Loading...
06-10-91 PC Minutes MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 June 10, 1991 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chamber, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.. The meeting was called to order by Chair McAleese at 7:05p.m. Those present were: Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, McCracken-Hunt and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 1991 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded Lewis and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 22, 1991 as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit No. 53 Applicant: Henry and Gina Lazni arz Address: Lot 6, Block 3, Tralee (5924 Glenwood Avenue) 1 1 Request: Subdivide the Property into Two Lots Chair McAleese introduced the agenda item and asked Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, for a brief summary of the request. Mr. Grimes com- mented that the subdivision would meet all setback requirements. There is a concern of the driveway access onto Glenwood Avenue. The County has final approval of where and how the driveway should conform to the property. It was suggested by the County that the driveway have a turnaround in the front instead of backing onto Glenwood. The County also is recommending a 7 foot right-of-way dedication. Mr. Grimes recommended not taking the 7 foot right-of-way. He reviewed the conditions for a minor subdivision as outlined in the Subdivision Code. The applicant, Henry Lazniarz, gave a brief summation for his request, passed out photos of land is he has previously developed and of the area to be sub- divided. Chair McAleese opened the Informal Public Hearing. Richard Keefe, 26 Meander Road, is opposed to the subdivision and having two homes right next to his. Also commented that the house on the lot has not been lived in at all times by owner. Art Flanagan, 316 Meander Road, is opposed to the subdivision because he would like to see the lots remain the same as originally designed. Calvin Danielson, 100 Brunswick Ave. No., asked the applicant about the noise coming from the house on the proposed site and if this is a rental unit will it be sold. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1991 Page Two Henry Lazniarz commented on the different lot sizes in the neighborhood. He addressed the noise question commenting about the present tenants living in the house and that he would talk with them. Mr. and Mrs. Lazniarz have not made a decision if they would build on the vacant subdivided lot. Chair McAleese closed the Informal Public Hearing. Commissioner Lewis is concerned about having another house on the property and the crowded look it may present. She feels it would be hard not approve because it meets all City codes. Commissioner Johnson is opposed to the subdivision. She is concerned with main- taining the area of large lots and owner-occupied homes and feels the applicant comes off as more of a developer than an owner and is interested in rental property. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked when the City changed the required lot size. Beth Knoblauch, City Planner stated in 1981. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt com- mented that she understood that this change was made to have more lots and homes in the City of Golden Valley. Mark Grimes stated one of the reasons for the change were comments from the Metropolitan Council to provide for more low to moderate income housing. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt feels that the lot divi- sion on Glenwood would be in keeping with the City's goals to provide housing. Commissioner Prazak i s concerned with the 1 of size but feel s reasons for sup- porting it outweigh those for opposing it. He called it a "close call". Commissioner Kapsner doesn't feel that this subdivision would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Is concerned about the rental property and the neighbors do not have to put up with noise. Commissioner Groger agreed with those commissioners recommending approval. Chair McAleese commented that a change in any neighborhood is painful but con- ditions are being met and is in favor of the subdivision. MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 6 to 1 recommending to the City Council approval of the minor subdivision, Henry and Gina Lazniarz, applicants, subject to the conditions of the Hennepin County Department of Transportation reviewing the subdivision prior to City Council approval and the park dedication fee prior to final plat approval. III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: Accessible Space, Inc. Address: 2000 Mary Hills Drive, Golden Valley Request: Rezone from Single Family Residential to Two-Family Residential e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1991 Page Three Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, made the following comments before presenting her staff report. She stated that the request for rezoning from single family to R-2 was a real creative suggestion when viewed as a limited response to a speci- fic problem encountered by the applicant. However, when dealing with this as staff for the Planning Commission/City Council this is not the sort of applica- tion where we can specifically deal with it as a site for Accessible Space. This is a rezoning which is a general action and what the City has to consider is whether, generally speaking, it serves the public interest and protects the public welfare which are the functions of zoning. To change the zoning from single family residential to R-2 is not a clear cut decision -- it's a fairly broad discretionary decision -- the numbers can all work for ASI but still not be sufficient to cause the rezoning to take place. Ms. Knoblauch presented her staff report and staff recommendation to recommend to the City Council denial of this request. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked if these units would be .interconnected where the people travel from. one unit to the other. Ms. Knoblauch stated that this was staff's understanding: there must be shared attendants for the six resi- dents. McCracken-Hunt felt that it's not really two-family in the sense of completely separate. Ms. Knoblauch said that the Planning Commission should be looking at whether this would be a suitable two-family structure and as a secondary issue whether it can serve the purpose of Accessible Space as well as being a two-family structure. Ms. Knoblauch commented ASI is willing as a condition of rezoning, to put a covenant on the property to restrict the number of people who live there as long as the covenants are in place. Ms. Knoblauch said that one cannot have indefi- nite private covenants, they expire after a certain number of years and may or may not be renewed at the choice of the property owner. The City is not capable of putting such conditions on a rezoning. Chair McAleese asked about the City Attorney's comment " we can't look at speci- fic details in a rezoning which is the normal rule". Ms. Knoblauch commented that the City Attorney had talked with her this day saying, because of the nature of this application, if it were determined that this was not in fact a household use or a two-household us e the City could list this as a reason why the rezoning is inappropriate:. the applicant would not be able to make use of the rezoned property. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked if the code was modified to allow a single family in a R-2 district would it help the applicant's request. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the code could probably be modified to say single family homes could be in the R-2 district and could use the single family lot requirements. The City would still need to resolve the other issues of the existing property itself and whether one can take the house and make it two units in order for Accessible Space to use it. Chair McAleese also asked about the institutional/quasi-institutional nature of the proposed use -- was there ever any discussion about rezoning to institu- tional. Ms. Knoblauch commented that it was looked at briefly. Setback requirements are 50 feet and we cannot create a nonconforming use -- there i s not 50 feet around the home for setbacks. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1991 Page Four Commissioner Prazak asked about the alternative of granting a waiver, showing some flexibility in a situation of this kind. Waivers are continually. granted for other single family residences and it might be easier granting a waiver for the number of persons to six rather than five. Ms. Knoblauch commented that this constitutes a use waiver. The City has a definition of a family and it's asking us to waive our definition and there are no hardship criteria for doing this. Commissioners Prazak and Lewis disagreed by commenting that the hardship is an issue of creating reasonable and affordable living space for persons with special needs. Mark Grimes stated that the reason they need six vs. five .people is to make the program more economical and by State law economics do not constitute a hardship. Commissioner Lewis stated there is a need to have more people in this home. David Sprangers, representative for Accessible Space, Inc. (ASI) talked about the reason for this proposal. The program does not fit into any category neatly. It provides for a comfortable living setting for people who are han- dicapped. ASI provides tenant service so that these residents can live outside an institution, they do not require nursing care but do require assistance in their daily needs. ASI's services are under contract with the State but not licensed by the state; it does have HUD approval. What a severe mobility impaired individual needs to live independently are accessible housing and sub- sidized housing -- 80 to 90 percent of severely mobility impaired persons are very, very low income. The property would be HUD subsidized. ASI would have a 40 year mortgage on the property, which has been operating as a handicapped accessible house for 10 years -- this is really not a change of use. The dilemma is asking for the opportunity to house one more individual with mobility impairments on the site. As far as remodeling goes, the lower level has about 3,115 sq.ft. which is a good size space to add one more bedroom for which there is ample space. Staff is present 24 hours a day on rotating shifts, more heavily staffed in the morning than the evening. This is the only site in Golden Valley that is affordable and handicapped accessible. ASI suggested a waiver for thi s district but the City P1 anner sai d thi s woul d not qual i fy and that's why ASI needed to be creative. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt commented that her mother had lived in ASI's facil- ity in Camden. Camden house had two living areas, two kitchens, the men were on one side the women on the other regarding bedrooms (three and three). The attendants went back and forth from the women's end to the men's end and went essentially from one house to the other and i n thi s request thi s woul d be the same thing. The attendants would go from one floor to the other and when there i s only one attendant on duty he/she i s serving al l si x peopl e -- i t i s func- tioning as one house. That seems in conflict with the idea of saying that this is two separate houses. Mr. Sprangers said technically it is two separate houses. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt stated that ASI was putting the City in a dilemma where we are trying to bend the rules. Commissioner Prazak asked Mr. Sprangers to explain how the rules are bent in getting waivers for R-1's in other communities. Mr. Sprangers commented that Camden because of its subdivision required two separate kitchens, two separate bathrooms, and the design was such that no more than three people were using one bathroom. Given the design, even with the common connection, it met the code for 2-family. It depends on the municipality. A wai ver was received at the home in St. Paul in a R-1 district -- a nonconforming use variance was granted. - Chair McAleese recommended to Mr. Sprangers about having a neighborhood meeting. ~~- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1991 Page Five Chair McAleese opened the Informal Public Hearing. Donna Bushrod, 2040 Mary Hills Drive, lives next door to the proposed home and is opposed to the rezoning. Her house is very close to the driveway and prop- erty -- her bedrooms are on that side of the house. The vans and lifts are noisy, she hears the care givers as they come and go, hears car radios and has been cussed out when asking them to be quiet. She questioned how many people will live in the home. Chair McAleese explained that under the present zoning code five people could be in the home so ASI is adding one more person. Mrs. Bushrod commented that these people need 24 hour care so there is alot of traf- fic with no yard space. Maynard Bostrom, 3710 Chicago Ave. So., talked about living in a nursing home, Courage Center, his own apartment and now in an Accessible Space home. Mr. Bostrom was the 1st resident to move into an ASI home in 1980 with round the clock care. He said he is a more complete person who has job and is putting back into the system. Larry Smith, 2080 Mary Hills Drive, supports the staff report recommendation. He is concerned with spot zoning and setting a precedent for development of other lots. Feels that ASI has boiled this down to a profit and loss decision -- a corporation that can't make it with five people and need six and therefore, wants the City to rezone the property. He appreciates the fact that the prop- . erty is used for persons with disabilities. Donna Bushrod, 2040 Mary Hills Drive, added that she is comfortable with the house now but doesn't want it rezoned for more people and would like to know where all the parking will be. Avis Kruger, 100 Sumter Ave. is in favor of this request of either a rezoning or a waiver. She said the important thing is looking at affordable housing for the disabled population who can have a choice of living in a nursing home or single family dwelling -- affordable housing is the issue. David Sprangers commented that ASI is a non-profit organization which doesn't make a profit. The mission of ASI is to help mobility impaired individuals. Commissioner Lewis asked about the screening process for individuals in these homes. Mr. Sprangers stated that ASI networks Courage Center, nursing homes, County social workers and State referrals. ASI does its own screening and must meet HUD guidelines. Chair McAleese closed the Informal Public Hearing. Commissioner Prazak asked staff for clarification on the issue of the waiver of the single family requirement. He would like to see the City show some flexibi- lity in making accommodations to what he sees as a real need. Mark Grimes com- mented that he and the City Planner feel this is a use that would be good for Golden Valley but that it does not fit the zoning code in this City and part of staff's job is to protect the zoning code. The City cannot distinguish between a severely disabled person and others. Once a waiver is given for a protected class the City must be ready to give the same opportunity to another protected class. Beth Knoblauch stated that per the City Attorney this proposal is not a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1991 Page Six waiverable condition. The appropriate way to deal with the situation would be to rewrite the definition of "household" or of "residential facility". This came up once before in Golden Valley. Because it is an area where the State has partially preempted local discretion, the Council felt that the issues are too large to make such a change until the State deals with it first. Chair McAleese commented that rezoning is a general action and ASI may be out of business in two weeks and the next people to move in may not even be handi- capped, and two families move in. Chair McAleese said on the narrow question of the waiver the City's code says when it can grant a waiver and gives the con- ditions under which a waiver can be granted; that sort of condition is not in the zoning code other than going before the BZA, and Chair McAleese was not sure that would apply in this case. Mark Grimes commented that the City Attorney .has said that when you change change the zoning code (5 to 6 persons) this cannot be done through a waiver, it must be done through public hearings. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt commented that we all wish we could do something. She is not comfortable with the solution of rezoning and does not have abetter solution. Chair McAleese said that the proposed facility would be good for the community and there should be some way to make it work, but he cannot support the proposed request. It is only the specific use that we are considering and that is not an appropriate consideration in a case of rezoning. Commissioner Kapsner commented that the City doesn't have an option. We would do what the law is and the way the rules are set up in this City is preventing us from doing what we would like to do. The truth is that we would be comfor- table in helping out the severely handicapped people but we might in fact dis- criminate against someone whose style of living we would find objectionable. He does not think rezoning is a solution and cannot support the request for rezoning. Commissioner Groger is opposed to rezoning to R-2 and is not convinced a con- ditional use permit or other solution would be appropriate having looked at the property. The driveway right next to the property line, and having traffic so close to the property may not be appropriate no matter what. Commissioner Johnson cannot support the request but has concerns about Golden Valley providing affordable housing, having served on the Housing Task Force. Commissioner Lewis agrees with the other commissioners on not being able to sup- port the request for rezoning. Chair McAleese is opposed to the rezoning. First of all it would be creating a nonconforming corner site under the subdivision code. It doesn't make sense when rezoning to create a nonconforming site. Second, the City would be setting a precedent for not turning down any request to rezone to R-2 if this one passes; there are too many creative people who would say their case is the same as this one. Third, this is -spot zoning. 1 1 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City denial for the request to rezone the property at 2000 Mary Hills Drive from Single Family Residential to Two-Family Residential. l-i r Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1991 Page Sev en IV. Re orts on Meetin s of the Housin and Redevelo ment Authorit Cit Counci and Board of Zoning Appea s Commissi oner McCracken-Hunt reported on the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of May 14, 1991. Commissioner Lewis reported on the City Council meeting of 5/7/91. V. Other Business No other business was presented. VI. Adjournment Chair McAleese adjourned the meeting at 9:55p.m. an Lewi Se et ary 1 1