Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 08-25 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 25, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Sean Rahn at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Morey, Carlos Morgan, Michael Parks, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmember Carol Kleven, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino was absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JULY 14, 2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2011 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Sean Rahn 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. APPLICATION NO. 2011-017 — CARLEIN CLOUTIER — 5731 CAMDEN AVE N Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -017, a request for a Variance to allow the continuation of two accessory structures in the rear yard of 5731 Camden Avenue N. Mr. Benetti presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 2011 -017, attached.) Mr. Benetti explained that Section 35 -530 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows detached or attached accessory buildings, such as garages and/or carports, along with utility or storage sheds provided the total ground coverage of all accessory building(s) does not exceed the ground coverage of the principal dwelling; and that no more than two accessory structures are permitted on any one residential premise. Mr. Benetti further demonstrated with a PowerPoint presentation the following history of the property: • The property owner was given notice by the City's Code Enforcement Division a number of weeks ago indicating her property was in violation due to the excess number of sheds on the property. The City requested that the owner remove one of the accessory buildings to be compliant with Code. 8 -25 -11 Page 1 • The owner /applicant appeared before the City Council at the May 23, 2011 meeting requesting a stay on the code enforcement action and a "grandfathered right" determination by the Council. • The Council directed city staff to look into the matter, whereby a letter was prepared by staff and mailed to Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New, dated July 5, 2011 indicating the grandfathered right is not applicable. • The Applicant appeared again before the City Council at the July 11, 2001 meeting, informing them of the recent letter and grandfathering determination, and about the variance process. • Upon advisement of the City Attorney, Ms. Cloutier was directed to contact city staff and make application for a variance. • City planning staff met with Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New and advised them of the variance process and this application was filed shortly thereafter. • The owner has communicated to staff that their need for two extra sheds is strictly personal; especially their desire to store excess equipment, furniture and personal belongings of other family members. The Applicants further indicate in their application that the smaller shed was built in 1978 and the larger shed was built in 1995. Ms. New purchased the property in 1998 — after the two sheds were built. It was pointed out by Mr. Benetti that planners, prior to accepting any variance application, will seek out or suggest any available alternatives. He added the only logical alternative in this case would be to remove one of the two sheds and enlarge one of them to increase storage space; or simply remove one of the two sheds and eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Benetti added that this application does not appear to meet the other (current) standards in review of variances except, however, the hardship to the current owners created by the previous homeowner. Mr. Benetti stated Staff recommends denial of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -017 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 not been met; and the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011 -017 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -017, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. The applicant Carlein Cloutier, 5731 Camden Avenue N, stated that in review of city ordinances, she found where it states that "no more than two accessory structures can be permitted" - but does not feel that the ordinance states that a garage or shed count as an accessory structure. Ms. Cloutier stated she purchased the property in 1998 with both sheds on the property. She added that they haven't made any changes to the property since then. She also explained that she 8 -25 -11 Page 2 was notified in April that they had a zoning code violation and feels that wording in the letter does not match wording in Chapter 35. Ms. Cloutier explained that she did bring this issue to City Council two times and was advised to file for a variance. She added that she then created a petition within the general neighborhood and everyone was supportive of the two sheds remaining on the property. She further stated that an unnecessary hardship was created by the previous owners and if they were to comply, it would be difficult to remove the shed. They would have to demolish it since they can't remove it intact since the neighbor's fence and trees are in the way. She further stated that a variance would allow them to continue reasonable use of the property since they have a large family and need the shed for normal storage. She invited Commissioners to come out to the property and take a look. Chair Rahn asked Mr. Benetti to explain the definition of an accessory structure. Mr. Benetti explained that under definitions in Chapter 35, it states that an accessory structure is described as garages and sheds and limited to two per single family property. Commissioner Parks asked what defines an accessory structure. Mr. Benetti stated that an accessory structure is considered secondary to the primary principal dwelling. He added that an accessory structure can have electricity but not sewer or water. Zoning Code further prohibits any accessory structure from being used as a residence or dwelling. Except in some cases where homeowners convert their attached garage space into livable space, but only after meeting all current residential building codes, and review and approval by the City Building Official. Ms. Cloutier further stated that the shed has electricity and it would be a hardship to remove it. She adds that when a permit was issued and an inspection done for the second shed, the city should have, at that time, required that one of the sheds be removed. Mr. Todd Gunderson, 70158 th Avenue N, stated that a few years ago when his wife was sick he was going to build a greenhouse. He later learned that the city had received a complaint about the greenhouse and was told he had to remove it. He then moved the greenhouse to his daughter's house. Then his daughter received a notice that she could not have the shed. He explained both times that it was not a shed but a greenhouse. He feels that there is a neighbor conflict with these sheds and if he was told to take down his greenhouse /shed, then the applicant should also be required to remove theirs. Mr. Gunderson also stated that the applicant asked people to sign a petition at National Night Out and some neighbors have since asked to have their name removed from the petition. Mr. Gunderson feels that the applicant reported his property in violation. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -017. 8 -25 -11 Page 3 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -017, at 7:32 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she understands that the city recommends denial of the variance but feels that the City screwed up when they missed the violations two times. She added that she would approve it since the city did not handle this properly from the beginning. Mr. Benetti responded it was not exclusively the "City [that] screwed up" in this case, but a combination of a building permit in 1995 that failed to illustrate the other shed; or possibly a "verbalized" agreement between City staff and the former owner that allowed the larger shed to be built but only if the smaller shed were removed; or an innocent oversight by the city inspector in the field. Regardless of these unknowns or possible scenarios, city staff analyzed this particular variance on its own, separate merits and under current ordinance standards, and what may or may not have happened in 1995 is no longer relevant in this case. Commissioner Parks stated that the community should be softer and kinder and allow the applicant time to amend the problem without causing any hardship. He feels that the city should allow the owner to find a solution when they have the time and resources to do so. Commissioner Parks added that the applicant has tried to be a good neighbor by passing around a petition. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she does not feel that the ordinance should be changed but if they approve the variance it is for the right reason such as it is a hardship. Chair Rahn stated that he has a different opinion especially when dealing with people. He explained that he feels that there may be an inspector that responds to a complaint in a manner different than another inspector and may not note a violation in the same manner. He added that for consistency, we have ordinances in place and it is the staff's responsibility to enforce them when noted. Chair Rahn also stated that he feels that the ordinance is quite clear with what is allowed for accessory structures. He feels that if we are going to make an exception, the intent of the ordinance must be followed. He added that he would vote to not grant a variance but rather look at the ordinance for possible amendments. Chair Rahn asked staff to explain the timeline involved with this application. Mr. Benetti explained that they have 60 days to make a decision based on the application date. He further explained that the applicant had gone to the City Council and they directed them to bring this matter before the Planning Commission and he feels that the Council will take action based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Parks stated that there may be some confusion regarding the definition of an accessory structure and it would be helpful to amend the ordinance to more clearly define it. He also feels that granting the variance will not create a flood of other variance requests. Chari Rahn stated that for consistency the ordinance should be followed and enforced. 8 -25 -11 Page 4 Commissioner Schonning stated that he was notified that he could not build a third garage. He didn't know what the rules were and removed it. He added that he feels that the Commission either recommends that the City Council reviews an ordinance amendment or that the deny approval based on the rules being followed. Commissioner Parks stated that they could grant a variance and give the homeowner time to amend the situation when they can afford it. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she feels that the owners are not asking for an extension to keep the shed until they are able to remove it, but rather they want to keep it. She added that the violation was of no fault of the applicant's. She also does not feel the ordinance should be changed. Chair Rahn stated that just because something has not been caught for a period of time, doesn't mean it should be allowed, whether on purpose or by accident, and if it is a violation, it should be addressed and enforcement should occur. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2011 -017 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to recommend to the City Council that it approve Application No. 2011 -017, submitted by Carlein Cloutier based on the hardship brought on by others (i.e. the former landowner) and that this variance request is reasonable based on the current situation of the Applicant and the apparent longevity of the sheds allowed by the City to remain in their current locations. Voting in favor: Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Morgan, and Parks And the following votes against the same: Chair Rahn, Commissioner Schonning. The motion passed. The Council will consider the application at its September 12, 201 lmeeting. 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. APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 — SEARS. ROEBUCK AND CO. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -015, which had been tabled at the July 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The request from Sears Roebuck and Company is for a minor amendment to the 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD). Sears is requesting the City consider and approve the similar development standards granted to Gatlin Development Company under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (SCC -PUD) applications. Mr. Benetti provided a PowerPoint presentation to give an overview of the revisions to the zoning standards originally requested by Sears including the following conditions of approval: 8 -25 -11 Page 5 I . The utilization of the subject property shall receive the benefits of and conform to the approved 1999 Planned Unit Development plan, with the exception of the additional variations from the 1999 PUD Agreement noted in the 2011 Sears Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement contained herein. A. Required parking for a retail use is reduced from 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area to 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross leasable retail area. B. Required parking for a restaurant use is reduced from one space per two seats and one space for each employee on a major shift to 10 parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant area. C. The space between rows of 90 degree parking stalls is reduced from 63 feet to 60 feet; and the space between rows of 60 degree parking is reduced from 57 feet to 52.5 feet. D. The zero foot (0') lot line setback at the northeast corner of the Sears store building (measured as 163.6 feet) and which exists today shall remain, and the zero -lot line for the 140 feet of the existing screening wall for the loading dock area shall also remain. Applicant shall have the right to rebuild, extend or install a similar screening wall with zero -lot line setbacks along the property line in certain areas. 2. The use and development of Sears' property shall conform to those parts of the development plans described and illustrated under the 1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plans (full sized originals of said Development Plans are on file with the Business and Development Department of the City), and include the following: A. Site Survey (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet a0.1) as Attachment Two; B. General Site Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet al. l) as Attachment Three; C. Landscape Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet Ll. l) as Attachment Four; D. Site Lighting Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet Li. l) as Attachment Five; s E. Major Access Routes map as Attachment Six; 3. The Applicant shall execute and enter into a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. ACTION TO RECOMMEND REMOVING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -015 FROM THE TABLE 8 -25 -11 Page 6 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to remove Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -015 from the table. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -11 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -011. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its September 12, 2011 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. APPLICATION NO. 2011-016 — LOREN VAN DER SLIK (GATLIN DEVELOPMENT) Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -016, which was tabled at the July 14, 2011 meeting. The request from Loren Van Der Slik for Gatlin Development Company, Inc., is for PUD Amendment approval to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. Mr. Benetti explained that Gatlin Development Co is requesting PUD amendment to the previously approved plans consisting of the following components: 1. The physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building; 2. The renovation/conversion of the Food Court mall building (common area) into retail space, which expands the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; 3. The elimination of proposed Building N from the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; 4. The expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail of the Food Court building; 5. The addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 rrking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56 Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot. Ms. Kathy Anderson, Architectural Consortium, stated that she has concerns regarding the look and design of the proposed Sears wall. Mr. Eitel responded that Sears will be required to have the look and feel of the rest of the Shingle Creek Crossing development with brick and stucco to compliment the Gatlin properties. 8 -25 -11 Page 7 Mr. Will Matzek, Kimley Horn & Associates, responded to a previous concern of two way traffic in the area between Sears and the old food court building and stated that they made it a two way traffic area and added requested landscaping also. Sears Attorney stated that they would like to see the roadway between Sears and the old food court building dedicated as a two way street. Mr. Eitel stated that the Commission could add such a statement to the resolution for approval. ACTION TO RECOMMEND REMOVING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -016 FROM THE TABLE There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to remove Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -016 from the table. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVALOF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOUTION NO. 2011 -012. There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -012, along with additional language indicating the Commission supports the Applicant's request to have the drive -aisle or roadway between the buildings to have two -way movement of vehicles. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its September 12, 2011 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. OTHER BUSINESS: PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE Mr. Eitel stated that there have been several meetings in the last two years without a quorum. He added that there is a standard for attendance requirements by commission members and if there are three unexcused absences by a commission member during the calendar year that there is an action to be taken. Mr. Eitel further explained that staff would like to affirm that commission members are dedicated and committed to performing their required tasks including attendance at scheduled meetings. Chair Rahn explained that he feels it is unfair to the public when we are unable to hold a scheduled meeting. He added that it has been policy in the past that a commission member notifies staff when they are unable to attend so it is known ahead of time whether or not there will be a quorum in attendance. 8 -25 -11 Page 8 Commissioner Parks stated that it would be nice to get an email or phone call each time as a reminder of a scheduled meeting. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that commission members are all professionals and adults and they should be able to use the calendar they are given to know about scheduled meetings and should not need weekly reminders from staff. She added that it is embarrassing when they do not have a quorum and members in the audience are often angry and hostile. It was the consensus of the commission that they will take a closer look at attendance policies and enforce any necessary actions to allow a full quorum at future meetings. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall , to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Recording Secretary I I 8 -25 -11 Page 9