the property. Detail and Specifications Plan 5. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the Cit y of Brookl yn Center standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details must be included in the plans. SWPPP Plan 6. Provide and list a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan inspector/manager with contact information who must be available within a four hour notification to respond to and implement SWPPP related corrective measures. If the applicant is found to be non- responsive, the City may issue a stop work order and/or take other means necessar y to Preliminary Plan Review Memo – Maranatha Phase II Page 2 May 18, 2016 correct SWPPP related issues. Miscellaneous 7. See attached plan sheet redlines for additional miscellaneous plan comments. 8. Re-establish and update plantings in the existing rain gardens on site per original approved design. 9. Provide irrigation plan. 10. The Phase II site plans currently submitted increase the impervious site area by only 0.05 acres over the original watershed submittal, approved in 2012 which included the Phase II improvements. No additional stormwater improvements are required. Should the site plan change and deviate from the approved submittal, any additional impervious area will need to be treated per Watershed rules. 11. Provide update on all parking issues and staff concerns about parking. Verify property has sufficient parking for residents, staff (including staff change over periods) and special event parking. 12. Provide a Tier 2 Traffic Demand Management Plan in accordance with the City’s template plan. 13. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the propert y improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupanc y. The as-built survey must also verify that all propert y corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 14. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion the design/project engineer must formall y certif y through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision. The design/project engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certif y all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey) in accordance with the City’s template. Preliminary Plan Review Memo – Maranatha Phase II Page 3 May 18, 2016 15. The total disturbed area exceeds one acre; a National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit is required. 16. The City has submitted the plans to Hennepin County for review. Applicant must meet requirements from the Hennepin County review. 17. Applicant must apply for a land disturbance permit. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 18. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must compl y with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended as required by the Cit y Engineer. 19. A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100 percent of the estimated cost as determined by Cit y staff must be provided to the Cit y. 20. During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the Cit y for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $1,500 that the Cit y can draw upon on a monthl y basis. 21. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non- compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting 22. A City of Brookl yn Center Land Disturbance permit is required. 23. A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES permit is required. 24. Other permits not listed may be required and it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 25. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. Preliminary Plan Review Memo – Maranatha Phase II Page 4 May 18, 2016 26. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined b y the City. Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2016-003 SUBMITTED BY SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF A NEW 34-UNIT, SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENT FACILITY LOCATED ON THE MARANATHA SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY CAMPUS, 5401 – 69TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-003 was submitted by Senior Housing Partners, a division of Presbyterian Homes and Services and owners of the Maranatha Senior Living Community campus, requesting consideration of Site and Building Plan of a proposed 34-unit, senior independent living apartment facility, for the property located at 5401 – 69th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this 34-unit, senior independent living facility comprehended under this Application completes the Phase II of the Maranatha Homes Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development and Site Plan of 2012, approved by the City Council under City Resolution No. 2012-90, adopted June 25, 2012; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and called public hearing in this matter, and reviewed and received a planning report and city engineer’s report on the proposed new Site and Building Plan for the proposed 34-unit, senior independent living apartment facility; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this Site and Building Plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby recommends to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of the proposed 34-unit, senior independent living apartment facility for the property located at 5401 – 69th Avenue North, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2016-003, may be approved based on the following considerations: A. The Site Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance; B. The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards; PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05 C. The Site Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; D. The Site Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and E. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2016-003 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1) The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memos, dated May 18, 2016. 2) The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3) The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4) The location and placement of all fire safety features, including any additional hydrants, fire lane gates, and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief. 5) The Applicant shall paint, stripe or mark (with an approved paint) the curbed sections of all fire lanes and drive aisles to restrict employee and visitor parking and post signs indicating “No Parking-Fire Lane” or similar along these areas. 6) Any outdoor trash enclosure must be constructed of materials that match the principal building; and the final design and location of any enclosure shall be approved by the city planners and city engineers. 7) Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05 8) Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 9) The Developer shall submit a site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of all site improvements. 10) An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 11) Plan approval is exclusive of all signs on this site, including any new freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to separate sign permit submittals and approval. 12) All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 13) Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 14) The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 15) Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. May 26, 2016 Date Randall Christensen, Chair PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05 ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair , Commissioners ; ; ; ; ; and ; and the following voted against the same ; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 A3 VIEW FROM EAST 1 A3 VIEW FROM NORTH A-3 PERSPECTIVES CITY SUBMITTAL 16312 TJC/JWM WH SHEET Date 03-25-2016 Lic. No. 19181 Joel W. Maier CITY SUBMITTAL DEMOLITION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN SCALE 1" = 15' 30' 60'030' 30' F: \ 1 6 \ 1 6 3 1 2 \ D r a w i n g s \ C i v i l \ 1 6 3 1 2 C 1 . 0 D E M O . d w g , 3 / 2 5/ 2 0 1 6 9 : 1 3 : 1 6 A M 16312 TJC/JWM WH SHEET Date 03-25-2016 Lic. No. 19181 Joel W. Maier CITY SUBMITTAL GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN SCALE 1" = 15' 30' 60'030' 30' F: \ 1 6 \ 1 6 3 1 2 \ D r a w i n g s \ C i v i l \ 1 6 3 1 2 C 2 . 0 G R A D E . d w g , 3 / 25 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 1 3 : 2 2 A M 16312 TJC/JWM WH SHEET Date 03-25-2016 Lic. No. 19181 Joel W. Maier CITY SUBMITTAL UTILITY PLAN SCALE 1" = 15' 30' 60'030' 30' F: \ 1 6 \ 1 6 3 1 2 \ D r a w i n g s \ C i v i l \ 1 6 3 1 2 C 3 . 0 U T I L I T Y . d w g , 3/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 1 3 : 3 6 A M 16312 TJC/JWM WH SHEET Date 03-25-2016 Lic. No. 19181 Joel W. Maier CITY SUBMITTAL PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN SCALE 1" = 15' 30' 60'030' 30' F: \ 1 6 \ 1 6 3 1 2 \ D r a w i n g s \ C i v i l \ 1 6 3 1 2 C 4 . 0 P A V I N G . d w g , 3 /2 5 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 1 3 : 5 3 A M ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 26, 2016 Application No. 2016-004 Applicant: Matt Zdon Location: 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East Request: Variance to Allow Reduced Setbacks for Garage INTRODUCTION Mr. Matt Zdon is requesting a variance from City Zoning Code Section 35-400. Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35- foot front yard setback standards for the placement of a new 20’ x 20’ attached garage. The new garage is proposed to have an 8.3-ft. setback from this front lot line and 3.1 feet from the side- yard (established) lot-line. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been mailed. The Applicant has submitted for review and consideration one letter of support from the neighboring property owner to the south; the Applicant verbally stated the owner to the north supports his request; and Staff received verbal support from the neighboring owner directly across the street from the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: Single-Family Current Zoning: R-1 One Family Residence Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1 One Family Residence East: R-1 One Family Residence South: R-1 One Family Residence West: R-1 One Family Residence Neighborhood: Twin Lake Conformity to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes Subdivision Ord.: N/A Sign Ord.: Unknown or not under consideration at this time. Variance Needed for Request: Yes • Application Filed: 04/18/16 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 06/17/16 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 2 BACKGROUND Records show the original house was constructed in 1947. The property contains a single-story, rambler “cabin-style” home approximately 1,240 sf. in size. The home has a full, finished basement with a 12’ x 24’ (288 sf.) single car tuck-under garage. The front face of the home sits 16 feet from the front lot line, with a small 3.6’ x 7’ open portico over the front doorway. The house is set back 31.3 ft. from the southerly (side) property line; roughly 90+ ft. from the Twin Lake shoreline (rear yard); and almost 54 ft. to the northerly (side) line. Because this dwelling does not meet current front-yard setback standards of 35-feet, the property is considered legal non-conforming. A public roadway/lake access drive is located on the north side of the subject property. From this driveway, the Applicant’s land rises up to a built-up berm and grade approximately 6-8 feet above the street grade, where the house sits on top of this higher grade elevation. The southern elevation is absent of this grade, and actually drops slightly below the street level grades, which provides a level grade and opening to the tuck-under garage, and access to the rear yard towards the lake shore. ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 3 The existing single-car garage is located on the southeast corner of the home, and is extremely difficult to access once a vehicle pulls into the property. The south side of the lot is situated against a thumb-shaped body of water and wetlands that is an extension or part of Upper Twin Lake (per opinion of MN. Dept. of Natural Resources). This south lot line is separated from this small pond area by an old concrete retaining wall, which will not be affected by this garage project. ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 4 The setbacks for a dwelling and detached garage in the R-1 One Family Residence district lot are as follows: DWELLING (Principal) GARAGE (Accessory) Front Yard = 35 ft. Front Yard = 35-ft. Side Yard = 10 ft. Side Yard (interior) = 3-ft. Rear Yard = 25 ft. Rear Yard = 5-ft. Mr. Zdon explored the option of constructing a new garage on the north side of the home, where setbacks could easily be met. However, Mr. Zdon realized this would involve removing a large section of side yard and fill material to create a suitable driveway grade, and a need to relocate the sanitary sewer and water service lines that connect into the house in this area, all of which would be cost prohibitive. As stated in the introduction section, the new garage is proposed with an 8.3-ft. setback from the front lot line (Twin Lake Blvd. ROW line). The 3.1-ft. setback from the side-yard is allowed for accessory structures. Mr. Zdon is choosing to place his new 20’ x 20’ garage at this preferred location, due to the proximity to the old garage space, the existing driveway is already in place, and he can save the two large oak tress located near the home. ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 5 The overall distance from the front face of the garage to the roadway edge of Twin Lake Boulevard ranges from approx. 26 to 33 feet. If the garage were to be approved at this location, this added “boulevard” space may provide additional sight-line space needed to adequately back out of the garage and onto Twin lake Blvd. Sect. 35-111 provides “No such nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance.” As illustrated by the Applicant’s survey, the existing home does not meet current setbacks, and by adding the new garage, it essentially increases the nonconforming status of this property. Allowing the connection-way between the two structures means the joined structures would be considered as one, large principal structure, and therefore all principal (dwelling) setbacks as noted above are required to be met. The Planning Commission should also be aware that the subject property is affected by the 100- year floodplain established from Twin Lake. As part of the overall floodplain development standards and regulations provided under City Code Sect. 35-2100 – Floodplain Management, approval of this variance and subsequent building permit would be subject to additional development standards required under the floodplain ordinance, which are very detailed and specific. This variance is not requesting relief from any standards or requirements listed under the floodplain management ordinance, nor would it be applicable since any allowance or relief from the floodplain ordinance requires a special use permit instead of a variance application. ANALYSIS Section 35-240 – Variances of the City Code provides the current governing rules and standards in the review of variances. The section states the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, recommends and the City Council grants variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 6 that all of the Standards for Variances, contained in the Zoning Ordinances are met, which include the following: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. In 2011, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a new law that significantly revamped the parameters or standards in which municipal governments can review and grant variances. According to Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments, the standards noted above have now been revised by eliminating the need to justify or prove a hardship in variances. The primary standard or principle in the granting of variances is now based on a “reasonable” test or justification. The new law (abbreviated below) provides the following standards: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a) that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The City Attorney’s office advised staff to use these new variance standards to be compliant with State Law. The following is city planning staff’s findings based on these above-referenced standards: ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 7 that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; The Owner stated that the current tuck-under garage space is very small, and extremely difficult to maneuver into once you enter the property from the driveway off Twin Lake Blvd. Mr. Zdon seeks to provide a better means of driving straight into the property and pulling into the garage space; and the new garage provides a suitable and much more adequate means of keeping his vehicles in a larger and enclosed structure. Mr. Zdon stated he intends to convert the old garage space into usable living space, should this new variance be approved. It has also been stated and demonstrated by the Applicant his overwhelming desire to save the two large, mature oak trees growing along the south side of his home and possibly need of removing the attached deck along the side of the home. By removing one or both of these trees, the Applicant could place the new garage farther back into the lot and meet or exceed the required 35-front yard setback. However, the homeowner has expressed immense reservations in removing these beautiful shade trees for that purpose, and Staff agrees and supports his efforts to keep and save these trees. The “reasonable” nature of this particular variance case appears to be rational and practical. The alternative proposal of cutting down the berm or grade on the north side seems to be an extreme measure as well; and would require the relocation of the sewer and water service lines to the home, which could prove costly. Planning staff believes the functionality of this residential property may operate better with a garage at this location; and therefore the proposed use appears to be an appropriate need of this site and may be considered a reasonable use. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner As noted previously, the home and tuck-under style garage were built in 1947. Without an original house plan or lot survey, and without knowing what the geometrics or layout of Twin Lake Boulevard were at that time, it appears the house was built with the reduced setbacks, which may have never been an issue (required setbacks) at that time. There are a number of properties along Twin Lake Blvd. and Indiana Avenue (mostly to the north of the subject property) where some residential homes and detached garages (5615, 5607 and 5601 Indiana Avenue for example) were either built with reduced setbacks, or were allowed to be expanded under variance approvals. Some Commissioners may recall that a variance was recently approved for the residence located at 5601 Indiana Avenue (Planning App. No. 2012-022 – Ludmilla Bryskina), which allowed the homeowner to build a tunnel addition from the home and detached garage, which did not meet setbacks form the road right-of-way line. Mr. Zdon’s home appears to be an unique property that was developed with reduced setbacks from the beginning, and the house has remained in its current setting since 1947. ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 8 It also appears a few other homes or structures in this Twin Lake neighborhood were built with reduced setbacks, and seemingly most were allowed or approved for permits without any variances. The term “plight” as noted in this standard heading is defined as “an unfortunate condition; a difficult or dangerous situation, especially a sad or desperate predicament.” The remedy, as proposed by the Applicant homeowner, remains a reasonable and logical solution and fix to the predicament left by the former owners, and in turn may make this request somewhat unique and not created by the landowner. Planning Staff believes part of the circumstances that are creating the need for this variance request are somewhat unique to the property and not created by the landowner, and therefore can be supported. the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff does not believe that granting of this variance would alter the essential character of the locality or the neighboring residential homes in this area. The placement and height of the building will match or tie into the lower level of the dwelling, and no views from the neighboring properties will be dramatically altered or diminished that are already impacted due to natural vegetation and growth around the lake and backwater pond area to the south. The Commissioners should note the location of the new garage is being sited very close the “thumb-shaped” body of water to the south, which is a small fingerling extension of Twin Lake (per opinion of Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources). Although the survey map identifies this area as “Backwaters”; this area is inundated with wetland grasses and vegetation that appears to be wetlands. Mr. Zdon has been notified that Shingle Creek Watershed has requested to review his plans for constructing this new garage, and provide any evidence that he is not impacting or infringing any adjacent wetlands. Mr. Zdon’s consulting engineers are working on a wetland delineation for this purpose, and have plans to present their case before the watershed at the June 16th meeting or thereafter. Planning does not believe any wetlands are being impacted, but will defer this finding and recommendations to Mr. Zdon’s consultant and watershed experts for recommendations or mitigation measures if needed. As part of any future grading on the site and construction performed under the building permit, impacts will be eliminated or addressed during full review of said permit. Any grading (grade changes, slopes, etc.); erosion control, or drainage impacts caused by the installation of said improvement will be fully reviewed and approved by the City Engineers prior to any construction. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. As indicated previously, a number of options remain available to the Applicant in order to avoid the need of a variance. The option of placing the garage on the north side would entail the removal of valuable side-yard (open) space; the removal of a large amount of fill material and grade reduction to place the garage at lower level; the installation of a ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 9 new driveway and curb-cut; and new sewer and water lines to the home. The option of removing the one or two of the large mature oak trees on the south side of the home also remains, but this too could prove costly, as Mr. Zdon would have to possibly remove or reconfigure the attached decks and stairs in this area and close off windows to the home. The removal of these trees would take away the natural shade and landscape features that make this lake lot an attractive feature. Mr. Zdon has stated that his reasons for placing this garage at this location are not based solely on “saving money”; but moreover his desire to save the side-yard space; protects the trees; and provides a reasonable means of accessing a new garage and suitable connection into the house. Although some might argue this project is being done for economic reasons by Mr. Zdon, Planning Staff does not believe the Applicant’s request of this variance is due to economic reasons or considerations alone. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION The updated variance statute states “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The new garage size is minimal compared to other new detached garages approved by the City, and the Applicant has demonstrated his strong desire and need for placing it at the proposed reduced setback location as the best option for this property. The allowance of this garage with the planned (reduced) setback appears reasonable and justifiable. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the variance based on the grounds that the new standards for granting variances (under MN SS 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6), particularly the standards for reasonableness and uniqueness to this and all other properties throughout Brooklyn Center have been met; and the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. If the Planning Commission accepts this recommendation, the Commission may elect to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06, which memorializes the findings in granting this variance and provides for the conditions of approval as follows: 1. The new garage and all related improvements shall comply with the recommendations and requirement set forth by the City Engineer in their City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated May 18, 2016, and which is also made by full reference in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06. 2. No major modifications or expansion to the proposed garage or the existing residence will be allowed, except those illustrated on the submitted plans and considered exclusively under this variance application. Any deviation or modification to these plans will require separate consideration and approval. 3. Based on FEMA floodplain maps for the community, this property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Any modification to the property and structures must fully comply with the City floodplain Ordinance 35-2100. Detailed flood-proofing measures and plans ________________ App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 10 must be provided for review and approval by the City Planner and City Building Official. 4. The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey information showing existing ground elevations and contours of the property for determination of drainage and flood plain impacts. 5. The new garage must be compatible and match the architectural features of the exiting dwelling. Building plans are subject to review and final approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property upon completion of the new garage, including lowest floor elevations, outside grade elevation details; exact location of the structure on the lot; and any related improvements, including the location and design of any required floodplain compensatory storage areas, and wetland mitigation measures (if so required). ATTACHMENTS • PC Resolution No. 2016-06 • Applicant’s Narrative • Aerial/Location Maps • Survey Map/Site Plan • Site Photos of the Property • FEMA Panel No. 27053C0202E (100-Year Floodplain Firmette Map) • Neighboring Property Owners’ Letters of Support M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 18, 2016 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review – 5261 Twin Lake Blvd. Public Works staff reviewed the following documents for a variance request or the proposed garage at 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard submitted on April 21, 2016: Variance Request Narrative Survey Hennepin County Aerial Map Subject to final staff approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit: The project is adjacent to Upper Twin Lake and has floodplain and potentially wetland impacts the plan will have to go through a formal project review with the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Pertinent to the preliminary summary provided in an email to William Becklin from the Shingle Creek Watershed, dated May 17, 2016; the following requirements must be met. 1. Most immediate, the project will need a wetland delineation to determine the impacts if any to the backwater area, which is classified as wetland. If there is the potential to fill in the wetland, that will need to be mitigated. It may be possible to accomplish this onsite as part of creating the compensating floodplain storage. Contact Wes Boll in our office at 763.479.4283 for guidance. 2. You should also review the project with the DNR Area Hydrologist Kate Drewry to determine if you will need a DNR permit or need to submit any calculations to her. She is at 651.259.5753 or kate.drewry@state.mn.us. 3. The application will require submittal of a site plan, a grading and erosion control plan (that shows the delineated wetland boundary and the areas of cut and fill) and calculations documenting the volume of floodplain fill and the volume of compensating storage created. The WCA process will run parallel to the Commission’s review process, and the commission review and approval will be contingent on completing the WCA review process. 4. Because of the size of the project, it will not be required to meet the Commission’s rate control, infiltration and water quality requirements. 5. You can find the application form, fee schedule, and other submittal info at http://www.shinglecreek.org/rules-and-standards.html. Grading Plan, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 6. Provide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 7. Certified Survey must show certified wetland delineation and 100 year flood elevation. 8. Provide structural certification for existing retaining wall and soils, evaluating and confirming proper stabilization and design for garage structure. 5261 Twin Lake Blvd. Site Plan Review Memo, May 18, 2016 Page 2 of 2 G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\Brooklyn Center Mini-Storage\Plan Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\151022_Plan Review Memo.doc 9. Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 10. Erosion control Best Management Practices must be inspected prior to issuance of land alteration permit. Anticipated Permitting: 11. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 12. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined b y the City. Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2016-004 SUBMITTED BY MATT ZDON REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO CITY CODE SECTION 35- 400 - MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT OF 26.7 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 35-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARDS FOR A NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE (LOCATED AT 5261 TWIN LAKE BOULEVARD EAST) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-004 submitted by Matt Zdon proposes a variance to City Code Section 35-400. Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback standards for the placement of a new 20’ x 20’ attached garage, located at 5601 Indiana Avenue North; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016 the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding the variance and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating and determining variances under City Code Section 35-240 and the Comprehensive Plan, and moreover those variance standards as provided under Minnesota State Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments, the Planning Commission considered and determined the appropriateness of said variance based on the following factors: a) the property owner’s request to modify front-yard setbacks to accommodate this new structure on the subject property in a manner normally not permitted by the zoning ordinance is justifiable and reasonable; b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the owner presented a reasonable remedy of placing the new garage in a location that best fits within the subject lot; c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality due to similar and allowed encroachments in this area , and d) Economic considerations alone did not constitute practical difficulties in this particular case. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2016-004 submitted by Matt Zdon of a Variance to City Code Section 35-400, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback for the placement of a new 20’ x 20’ garage, located at 5601 Indiana Avenue North, is hereby approved, subject the following conditions: 1. The new garage and all related improvements shall comply with the recommendations and requirement set forth by the City Engineer in their City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated May 18, 2016, and which is also made reference herein: a) Applicant shall complete a wetland delineation to determine the impacts if any to the backwater area, which is classified as wetland. If there is the potential to fill in the wetland, that will need to be mitigated. b) Applicant shall submit an updated site plan, with a grading and erosion control plan (that shows the delineated wetland boundary and the areas of cut and fill) and calculations documenting the volume of floodplain fill and the volume of compensating storage created. The WCA process will run parallel to the Commission’s review process, and the commission review and approval will be contingent on completing the WCA review process c) Applicant must provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Certified Survey must show certified wetland delineation and 100 year flood elevation. e) Applicant must provide a structural certification for existing retaining wall and soils, evaluating and confirming proper stabilization and design for garage structure. f) Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit g) Erosion control Best Management Practices must be inspected prior to issuance of land alteration permit. h) Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 i) Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 2. No major modifications or expansion to the proposed garage or the existing residence will be allowed, except those illustrated on the submitted plans and considered exclusively under this variance application. Any deviation or modification to these plans will require separate consideration and approval. 3. Based on FEMA floodplain maps for the community, this property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Any modification to the property and structures must fully comply with the City floodplain Ordinance 35- 2100. Detailed flood-proofing measures and plans must be provided for review and approval by the City Planner and City Building Official. 4. The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey information showing existing ground elevations and contours of the property for determination of drainage and flood plain impacts. 5. The new garage must be compatible and match the architectural features of the exiting dwelling. Building plans are subject to review and final approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property upon completion of the new garage, including lowest floor elevations, outside grade elevation details; exact location of the structure on the lot; and any related improvements, including the location and design of any required floodplain compensatory storage areas, and wetland mitigation measures (if so required). May 26, 2016 Date Randall Christensen, Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair , Commissioners ; ; ; ; ; and ; and the following voted against the same ; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 5 2 6 1 T w i n L a k e B l v d . E . 04/01/2015 5235 5239 5239 5256 5247 5255 5260 5301 5309 0 0 5261 UPPERTWINLAKE T W I N L A K E 5261 Twin Lake Blvd. East 0 60 12030Feet Legend FLOOD ZONES ZONE AE (F LOOD WAY) ZONE AE (100-YR FP w/ BASE FLOOD ELEVS.) ZONE A (100-YR F P w/o BASE F LOOD ELEVS.) ZONE X (500 YR FP or 0.2% ANN. C HANC E FLOOD HAZARD) ZONE X (OUTSIDE F LOOD PLAIN ) ________________ App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 26, 206 Application No. 2016-006 Applicant: Anthony (Rick) Nelson Location: 5323 Dupont Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation INTRODUCTION Mr. Rick Nelson is requesting special use permit approval to operate a small silk-screen printing and image printing operation as a home-based business from his residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North. The special home occupation is conducted entirely within the homeowner’s detached garage; and includes periodic deliveries by UPS to and from the residence; with occasional customer/clientele traffic; and involves equipment not customarily found or used in typical residential dwellings. These contributing factors require the granting of a special use permit by the City Council, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission under official public hearing process. Written notices of this public hearing were mailed to all residential property owners within 150- feet of the subject site. As of the preparation of this report, no comments either for or against this request, have been received by the City. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: Single-Family Current Zoning: R-2 Two Family Residence Surrounding Zoning: North: R-2 Two Family Residence East: R-2 Two Family Residence South: R-2 Two Family Residence West: R-2 Two Family Residence Neighborhood: Bellvue Conformity to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes Subdivision Ord.: N/A Sign Ord.: Unknown or not under consideration at this time. Variance Needed for Request: No • Application Filed: 04/26/16 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 06/25/16 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A ________________ App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 2 BACKGROUND Pursuant to City Code Section 35-311 R-2 Two Family Residence District standards, Special Home Occupations as defined in Section 35-900 are allowed by means of a special use permit. City Code Section 35-900, a Special Home Occupation is defined as follows: Home Occupation, Special – Subject to the further limitations of Section 35-406 hereof, and subject to approval by the City Council, a special home occupation is any gainful occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling unit or any permitted accessory buildings or installations on a lot, by a family member residing within the dwelling unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, the accessory structures, and the lot upon which it is constructed, including, without limitation, barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studios, group lessons, saw sharpening, motor driven appliances and small engine repair, and similar activities. Per Code Section 35-406, the following are additional requirements for special home occupations: 1. All special home occupations shall require approval of a special use permit pursuant to Section 35-220 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 2. No special home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation must be a permitted use under Section 35-310 and Section 35-311 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 3. A special home occupation may use equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4. No special home occupation shall employ, at any one time, more than one person who is not a member of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 5. No special home occupation may include the teaching of more than ten (10) students at one time who are not members of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 6. No special home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the special home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 7. No automobile parking related to the special home occupation shall be permitted on the street provided, however, that upon a finding that the special home occupation is not feasible without on street parking, the City Council may authorize parking on the street based upon a consideration of Section 35-220.2 and of the following: a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage. ________________ App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 3 b. The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street. c. Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. 8. No special home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 9. No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. DETAILS of HOME OCCUPATION Mr. Nelson is the registered fee-title owner of the subject property. The property consists of 5,124 sq. ft. of land area, and contains a 1,038 sf., 1.5 story, single family bungalow style residence, with a 20’ x 30’ (600 sf.) detached garage off the back alley (see image below). Mr. Nelson provided a brief summary on his application describing the screen printing business. The business is limited to the confines of his detached garage. Mr. Nelson works approximately 3-5 hours per week; with work focused primarily on silk-screening (printing) images on t-shirts or posters. Mr. Nelson confirmed the business produces occasional deliveries by small UPS trucks. Mr. Nelson states the ink that he uses is non-toxic and relatively odor-free. Mr. Nelson occasionally uses various chemical and household solvents to clean the printing equipment or remove stains, etc., and most of the odors or smells dissipate rapidly due to leaving the garage doors open or ventilation system. Mr. Nelson does not plan to have any employees work for the business, other than his wife whenever needed. ANALYSIS - SPECIAL USE Pursuant to City Code Section 35-220; Subpart 2. Standards for Special Use Permits, a special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that certain standards used to measure or allow a special use have been or will be met as part of any approvals. The following section highlights these standards (italic text), with city planning staff ________________ App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 4 responses to each standard afterwards: a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. The Applicant indicated this screen printing operation is very limited (3-5 hours per week); and does not create or demand a lot of customer or truck traffic. Although this personal print shop (special use) does not necessarily “promote or enhance” the general public welfare, Staff believes this use will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort of the neighborhood or adjacent residents, provided the Applicant maintains limited hours, does not create loud or increased sounds from the activity, or the chemicals/solvents and ink used in the production operations do not create an obvious odor or nuisance with neighboring residents. b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The Applicant has stated his neighbors are not bothered by the small print shop operating inside his garage, and the city has not received any complaints that would contradict this statement. Barring any negative comments or registered complaints from the neighbors, city staff will assume that this special use will not be injurious or take away any enjoyment of the surrounding properties due to this use. Should this print shop or printing activity become an issue or cause a disturbance with neighbors, the City reserves the right to take corrective action; or have the special use permit rescinded and order the print shop/activity to cease if necessary. c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The Applicant’s property is surrounded by similar single family residential uses. With the screen printing activities limited in hours and in the garage only, Staff does not believe this use will impeded the normal and orderly development and improvements of these surrounding properties. d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The Applicant’s garage contains an overhead door to accommodate up to two vehicles, with added shop or storage space along vehicle parking space. The garage is accessed from the north/south alley located to the rear of the property. Mr. Nelson also appears to have a paved, single space parking pad near the south side of the garage. The City assumes any truck or parcel deliveries from the alley are done quickly and infrequently to insure neighboring residents are not impacted or inconvenienced by such deliveries. Staff believes adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking for the current residence and special home occupation as requested. ________________ App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 5 e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The residential dwelling appears to conform and meets all applicable regulations of the R-2 Zone. The allowance of this screen printing use should not impact or create any unsafe or non-conforming situations that would deem the property unusable or dangerous to continue this studio activity. Staff assumes or relies on the word of the Owner/Applicant that any equipment used in this print shop operation will be used in a safe and normal manner, that no children will be hired or serve the business until they are of legal working age, and that all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, old screens, etc. are disposed of and stored properly, and all materials and activities are designed not to create any health hazard or the potential of fires. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is recommended regarding fire safety and exiting; and this item should be a condition of any approval of the special use permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2016-07, which comprehends approval of Planning Application No. 2016-006, a Special Use Permit to operate a silk-screen and image printing business as a home-based business from the residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: ________________ App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 6 1. The special use permit is granted for the exclusive operation of a small-scale silk- screen and image printing operation by the fee-title homeowner (Applicant) only. 2. Applicant is allowed to operate the special home based business between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. each day. 3. No retail sales or displays of merchandise and printed (finished) products will be allowed on the premises, either inside or outside the garage and residence. 4. Per City Code- Ch. 34-Signs, the Applicant may have one freestanding or wall sign for the home-based business, with the maximum size area not to exceed 2.5 square feet and the height above ground not to exceed six feet. 5. Applicant is allowed to have up to one (1), non-family member employee work at the business if necessary, with no children hired to serve the business until they are of legal working age, per Minnesota State Statute 181A. 6. Any equipment used in this print shop operation shall be used in a safe and normal manner; and all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, screens, etc. are disposed of or stored properly. 7. All parking associated with this home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the Applicant. There shall be no on-street parking associated with this home occupation and all vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Building Official with respect to safety related matters regarding the location and operation of this home occupation. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is required regarding fire safety and exiting. 9. This home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the special use permit. 10. The special use permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinance and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-006 SUBMITTED BY ANTHONY NELSON FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION ALLOWING A SILK-SCREEN PRINTING AND IMAGE PRINTING OPERATION AS A HOME-BASED BUSINESS IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (LOCATED AT 5323 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony “Rick” Nelson (as “Applicant”) requesting a Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation to operate a small silk-screen printing and image printing business from the personal residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the R-1 One Family Residence District, and pursuant to City Code Section 35-310, Subd. 2. Special Uses, “Special home occupation as defined in Section 35-900” are allowed in the R1 District by means of special use permit approved by the City Council, and the Applicant has submitted such application to the City of Brooklyn Center for official consideration under Planning Application No. 2016-006; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and called public hearing, whereby a planning staff report was presented, and public testimony regarding the special use permit were received and noted for the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating this special use permit contained in Section 35-220 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and found the request complies with the general goals and objectives of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony “Rick” Nelson may be approved based upon the following considerations: a) The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 Page 2 of 3 d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2016-006 may be approved, subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The special use permit is granted for the exclusive operation of a small- scale silk-screen and image printing operation by the fee-title homeowner (Applicant) only. 2. Applicant is allowed to operate the special home based business between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. each day. 3. No retail sales or displays of merchandise and printed (finished) products will be allowed on the premises, either inside or outside the garage and residence. 4. Per City Code- Ch. 34-Signs, the Applicant may have one freestanding or wall sign for the home-based business, with the maximum size area not to exceed 2.5 square feet and the height above ground not to exceed six feet. 5. Applicant is allowed to have up to one (1), non-family member employee work at the business if necessary, with no children hired to serve the business until they are of legal working age, per Minnesota State Statute 181A. 6. Any equipment used in this print shop operation shall be used in a safe and normal manner; and all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, screens, etc. are disposed of or stored properly. 7. All parking associated with this home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the Applicant. There shall be no on-street parking associated with this home occupation and all vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 Page 3 of 3 8. The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Building Official with respect to safety related matters regarding the location and operation of this home occupation. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is required regarding fire safety and exiting. 9. This home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the special use permit. 10. The special use permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinance and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. May 26, 2016 Date Randall Christensen, Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair , Commissioners ; ; ; ; ; and ; and the following voted against the same: ; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Da te : 5/1 7/20 16 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 5 0 fe et PAR CEL ID: 01118 21 330 14 1 OWN ER N AME: A F N els on & H M N elson PAR CEL AD DRESS: 5 323 D up ont Ave N, Br oo kly n C enter MN 55 43 0 PR OPER TY TYPE: R es ide ntial HOM EST EAD: H ome s te ad PAR CEL AR EA: 0.1 2 ac re s, 5,12 4 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct MAR KET VAL UE: $11 7,80 0 TAX TOTAL : $1 ,840 .0 4 SAL E PR ICE: $14 3,20 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 8/20 02 SAL E C OD E: R eje cted This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not sui tab le for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 1 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Christenson and City Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist/Planning Commission Secretary DATE: May 26, 2016 RE: Review of the City’s Liquor License Ordinance and Discussion on Potential Development Issues that may be influencing decisions in locating new restaurants within Brooklyn Center. Attached for the Commission’s review is a copy of the City’s Liquor Ordinance and our Liquor License Fee Schedule. As a follow up to the Commission’s discussion on possible factors which may affect a business from opening a restaurant in Brooklyn Center, I would suggest that we begin our discussion with an understanding of the minimum size requirements of a restaurant that chooses to apply for a liquor license: • Section 11-107 Types of Liquor Licenses and Permit o 4. On-sale Intoxicating Liquor License , a restaurant must have a dining room that is open to the general public with a total minimum floor area of 1,800 sf. and seat not less than 150 guests at one time. o 8/ On Sale Wine, a restaurant that has a dining area that is open to the general public and has seating for not less than 75 guests at one time. The seating capacity of a dining room is also a factor in a number of other building standards that have cost implications such as the regional sewer access charges (SAC), sizing of rest rooms, and ingress/egress openings. The ratio of food sales to liquor sales is also a standard that affects decisions whether a sports bar or a restaurant featuring craft beers would/could meet these ratios Class A (80% food sales) Class B (50%-79% food sales) Class C (40% - 49% for hotels or restaurants that derive revenue from other sources than sales of liquor or food. The license fees for these license types are: Class A (80% food sales) $8,000 annual Class B (50%-79% food sales) $11.000 annual Class C (40% - 49% for hotels or restaurants that derive revenue from other sources than sales of liquor or food. $14.000 annual Class D All new applications start with a probationary license until there is 12 months of documentation on the food and liquor sales to determine the appropriate license for following years. $14,000 annual It is my understanding that the current liquor ordinance and fee structure has been in place for 20+ years.