HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 10-13 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
OCTOBER 13, 2011
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes — September 29, 2011 Regular Meeting
4. 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.
5. Discussion Items
A. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere to discuss new Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section
462.357, Subdiv. 6 as it relates to Variances
B. - Update on the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study — 2011 -2012
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
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
SEPTEMBER 29, 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, and Planning Commission Recording
Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino was absent and excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 25, 2011
There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to
approve the minutes of the August 25, 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.
DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CHARLIE LEFEVERE,
REGARDING MINNESOTA STATUES 2010 SECTION 462.357, SUBDIVISION 6
RELATING TO VARIANCES
Mr. Benetti explained that City Attorney, Charlie LeFevere, could not be at tonight's meeting
and he extends is apologies. He added that Mr. LeFevere would like to come to a future
Planning Commission meeting to discuss variances, either on October 13 or 27 Mr. Benetti
stated he would make arrangements with Mr. LeFevere to attend a future meeting.
Commissioner Parks stated that if the October 14 agenda is a light agenda, he would like to
play a CD that contains information on planning issues, specifically sustainability and green
issues. Mr. Benetti responded that staff has been unable to fix the audio problem in Council
Chambers and they would not be able to hear the CD. Chair Rahn stated that two hours would
be a lot to watch at a Planning Commission meeting and suggested that perhaps Commissioner
Parks could point out the highlights to the Commission.
Commissioner Morgan arrived at 7:10 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEM: INTRODUCTION OF TWO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS
BY PAUL HYDE OF REAL ESTATE RECYCLING ON THE FORMER HOWER SITE
9 -29 -11
Page 1
(4821 -23 XERXES AVENUE NORTH) AND THE FORMER LIFETIME FITNESS SITE
(4001 LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NORTH) NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN.
Mr. Benetti explained that staff is presenting development plans proposed by Paul Hyde, Real
Estate Recycling, for the former Howe site located at 4821 -23 Xerxes Avenue and the former
Lifetime Fitness site located at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North.
Mr. Benetti stated that Mr. Hyde is requesting a slightly modified plan than that approved under
a 2008 PUD for a 50,000 sq. ft. office /warehouse facility at 4821 -23 Xerxes Avenue North. The
modified plan may require a PUD amendment to facilitate the changes.
Mr. Benetti further explained that Mr. Hyde proposes a 123,000 sq. ft. office /warehouse building
at the former Lifetime Fitness site located at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North. He added that the
proposed redevelopment would require a PUD amendment and rezoning approvals. Also, other
issues to be addressed are site planning issues such as a regional trail connection, buffering and
screening measures, residential neighborhood impacts and drainage.
Mr. Benetti stated that some of the issues that may need to be addressed at the 4001 Lakebreeze
Avenue site is possibly rezoning to 1 -1 to accommodate a proposed use which would also require
a land use amendment. Also, the property will need to be replatted to combine the site with the
former Denny's site acquired for MnDOT right -of -way. The property will be conveyed/sold to
Mr. Hyde (the Developer) from the city. Mr. Benetti further described how Mr. Hyde will meet
required setbacks along residential areas to provide appropriate buffering from the proposed
building. (Note: I -1 does not allow outdoor storage and allows a number of potential uses.)
There was discussion by the Commission and Staff regarding concerns about increased truck
traffic along Azelia in an area that has residential property on a dead end street. Mr. Benetti
stated that public safety is always a concern, but public streets are intended for traffic and not to
be used as a playground.
Mr. Benetti provided examples of types of uses allowed in the C -2 zoning district and explained
that the impact on a neighborhood is critical and the impact will be taken into account as the site
layout is being planned including noise, traffic, road design and sustainability. Mr. Benetti also
mentioned that Staff is hopeful that they can also accommodate a rail connection through the
site.
Commissioner Kuykendall asked about how the transfer of ownership happens regarding the title
to MnDOT right -of -way. Mr. Benetti responded that in most cases the State prefers to offer or
sell property to schools or cities first. He added that they know the city would like the parcel to
be part of a future development, but because of the way the State does business, it will go from
the State to the City to the developer for the same price it was purchased for.
Commissioner Parks inquired if accessory off -site parking is meant to allow parking on another
site? Mr. Benetti explained that off -site parking is only allowed through the Special Use Permit
process and only if hardship can be shown for inadequate parking on the subject street.
Generally, on street parking is not allowed in the subject zoning district.
9 -29 -11
Page 2
Mr. Benetti gave some details on possible updates to the Howe Fertilizer site that would allow
more space for truck traffic. Such changes would require a PUD amendment and that may come
before the Commission in the next few months.
Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that this is being provided for informational purposes only
and no official action will be taken at this meeting.
DISCUSSION ITEM: STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS IN THE CITY
Mr. Benetti gave updates on the following ongoing projects:
• The FBI project is wrapping up soon.
• Work will begin soon at the Luther Honda/Toyota site.
• Construction on the CEAP addition to the Adult Ed building will begin soon once permits
are issued
DISCUSSION ITEM: UPDATE ON THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY
FOR 2011 -2012
Mr. Benetti stated that the City Council recently awarded a contract to SRF Consulting Group,
Inc. to study the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. City staff will be working with SRF's staff in
developing and providng a new action plan related to this important corridor in the City.
Mr. Benetti further stated that the plan is to be completed by late summer 2012 and will include
the following issues to be studied:
• Driveway and access connections
• Right of way design
• Sidewalk and trail connections
• Signage
• Streetscape
• Landscaping and similar enhancements
Mr. Benetti stated that they are attempting to equalize right -of -way along Brooklyn Boulevard
and eliminating conflicting land uses such as single family homes with driveways entering along
Brooklyn Boulevard. He continued that when properties have become available, the City has
attempted to purchase them to allow for future development and further frontage road designs.
Mr. Benetti added that there will be public meetings in the future that will allow the Planning
Commission to participate and provide input during the planning process. He clarified that the
area identified in the study is located from Hwy 94 to Hwy 100 and the report with findings will
be back to the City in the summer of 2012.
OTHER BUSINESS:
There was no other business.
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 8:40 p.m.
9 -29 -11
Page 3
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
Recording Secretary
9 -29 -11
Page 4
City of Business and Development
Brookl Y n Center Department
J www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199
Phone 763.569.3300 TTY /Voice 711 Fax 763.569.3494
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Gary Eitel, Business & Development Director
Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist
DATE: October 7, 2011
RE: Agenda Item No. 5.A — Discussion with City Attorney LeFevere of Variance Procedures
Planning Staff has invited City Attorney Charlie LeFevere to make a brief presentation and lead a
discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2011. This discussion will provide
an understanding and legal viewpoint of the updated Minnesota State Statute related to variances. Our
discussion may also involve the outcome of the recent variance request by Carlein Cloutier (to allow
more than two accessory structures).
Attached to this memo is a copy of the amended statute, which indicates deleted language by means of
stfile through text and new or revised language as underlined text
As part of this discussion, Staff may be asking the Planning Commission to consider or direct staff to
modify our own Zoning Ordinance in order to follow -suit with this new state law.
If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting, feel free to call Gary at 569 -3305 or Tim at
569 -3319 (email GEitel e ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us or TBenettigci .brooklyn- center.mn.us).
i
Thank you.
H.F. No. 52, 2nd Engrossment - 87th Legislative Session (2011 -2012) [H0052 -2]
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to local government; providing for variances from city, county, and town
1.3 zoning controls and ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections
1.4 394.27, subdivision 7; 462.357, subdivision 6.
1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 394.27, subdivision 7, is amended to read:
1.7 Subd. 7. Variances; practical difficulties The board of adjustment shall
1.8 have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances from the ternts requirements
1.9 of any official control including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall
1.10 only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
1.11 official control
1.12 the way of car. y ing out the sh ict lettet of any official conti orl-, and when the terms -ef
1.13 the v imice variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. cl
1.14
1.15 put to a teasonable use if used ander the conditions allowed by the official eontrols; tile
1.16 plight of the landowner is due to ch etinistances unique to die p. operty not e. ented by the
1.17 , will not alter the ess'nfial character of the locality.
1.18 Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there
1.19 are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties,"
1.20 as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner
1.21 proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control;
1.22 the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
1.23 the landowner; and the variance if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
1.24 locali . Economic considerations alone shad do not constitute a hardship if. teasonable
Section 1. 1
H.F. No. 52, 2nd Engrossment - 87th Legislative Session (2011 -2012) [H0052 -2]
2.1 tise for the property exists ande. the temis of die otdinwice difficulties. Practical
2.2 difficulties include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar
2.3 energy systems Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in
2.4 section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official controls. No variance
2.5 may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited not allowed in the zoning
2.6 district in which the subject property is located. The board of adjustment may impose
2.7 conditions in the granting of variances to A condition must be directly related to and must
2.8 bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance insure compliance
2.9
2.10
2.11 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the d2y following final enactment.
2.12 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 462.357, subdivision 6, is amended to read:
2.13 Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and
2.14 adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable
2.15 conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has
2.16 the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance:
2.17 (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any
2.18 order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the
2.19 enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
2.20 (2) To hear requests for variances from the litet a! p. ovision. of the ot din
2.21
2.22 , Mid to glant Such
2.23 varimiees only when it is demonst. ated that stich actions will be in keeping VV ith the spirit
2.24 and intent of the ot dinanee. "Undue hardship" as used in eonneetion wifli the g! anting of et
2.25 varimtee memis the pt operty in question eannot be put to 2t reasonable use if ased tinder
2.26 conditions allowed by the offieial contials, requirements of the zoning ordinance including
2.27 restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in
2.28 harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are
2.29 consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for
2.30 the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning
2.31 ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance,
2.32 means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
2.33 permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
2.34 unique to the property not created by the landowner;2 and the variance, if granted, will not
2.35 alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone s+MH do not
Sec. 2. 2
H.F. No. 52, 2nd Engrossment - 87th Legislative Session (2011 -2012) [H0052 -2]
3.1 constitute
3.2 the oidinmice Undue hardship also ineirdes practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
3.3 include, but is are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
3.4 systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section
3.5 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and
3.6 adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any
3.7 use that is not pennittecl allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone
3.8 where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case
3.9 may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two
3.10 family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions
3.11 in the granting of variances • A
3.12 condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact
3.13 created by the variance.
3.14 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.
Sec. 2. 3