Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 01-17 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 JANUARY 17, 1991 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the December 6, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Bernards, seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the 1990 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. CALL TO ORDER 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki then called to order the 1991 Planning Commission. ROLL CALL 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Chairperson Malecki noted that the administration of the oath of office was being deferred and that the election of the 1991 Chairman Pro tem would also be deferred in light of the fact that the City Council has not formally made its appointments. APPLICATION NO. 91001 (Charles P. Thompson Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R1 to R3 the 2. 17 acre site of the Thompson residence at 4201 58th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for 91001 attached) . The Secretary explained it is his understanding that lots which do not have access to the lake right now cannot be given new access 1-17-91 1 through the dredging proposed by the applicant. The Secretary also directed the Commission's attentior -to a letter and some attached regulations from area hydrologist Ceil Strauss with the Department of Natural Resources addressing the dredging question. The Planner stated that it was his understanding that the regulations prohibit making a nonnavigable water navigable. He stated that it was also his understanding that the applicant did not seek such a dredging permit, but that the DNR has other concerns regarding the project. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding the meaning of nonnavigable access, the Secretary showed the area in question on a map of the neighborhood and noted that there was an area of the floodway that extended along the east side of the Thompson property adjacent to the lots abutting June Avenue North. He stated that it was not possible under DNR regulations to make that area navigable. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary noted that Twin Lake is to the southwest of the site and that the dredging would be toward the east of the property. He stated that staff had asked for Engineering data regarding water storage, but that it was not submitted. He stated that when plans are formally submitted, there would be a requirement for further review by the DNR, possibly the Corps of Engineers, and the Shingle Creek Watershed District. Commissioner Holmes asked about the possibility of 17 townhouse units. The Secretary explained that the R3 zoning would allow for single-family attached units at a density of up to 8 units per acre. He explained that there was enough land area on the site for 17 units, but that it was probably impossible to achieve that number of units because of physical limitations with the flood plain. Commissioner Bernards noted the comment at the end of the staff's comments on guideline (a) suggesting that a larger project would be more viable. The Secretary responded that there are currently some people interested in the project now, but that staff were not sure that the project would be attractive to potential buyers in a long- term market. He stated that staff were not trying to scare anyone as to the possibility of more units. It was only an observation that more units might make the project more viable though, that might be a physical impossibility. Commissioner Bernards acknowledged that it may simply be a reality of the real estate market that a larger project would be more viable in the long run. In response to another question, the Secretary noted that the regulations adopted by the Homeowners' Association could be much stricter than City ordinance. Commissioner Mann asked whether it would be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan if the rezoning were approved. The Secretary stated that that would not necessarily be required, but that it could be done if the Planning Commission felt that it was appropriate. 1-17-91 2 Commissioner Holmes noted that the area is posted as a wildlife preserve. He asked whether it was a protected area that could not be developed. The Secretary noted the open space area owned by the City just north of the Thompson property. Commissioner Holmes noted that there are signs at the entrance to the property and that he assumed that, south of the fence, the property belongs to Mr. Thompson. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Charles Thompson then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that he bought the property in 1957 and built a house on it in 1964. He stated that it was a lot of land to maintain and that he was getting tired of mowing the big lawn. He also stated that the house that he lives in is more house than he really needs. He explained that he has a state and federal game farm license and that this was granted for the purpose of fostering the geese population which has now become somewhat of a problem. Regarding the dredging aspect of the project, he acknowledged that the plan makes it appear that the dredging would fall on the neighbors' property. He stated that this would not be the case. He stated that it was not his intent to dig on his neighbors' property. Chairperson Malecki asked what was the purpose of the channel. Mr. Thompson noted that the channel was not there in 1957 when he bought the land, but that it was created when the lots were developed along June Avenue North and black dirt was taken from the area to provide for the lawns of those houses. He also noted that the lake used to go up almost to 58th Avenue, but that when Bass Lake Road was improved, a lot of dirt was piled on the open space area. He stated that over the years a number of things have been done with the lake and the shoreland. The Secretary asked Mr. Thompson whether the wildlife game farm license affects the use of the property. Mr. Thompson responded in the negative and noted that it is an annual license. Ms. Ceil Strauss, the area hydrologist for the DNR, then briefly addressed the Commission. She stated that there were two basic issues that the DNR was concerned with regarding the dredging. She stated that, if the dredging would add a channel beyond the limits of the lake that is above the ordinary high-water mark of 853 . 11 , that the DNR would not approve that permit. She stated that it is not allowed to dredge toward nonriparian lands to make them riparian lands. She stated that if the applicant proposes to dredge in the area below the ordinary high-water mark, that a permit could be granted, but that if the area was nonnavigable at present, a permit would probably not be granted, though it could be applied for. Commissioner Ainas asked whether DNR regulations define what is navigable and nonnavigable water. Ms. Strauss answered that it 1-17-91 3 would not be allowed for the applicant to make major alterations to a channel area which would allow larger watercraft to navigate the channel. Commissioner Ainas noted that it was possible to float a canoe in 8" of water. Ms. Strauss acknowledged this, but added that the dredging could not upgrade the navigable status of the channel to allow for larger vessels. Ms. Strauss explained that the ordinary high-water mark for Twin Lake is 853 . 1. ' She stated that the DNR has jurisdiction below the ordinary high-water mark contrary to what is written on the plans. She stated that no filling would be allowed below the ordinary high-water mark and that the project should also meet flood plain regulations. She stated that the DNR was also concerned regarding shoreland management regulations. She noted that the City does not have a shoreland management ordinance at present, but that, if it had one, the setback from the ordinary high-water mark would be 501 . She noted that the plans do not provide for such a setback and that the DNR would have real problems with the plans as presently drawn. She stated that other shoreland regulations include a shore impact zone, which is a zone in which it was not allowed to provide parking lots, roads, etc. She stated that the width of this zone is at least 25 ' on this lake. She also stated that model shoreland management regulations require a minimum lot size for different types of lakes. She explained that, on Twin Lake, a duplex would be required to have 26, 000 sq. ft. of land and that a single family home would be required to have 15, 000 sq. ft. of land. She added that there are also regulations limiting the amount of impervious surface which can be placed on a lakefront property. She added that there are storm water management concerns. She stated that the maximum of impervious surface allowable would be 25% of the lot and that this would include roofs, driveways, parking lots, etc. Commissioner Holmes stated that it was his understanding that Watershed Management regulations would require a 75 ' setback from the ordinary high-water mark. Ms. Strauss answered that the setback depends on the class of the lake and that for Twin Lake the setback would be 501 . Commissioner Holmes asked about the requirement noted in the report for a certain elevation at least 15 ' out from the dwelling. Ms. Strauss responded that that was a flood plain management regulation requiring that the land adjacent to habitable structures be at least at or above the 100 year flood elevation for 15 ' out from the structure. She stated that this was to keep the flood waters from undermining the foundations of structures. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the 50 ' setback, Ms. Strauss stated that the 50 ' setback is a shoreland management setback and that those regulations are concerned primarily with aesthetics whereas flood plain regulations are more concerned with health and safety. The Secretary added that many regulations affect the development plans. He added that the Watershed District and other bodies would have to review and approve the plans. He explained that staff had asked for more 1-17-91 4 information on the proposed plans, but that the applicant had desired to address the land use issue first-rather than spend the money to answer design questions. He stated that it was sort of a chicken and egg question as to which question you answer first. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add in response to these concerns of the DNR. Mr. Lenny Samuelson, representative of the applicant, stated that they were not trying to evade the responsibility for providing information. He stated that the applicant wants to get a feeling of what the neighborhood and the Planning Commission think regarding the rezoning. He suggested that perhaps a flood plain rezoning should be pursued. He concluded by saying that Mr. Thompson simply feels that the property warrants a higher zoning than at present. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 91001) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Jack Andraschko, of 5801 June Avenue North, stated that he did not consider a $70, 000 townhouse to be a quality development. He stated that he felt the townhouses should be priced at at least $125, 000. Mr. Thompson explained that the $70, 000 figure in the staff report refers to the land cost only. He also added that the project would be limited to 8 units. Mr. Samuelson reiterated that the project would only contain eight units and that $70, 000 is only a land cost figure and did not include the value of the buildings. The Secretary added that no appraisal had been done by the City of Mr. Thompson's property. He stated that staff simply took the figure offered by Mr. Thompson in his letter of application. The Secretary added that zoning the property would allow for the possible construction of units at a density of up to eight units per acre which could allow for up to 17 units. The Secretary added that, if the project were pursued as a Planned Unit Development, then a certain development plan and restrictions that go along with it would be a part of the approval of the rezoning. He stated that other assurances could be obtained through the development agreement with the applicant. The Planner asked Ms. Strauss whether the shoreland management regulations would interpret the townhouse development as single- family attached or as two-family. He noted that the project does not meet the requirement of 26, 000 sq. ft. for each double unit. Ms. Strauss stated that the townhouses would be looked at as doubles, but that a PUD might allow for more units than the regulations normally permit. The Secretary added that most of the lots on Twin Lake do not meet DNR standards and would become nonconforming if the model DNR regulations are adopted by the City. Ms. Strauss stated that, in instances such as this, lots of record are grandfathered and retain their previous property rights. 1-17-91 5 Ms. Elsie Andraschko, also of 5801 June Avenue North, stated that she had concerns regarding the traffic on 58th Avenue North and the fact that adding more townhouses to the property would only add more possibilities for traffic conflicts on 58th Avenue North. She stated that she went to meetings years ago on the townhouses north of 58th and that they were promised that those townhouses would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. She stated, however, that there have been definite problems with that townhouse development. Mr. Graydon Boeck, of 5601 Indiana Avenue North, then addressed the Planning Commission at some length. He stated that he had lived in the area since 1956. He noted the provisions in the DNR regulations which prohibit certain types of excavation. He stated that some homework should have been done to determine whether the excavation proposed by the applicant would, in fact, comply with those regulations. He then read through some of the regulations on excavating adjacent to lakes. He stated that Mr. Thompson' s property is not large enough to provide land for the channel. Mr. Boeck expressed concern regarding increased seepage of water from the lake into the water table if the channel were dredged and that it would lower the level of the lake. He stated that he was convinced that the DNR would not issue the dredging permit. He stated that he was concerned regarding the possibility of reducing the amenity of the lake for the existing property owners. He stated that, in the past, the City tried to prevent drainage from the lake into the storm sewer. He stressed the need to protect the lake. He noted that some storm sewer from Crystal drains into the lake. Mr. Boeck suggested that another plan be submitted. He stated that, if the land were rezoned now, the City would lose control over the development. Mr. Boeck noted that the Homeowners' Association would require higher standards than the City, but that no law requires that officers actually be elected to run the association. He wondered who would be responsible for maintaining the common areas if no one was willing to serve on the association board. Mr. Boeck also referred to the comment in the applicant's letter and the staff report of an "unmet need" for high quality townhouses. He asked whether there was a market analysis submitted to document this need. He stated that the neighbors may support the project if the dredging were to give them riparian land. He added, however, that that was not permitted by DNR regulations. Mr. Boeck stated that rezoning of this parcel to multiple family would set a precedent and that other properties around the lake that are similar would seek a similar type of upzoning. Mr. Boeck quoted a comment in the staff report that the high quality townhouses would be "compatible with homes on or near the lake. " He noted that the Commission had just been told by another resident what had happened to those other townhouses. Mr. Boeck stated that 1-17-91 6 County Road 10 serves as a barrier between the townhouses north of County Road 10 and the single family development on upper Twin Lake, south of County Road 10. He stated that to rezone this property would be jumping the barrier. He questioned what would be the actual setback from the ordinary high-water mark. He stated that he would accept Ms. Strauss's statement that the setback requirement would be 501 . Mr. Boeck concluded his comments by expressing concern that rezoning the property would set a precedent for other lots on the lake. He suggested that the proposal be denied and not referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. He stated that the proposal should be stopped at this point and that the applicant should do more homework as to how to meet DNR regulations. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else wished to speak during the public hearing. Hearing no one, she recommended holding the public hearing over on this application. Commissioner Mann stated that she would like to see formal site plans submitted before coming back to the Planning Commission or even going to the neighborhood group. Chairperson Malecki explained to the applicant that the Planning Commission did not want to spend a lot of meeting hours on this proposal if a plan was not feasible. She also suggested pursuing a PUD with this development. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not feel the Commission should bypass the neighborhood advisory group process. He stated that he felt the matter should be referred to them for further review and comment. Commissioner Mann expressed a concern about setting a precedent of referring an application that does not meet ordinance requirements. The Secretary explained that site and building plans have not been formally submitted and that a rezoning application does not require a concurrent site and building plan application. He added that a PUD proposal does require a site and building plan to be submitted and approved with the rezoning. He stated that it was up to the applicant to respond to the concerns expressed with a proposed development plan that would meet all regulations. Commissioner Johnson stated that the residents around upper Twin Lake have been fighting the problem of the water level on the lake for some years. He stated that surrounding development has consistently adversely affected the lake level. He stated that he also has a concern that the dredging might affect the lake level. He questioned whether the neighborhood advisory group was in a position to decide on a rezoning without more information on the physical aspect of the proposal. He suggested that more information on the dredging be provided. Commissioner Ainas stated that he assumed that such information would be provided to the neighborhood group. The Secretary added that dredging of this area could be pursued without a rezoning of the property to R3. He stated that the DNR regulations would pertain whether the property 1-17-91 7 stayed R1 or were rezoned to R3 . Mr. Boeck stated that he did not disagree, but suggested that the proposed R3 development would need the channel improvements as an amenity to sell the townhouse units. Mr. Thompson pointed out that he has had a dredging permit from the DNR for 15 years and that he has not abused it. Mr. Boeck told Mr. Thompson that, if he would line the pond and prevent seepage into the ground water, that he would have no problem with the dredging. Mr. Thompson stated that Upper Twin Lake was a ground water lake and would not be affected by the dredging. Mr. Boeck disagreed. Mr. Bob Hock, of 5531 Halifax Avenue North, stated that there appears to be a major problem with the DNR regulations and the application should not be considered until the applicant can show that he will comply with all DNR regulations. Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission what they preferred. Commissioner Ainas stated that he preferred to send the applicant to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group in keeping with the City's policy on rezonings. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 91001 AND REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Motion by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 91001, continue the public hearing, and refer the matter to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Holmes noted that there seemed to be a lot of concerns regarding the feasibility of this project. The Secretary pointed out that tabling the matter would give the applicant some time to work on those concerns. He stated that the Planning Commission is not required to refer the matter to the neighborhood group and that it can act at this meeting, but that it typically does not. He stated that the neighborhood group could look at the different ideas that the applicant has for developing the property. He stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to recommend denial of the application, then he recommended that the matter be tabled with direction to staff to prepare a resolution containing such a recommendation and the rationale for it. He also pointed out that the Planning Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation. He stated that, if the matter were tabled and came back to the Planning Commission and then on to the neighborhood group, there may not be enough time to get comments from the advisory group in order for the Planning Commission to act within their time limit. He stated again that, if the Commission prefers to recommend denial of the application, a resolution would be in order and a tabling to prepare that resolution would be needed. The motion was restated and was seconded by Commissioner Holmes. Commissioner Bernards stated that he has listened to the concerns of the neighbors and that he felt a decision could be made at this 1-17-91 8 time, but that he did not want to short-circuit the process of receiving review and comment from the-neighborhood advisory group. Voting in favor of the above motion to table: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary stated that a meeting would be set up with the neighborhood group within the next 30 days. An unidentified gentleman asked whether the notices would be sent early for that meeting. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Mr. Boeck asked who appointed the neighborhood group and whether it was required by City Charter or City Ordinance. The Secretary explained that the neighborhood advisory groups were created back in the mid 1960's to comment on the City's 1966 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that they have been used since that time to evaluate rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments. He noted that the groups advisory roll has also been expanded to evaluate other issues in their neighborhoods. He explained that the meetings are relatively informal. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary explained that the appointments to the Planning Commission had not been made because the Mayor wants to talk to each of the Commissioners personally. The Planner reviewed with the Commission the upcoming business items for January 31, 1991 and asked for the consent of the Commission to put those business items on the study meeting. There was no objection. DISCUSSION Commissioner Bernards asked what was the status of the three bedroom apartment issue. The Secretary explained that the matter was being looked at by the Housing Commission and that he believed it would eventually come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was any ordinance to require everyone on Twin Lake to be notified of the proposed development. The Secretary stated that there was no such requirement in the City's Zoning Ordinance. He added, however, that the meetings are not limited to those who receive a notice. He stated that they are open meetings and that other people can certainly attend and comment on an application. He stated that it was impossible for the City to notify every household in the City regarding every rezoning. Commissioner Ainas informed the Commission that he had become aware of a new HUD regulation which would require all units in a multiple family building to have handicapped accessible vanities. He stated that he had discussed the three-bedroom apartment issue with a 1-17-91 9 representative from HUD and they stated that they were just waiting for a test case on that question. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9: 22 p.m. Chairperson 1-17-91 10