Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 10-13 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 OCTOBER 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Sean Rahn at 7:06 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 and Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino was absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to approve the minutes of the September 29, 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 City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained that he had been invited to speak to the Planning Commission to provide an understanding and legal viewpoint of the updated Minnesota State Statute related to Variances. He added that States do have the power to regulate land use by zoning as referenced in Chapter 462 of the State Statutes. Mr. LeFevere stated that in cases reviewed by the Planning Commission, it is their role as an advisory body to make recommendation to the City Council regarding Special Use Permits, Zonings, Site and Building Plan approval, Preliminary Plat approval, etc. They also serve as the board of adjustments for review of Variances. Mr. LeFevere explained that once the city establishes its own `rules' by ordinance adoption, it is up to the City Council and Planning Commission to enforce the ordinances. He further pointed out the difference between varying levels of discretion allowed when making decisions regarding applications relating to regulations, the law and public input allowed. 10 -13 -11 Page 1 [Commissioner Morgan arrived at 7:15 p.m.] Further, when a City establishes certain codes, it is based on certain assumptions, and the approval process must stay within those requirements. He added that there are some cases where those assumptions may be incorrect, and therefore, the Legislature made provisions to the State Statutes to allow cities to grant Variances under circumstances based on certain criteria. Mr. LeFevere pointed out that the new legislation states that a Variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying. Practical difficulties are defined as: property owner proposes to use property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and, the Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the subject Variance does not meet the above, the City cannot grant a Variance. He added that if a Variance is granted when it should not be allowed, the City and property owner can be sued. The court may decide that the city was too permissive and the land owner may be required to undo the Variance. Commissioner Morey asked Mr. LeFevere to address the previous Variance application where the issue was unique to the property but not created by the current landowner. Mr. LeFevere responded that it his judgment that the law refers to the current as well as previous land owner and Owner No. 2 should not be granted a Variance because Owner No. 1 was allowed to get away with a violation. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she does not feel the code should be changed to meet the recent Variance request, however, the staff made an error in not following through with the process. Mr. LeFevere responded that people do make mistakes, but we don't know for sure that a mistake was made by the Staff. The inspector may have said that they second shed had to be removed and was told that it would be. He added that if the City allowed a Variance to do something not allowed by the code, a precedent could be set that would require the city to allow everyone else to do the same thing. There was further discussion regarding Variance regulations among the Commissioners and Mr. LeFevere followed up with information on requirements for Special Use Permit approvals and site plan approvals. 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 providing a new action plan related to this important corridor in the City. 10 -13 -11 Page 2 Mr. Benetti further stated that the lan is to be completed b late summer 2012 and will include p p Y 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. Eitel stated that there was a task force kick off meeting on Monday and Staff's plan is to come back to the Planning Commission in an informative manner so they will have a good understanding of the solutions and options along Brooklyn Boulevard. He also pointed out various locations along Brooklyn Boulevard that the City has looked at for possible future development. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Kuykendall stated that the retail area located at 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard is very busy and congested and she has concerns that the layout cannot handle additional traffic if the proposed new office building is constructed. She stated that she would like to see another traffic study done. Mr. Eitel responded that the proposed developer could be asked to pay for a traffic study or the City could look into doing another study. 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 8:45 p.m. lidd �i Cl� ir Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Recording Secretary 10 -13 -11 Page 3