Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 01-31 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JANUARY 31, 1991 STUDY SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Bernards and Ainas had called to say that they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 17 , 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the January 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91002 (Group Health, Inc. ) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to make a 1,387 sq. ft. addition to the northwest corner of the Group Health Clinic at 6845 Lee Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91001 attached) . Following the Secretary's presentation, Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. The applicant responded in the negative. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there was curb and gutter at the driveway serving the existing storage building. Mr. Jim Wilson, the architect for the project, responded in the affirmative and stated that they would add curb and gutter to the new paved area. Commissioner Mann inquired as to the fence along 69th Avenue North which provides screening. Mr. Wilson responded that the existing fence will be removed and that a new fence will be installed around the trash dumpsters. He stated that there is an existing dumpster and that one would be added for recycling. Chairperson Malecki asked what the addition would be used for. Mr. Wilson stated that it would be additional office space for the clinic. The Secretary recommended a condition regarding screening of the dumpster and any rooftop mechanical equipment. Mr. Wilson 1-31-91 1 responded that the applicant had no problem with such a condition. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91002 (Group Health, Inc. ) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend approval of Application No. 91002, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. 2 . Paving and curbing plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be approved by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to insure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a remote monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new paved areas. 6. All outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 90028 AND 90029 (Twin View Development Inc. ) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for rezoning and site and building plan approval to rezone from I-2 to PUD/R1 and Open Space the 17.5 acre Soo Line property west of France Avenue North and south of 51st Avenue North and a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the same property into 27 single family lots and two open space outlots. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports concerning these applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 90028 and 90029 attached) . During his presentation, the Secretary explained that there are two lots on the west end of the development that may be acquired by the City and that the Director of Public Works is negotiating with the applicant regarding the possible acquisition of those lots. The Secretary also referred to three letters received from residents near the property in question and noted that all three opposed the 1-31-91 2 rezoning to R1. The Secretary added that there was no change required of the Murphy Warehouse at the present time, but that the R1 abutment would affect the future development or redevelopment of that property. Regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Secretary recommended that the Plan Amendment be approved even if the rezoning were denied. In addition to the information sheets, the Secretary reviewed a draft resolution recommending approval of Application No. 90028. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a change in the Comprehensive Plan would, in effect, rezone the property involved in that area. The Secretary responded in the negative. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide with policies and recommendations for land use, transportation and other facilities within the City. He explained that the zoning of a property effectuates the Plan. He also explained that if there is a conflict between the zoning of a property and the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan, it is the zoning of the property that controls the use, not the Plan. He stated that it is good for zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it would not be considered "spot zoning" if the Plan recommended a certain zoning even for a single parcel. He concluded by pointing out that the Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires that land involved in a PUD must be located in a redevelopment district. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would establish this property and other properties in the I-2 zone as a redevelopment district. Commissioner Holmes noted that, if the rezoning is approved, it would bring the R1 zone down to the property line with the Murphy Warehouse. He noted that a 100 ' buffer is required and asked what would happen if the I-2 zoning remained on the Soo Line property. The Secretary explained that there is a 30 ' wide half-street dedication for 51st Avenue North along the north edge of this property. He stated that a 50 ' buffer would be required from such right-of-way. He added that if an industrial use came into the property, it could dedicate the other half of 51st Avenue North, petition for a street, and then provide a 50' buffer from that new right-of-way line. Commissioner Holmes asked what would happen to this right-of-way area if the rezoning to R1 is approved. The Secretary explained that there is no street within the right-of-way at this time and that the City would consider vacating its right- of-way over that land if the rezoning to R1 were approved. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it was likely that the City will go along with the staff recommendation to buy the two lots at the west end of 51st Avenue North. The Secretary stated that that would be up to the City Council. He stated that staff would recommend such an acquisition because it would provide access to _ the open space area being donated by the applicant. Chairperson Malecki asked how the action on the rezoning would be related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Secretary admitted that staff had had a problem getting the notice to the paper on time and 1-31-91 3 that the Plan amendment would have to be considered again at the February 14, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the rezoning would have to be approved contingent on approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He again recommended that the Plan Amendment be approved independent of the rezoning, although the rezoning would be contingent on the Plan Amendment. The Secretary pointed out that the City may need to redevelop other areas within this I-2 zone of the City and that the option of developing them as a PUD would be helpful. He noted especially the industrial area at 50th and France Avenue North. Commissioner Johnson noted area #17 on the map and asked what the recommendation was for that area. The Secretary stated that the Plan recommended mid-density residential on that property and reviewed some of the sites included in area #17. Commissioners Holmes noted that some of the soil tests in the area had shown positive indications of contamination of the ground water. The Secretary explained that the homes that would be built in this area would be served by City water and not by private wells. He added that the City water system had not been contaminated. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes regarding traffic coming down 51st Avenue North toward France, the Secretary stated that staff have recommended that the applicant provide landscaping on the property across France Avenue to screen out headlights, but that such landscaping should be with the consent of the homeowner. Commissioner Holmes asked who would be responsible for maintaining the fence within the buffer area. The Secretary responded that the future property owners would ultimately be responsible. Commissioner Holmes asked whether that responsibility would be shared collectively or done on an individual basis. The Secretary answered that collective responsibility for the fence could perhaps be required through a restrictive covenant. Commissioner Mann asked whether the fence was required or whether possibly a landscape treatment would be more attractive in this area. The Secretary responded that the fence is not required of the residential development, but that the proposed berm and fence would provide immediate screening whereas landscaping takes time to grow and provide effective screening. Commissioner Mann stated that it was hard to get people to cooperate to maintain a fence. The Secretary answered that it could be the same with a landscape treatment that was intended for the same purpose. Commissioner Johnson asked if there could be a requirement for the wall of the warehouse to be maintained. The Secretary stated that that could not be required under current ordinance and that the building would be grandfathered in its present location if the rezoning were approved. Commissioner Holmes asked about the condition that no dwelling be less than 960 sq. ft. on the main level and whether that was part 1-31-91 4 of the PUD requirements. The Secretary answered that that figure was based on the plans that had been- -submitted. He stated that if the applicant wished to build a home less than 960 sq. ft. , they would have to come back and amend the PUD approval. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John Johnson, the project engineer with Merila and Associates representing the applicant, stated that he had been on both sides of development issues as a Planning Commissioner and a resident as well as someone representing developers. He stated that the objective was to provide moderate cost, high-quality homes and added that there would be a donation of over 8 acres of open space. Mr. Johnson pointed out that, if the rezoning to R1 were not approved, the only option left would be the I-2 zoning since other possibilities have been rejected. He stated that this was not intended as a threat, but simply a statement of fact. He stated that the R1 use of the property and the open space would benefit the neighborhood and the City. Mr. Johnson stated that a market analysis had been done before the project was proposed and that the standard house that would sell in this area of the northwest suburbs could fit on an R2 size lot. He explained, however, that the R2 zoning was not acceptable to the City and that the PUD was pursued as a possibility for allowing single family and open space zoning. He stated that the applicant had suggested a private open space buffer along the south edge of the development to alleviate the burden of providing a buffer by the industrial use and to keep it from becoming a nonconforming use. Mr. Johnson stated that, since the neighborhood meeting, the applicant has reduced the density of the project by approximately 10%. He stated that there would be two lots less than 9, 500 sq. ft. and two other lots less than 10, 000 sq. ft. He pointed out that many of the lots would be large, at least 20% over the City's ordinance requirement. Mr. Johnson showed a map of the surrounding neighborhood and noted that approximately 70% of the lots within 500 ft. of the subject property were 75' or less in width. Mr. Johnson stated that the homes would be of good quality and that there was no need to fear a poor quality development. Regarding the buffer, Mr. Johnson stated that he would recommend that the buffer zone as proposed remain. He explained that this would keep the warehouse from becoming a nonconforming use. He stated that the applicant was not opposed to extending the R1 zone down to the Murphy Warehouse property, but that it was not being sought by the applicant. Mr. Johnson stated that the traffic generated by the development would be insignificant compared to the entire neighborhood. He also showed a drawing of the neighborhood and pointed out that there are a number of other T intersections in the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant was willing to provide some screening on the property across France Avenue to 1-31-91 5 block out headlights. He statedp, however, that he thought that most of the cars would turn south. Regarding wetland preservation and use of open space, Mr. Johnson stated that the project would integrate well with the plans of the Park and Recreation Commission. He stated that the ground water in the area north of the tracks did not appear to be contaminated and that there was no evidence of soil contamination from recent soil borings. He concluded his comments by asking for action on the rezoning and the plat at this evening's meeting. The Planner asked Mr. Johnson about the response to the requirement for additional trees along the south side of the development adjacent to the Murphy Warehouse. At the same time, Commissioner Holmes asked about the applicant's rezoning the area to R1 down to the property line with the Murphy Warehouse. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is not opposed to that rezoning, but that he does not really want to become the cause of making the warehouse a nonconforming use. Commissioner Holmes asked what would happen to the 40 ' area. Mr. Johnson stated that no structures would be allowed in the buffer area. There would be a fence and berm. He stated that landscape treatment was also a possibility. The Planner clarified that staff recommended both a fence and additional landscaping along the south side of the development. Mr. Johnson showed a cross section of the development from the north end down to the Murphy Warehouse property. He stated that the fence would screen out the loading dock area and that over- story trees would tend to screen out the remainder of the building. He stated that the proposed plan calls for a mixture of trees and shrubs and a staggered fence rather than one in a straight line. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant was not opposed to providing additional landscaping. He stated that the PUD designation allows the City and the developer to address various concerns. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90028 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Ms. Diane Lerbs, of 5107 East Twin Lake Boulevard, then addressed the Planning Commission at some length. She expressed appreciation to the developer for listening to the concerns of the neighbors and for the Commission also in taking her concerns into account. She listed a number of concerns. She asked about the housing implementation plan and whether that was being followed with this rezoning. She noted that the proposal would have to be approved by the Watershed District. She stated that she wanted to be for the project, but that she had a gut feeling that she did not like it and that it was not in keeping with Oak Street. She stated that when she moved into the area in 1986, she liked the spacious houses in the area. She stated that the houses on France Avenue and further east are smaller and that they were built at an earlier 1-31-91 6 time. She stated that the proposed development plans look cramped to her and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. She pointed out that the economy was in a recession and that this would make it harder to sell these houses. She stated that she really wouldn't mind another warehouse and that she does not mind the existing warehouse. As to the prospects for redevelopment in the area, she stated that she felt the City was being reactive in responding to this proposal rather than proactive in looking at the needs for redevelopment in the area. She went on to express concern about problems with noise from the railroad. She stated that the train noise will be overwhelming for the homes that are built. She added that, if the people coming from this street turn south onto France, there will be more people waiting for the train to pass at the crossing at France Avenue. She also expressed concern about adding more curves to the street and stated that there could be more safety problems for kids because of cars speeding up around the corners. She stated that runoff from the project would pollute the lake. She stated that she had called a number of people in the area and that almost all of them prefer the existing I-2 zoning over the proposed R1. She stated that if there were only f ive to seven houses it would be o.k. , but that the number of homes proposed seems cramped to her. Ms. Lerbs went on to state that trees in the area would die as a result of the development and that she did not want to see this. She asked whether a market analysis had been done that justified the investment by the builder in these homes and she also wondered whether the homes would pay as much in taxes as the existing homes. She stated that if the proposed 51st Avenue development is built, there will be a need for more stop signs on France Avenue North because of the increased traffic and that more stop signs would cause more pollution. She stated that, if the aim of the City is to attract more people to Brooklyn Center, she recommended working with the older people who are in existing homes to get the housing stock turned over for younger families moving in. She expressed concern about the older starter homes in the community. She concluded by asking who would pay $90, 000 to live by a warehouse and a railroad. Mr. Daniel Middlestedt, of 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, then addressed the Commission. He stated that the State statute requires a 10 day notice and that the Secretary was resisting a lot of people who pointed out needs for change to the development plans. He stated that he would like some modifications of the plans. He stated that the comments of the neighborhood are not being taken seriously. He expressed concern about connecting 51st Avenue North to East Twin Lake Boulevard because it would involve more traffic in both directions. He suggested making 51st Avenue North a cul-de-sac and that this would cut off traffic that would otherwise go up East Twin Lake Boulevard. Mr. Middlestedt stated 1-31-91 7 that the pollution problem to the wetland area would be reduced if the City would buy lots 14 and 15 of the proposed development. Regarding the addition of the 30 ' of right-of-way for the old 51st Avenue North to the lots abutting Oak Street, Mr. Middlestedt suggested the possibility of adding that 30 ' to the development in order to provide a greater buffer adjacent to the warehouse buildings to the south. Mrs. Marie Middlestedt, also of 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that they had moved into the neighborhood in August and liked the area. She asked that the Commission reconsider the size of the houses which would range from 962 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. on the main level. She suggested looking at other homes in the area to determine a standard. She stated that she felt that the proposed development did not offer stability to the existing neighborhood. She stated that the development would probably be nothing but starter homes and that she didn't like the people that might move in. She stated that she would also like to know the price of the homes to be sold as well. Mr. Earl Forsberg, of 3849 Oak Street, stated that the 30 ' wide easement to the south of his property should not be done away with because it has to be there for the electric utility and cable television, etc. He stated that the trees should be preserved as much as possible. He stated also, that the lots on the west end of the development would be no higher than the swamp. Mr. Forsberg concluded his comments by complaining that the development would take away the area where the neighbors hit their golf balls. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Forsberg if he meant that he did not want the 30' wide right-of-way area to be vacated. Mr. Forsberg again stated that the utilities ran through that area. Chairperson Malecki stated that there was no plan to build a street on the old right-of-way and that the land would revert to the homeowners if it were vacated. Mr. Harlan Lewandowski, of 4100 51st Avenue North, briefly addressed the Commission. He showed on an overhead transparency where his house was and described some of the environmental amenities which he presently enjoyed. He noted that the wind comes off the lake, but that there is not much wind in the front yard and that he has blue herons coming into his front yard. He pointed out that wildlife does not recognize boundaries created by subdivisions. He suggested making 51st Avenue North a cul-de-sac and connecting East Twin Lake Boulevard with a trail, but not a street. He discussed the merits of paths and wildlife in the area and suggested the possibility of letting the people in the area own the land rather than having it developed. He concluded by stating that he still felt there were a lot of houses in the proposed development. Mr. Duke Dalrymple, of 5142 France Avenue North, stated that he believed the applicant has compromised a lot in changing his 1-31-91 8 proposal from its original layout. He stated that he did not oppose the development now. He expressed concern about fence controls, however. He wondered who would maintain the fence and how people would join the fence with their own private cyclone fences. He expressed concern that openings in the fence would allow children to get through and get into trouble. He pointed out that a wood fence will deteriorate over time whereas a cyclone fence would need minimal maintenance. He expressed concern about the possibility of transients hiding behind the fence to get at young children. Ms. Diane Lerbs asked what if a majority of the people near the proposed development opposed the rezoning. She asked whether that carried any weight at all. Chairperson Malecki stated that the Commission would have to take a lot of things into consideration in making a recommendation. She stated that the Commission would. certainly listen to the concerns of the neighbors and that it also had to look at overall land use concerns in making a recommendation. She added that a number of compromises have been made by the developer to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. Ms. Lerbs stated that the development would be cramped. She stated that she would almost rather see one apartment building in the middle of the property rather than a number of single family homes. She stated that she would also rather have an industrial building. Mr. Duke Dalrymple stated, however, that the proposed development is really fairly comparable to Oak Street. Mr. John Johnson, the project engineer, showed a layout of the area and showed that it was comparable to Oak Street in terms of the number of lots. He stated that the homes' styles would be different, but of comparable quality to the ones along Oak Street. He stated that, as the homes are finished off, their total finished square footage would approach 2, 000 square feet which is an ample size house. He stated that there is a market for new homes in the Brooklyn Center area, but limited land in which to meet that demand. Ms. Diane Lerbs expressed concern about the headaches that the neighborhood would go through during the construction of the homes. She stated that an industrial building would be built and be done with, whereas the homes would be under construction over a longer period of time. Mr. Duke Dalrymple recommended that the Planning Commission look at the fence. He stated that the berm is not necessary although he didn't object to it. He again expressed concern regarding the possibility of access to the tracks for small children. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant how he would respond to some of these concerns. Mr. John Johnson stated that the purpose of the fence was to try to provide a buffer which would normally be required where industrial use is adjacent to residential use. He stated that the fence would be treated lumber and that it would be possible for a chain link 1-31-91 9 fence to tie into that fence. He- admitted that fence maintenance was a question which could be resolved. He also suggested the possibility of using prairie grass on the south side of the fence to limit the need for maintenance by the homeowners. Mr. Johnson went on to address some other concerns. He stated that lot sizes and homes in the proposed subdivision are not significantly different from those in the neighborhood. He stated that the houses would be different, that they would be a 1990 's style home, rather than a 1960 's style home. He stated that the homes would be a split entry and would offer a fair amount of potential space. He stated that the safety of children is a valid concern that the applicant shared. Regarding runoff from the development, he stated that a skimmer would be installed to catch floatable debris before the runoff drained into the wetland area. He added that the watershed regulations would be observed. Regarding the possibility of a cul-de-sac, Mr. Johnson stated that there is not enough land north to south in this development to provide cul-de-sacs. He added that the length of the cul-de-sac or cul-de-sacs would exceed the City's standard length. Mr. Harlan Lewandowski asked about the possibility of providing access across a footpath. Mr. Johnson reviewed some of the problems with different cul-de-sac designs. He added that the curving street is intended to discourage traffic from East Twin Lake Boulevard using the new 51st Avenue North to get to France Avenue. He stated that no soil pollution had been detected from the soil borings that were done on the site. He also reminded the Commission and the neighbors and that, if the residential zoning were denied, it would be very easy for a mini-storage development to be built on the property. As to staging the project, he stated that it would be necessary to build the project over two or three years and that the entire street would have to be put in at the beginning because it is not large enough to do in stages. Mr. Johnson concluded by stating that the conflict with Ms. Lerbs probably can't be resolved, but that the proposed residential development would be less intrusive to the neighborhood than an I-2 development. The Secretary then commented on the fence concerns. He stated that staff recommended a fence to be put up by the developer rather than leave the matter up to the homeowners to put up. Regarding maintenance, he stated that he was not sure whether the City should interject itself into that concern of the neighbors. He stated that, if a future homeowner took down the fence, the City probably would not object since it would be on residential land. He stated that there could be some restrictive covenant governing the color of the fence if that was a concern. He concluded by stating that staff would recommend a screening device, but that the responsibility for maintaining that screening device would lie with future homeowners. 1-31-91 10 Chairperson Malecki then asked whether anyone else wished to comment on the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing on Application No. 90028. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Mann stated that she didn't believe the actual density of the development had been pointed out. She noted that there would only be 2 .9 units per acre and that this was a fairly low density. She stated that she had looked at comparable homes with the developer and that she felt they were good quality homes. Commissioner Holmes stated that he expected the homes to be starter homes. He doubted that people would move up to a home that was next to a railroad line. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that he had lived next to a railroad for 18 years. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that it was the developer who was taking the risk in trying to sell the homes. Commissioner Mann asked, if the homes were not selling, wouldn't the standards of the PUD have to be met. The Secretary stated that the applicant would have to stay within the limits of the approved plans or get a new approval. He stated that it was possible for the applicant to request an amendment, but that it would involve the same public hearing process as the initial approval. Commissioner Holmes asked how the City could protect against the developer being occupied by subsidized individuals. The Secretary answered that the City could not restrict who buys or who rents a home within this subdivision and that the City would be in court for discrimination if it tried. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes regarding fencing, the Secretary stated that the draft resolution recommends both a fence and landscaping. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that the people can tie into that fence with their own fences. She stated that she did not have a problem with the proposed wood fence. The Secretary added that the plans would have to be approved by the Watershed District and that there would be some minor refinements in the plat and in the development plans between the Planning Commission action and final building permits. Chairperson Malecki asked about the variance on the setback. The Secretary stated that it would be no more than 10 ' to allow a 25 ' front yard setback instead of 35 ' for the lots on the north side of the proposed 51st Avenue North. In response to another question from Chairperson Malecki regarding Condition No. 6, the Secretary stated that he would recommend that that condition be retained to provide additional trees. Chairperson Malecki noted that if the fence were removed, at least the trees would provide some 1-31-91 11 screening. The Secretary stated that it would provide a given amount of screening for every lot which could be added to by the homeowner. Commissioner Holmes asked what would happen if no one bought along the south side of 51st Avenue North. He wondered whether it would be uneconomical to build the street for one side of the development. The Secretary stated that the developer would have to spread the cost of the street over however many lots he develops. Commissioner Holmes stated that he felt a warehouse would detract from the area more than a housing development. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would give direction for redevelopment of the industrial area. Commissioner Johnson commented that he understood the pain that people are going through in looking at this development. He stated that he had lived in the area for quite some time and had seen it develop over the years. RESOLUTION NO. 91-1 Member Bertil Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90028 SUBMITTED BY TWIN VIEW DEVELOPMENT, INC. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mark Holmes, and the motion passed unanimously. The Secretary commented on the need for a public hearing on Application No. 90029 as well. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90029) Chairperson Malecki then asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the proposed subdivision. Mr. John Johnson stated simply that he wanted to go on record as agreeing with the staff recommendation regarding the proposed subdivision. Hearing no one else, Chairperson Malecki asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann asked how the question of the outlots should be dealt with. The Secretary stated that there is time between the preliminary and final plats to revise some details of the plat including the elimination of lots 14 and 15 and the combination of the outlots into a single lot, etc. 1-31-91 12 ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90029 (Twin View Development, Inc. ) Motion by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 90029. While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Johnson inquired as to how the Commission should express its feelings regarding the acquisition of the two lots (lots 14 and 15) , at the west end of the development. The Secretary stated that it could be indicated in a separate motion or by adding a fifth condition. Commissioner Johnson recommended a fifth condition indicating a recommendation that the City Council acquire lots 14 and 15. The above motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson with the addition of a fifth condition. The motion was subject to the conditions as follows: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2 . The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3 . The owner of the property shall execute a subdivision agreement with the City outlining required improvements in the subdivision, payment of assessments and utility charges, and time limits for completion of required improvements prior to final plat approval. 4. The preliminary plat shall be modified prior to final plat approval to indicate blocks and to indicate an appropriate easement for rail access to the Murphy Warehouse property. 5. It is recommended that lots 14 and 15 of block 2 of the proposed subdivision be acquired by the City for public purposes to provide access to the land to the west from 51st Avenue North. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The Secretary then directed the Commission's attention to the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment and stated that a public hearing must be opened on that amendment. Commissioner Johnson stated that if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is being considered, perhaps more than just this area should be looked at at this time. The Secretary reviewed the history of the Comprehensive Plan and noted that it had been amended a number of times in the past 10 years. He stated that it was not possible to foresee all land use issues ahead of time. He added, however, that there were concerns regarding the Soo Line property that were raised in the 1960 's Comprehensive Plan about the possibility of industrial use on that 1-31-91 13 property. Commissioner Johnson stated that if the City is going through the process now of amending the Plan, perhaps it should open up the process to consider other amendments. The Secretary stated that he felt the process was an open process. He stated that there had been many public hearings in 1980 in developing the City's current Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Plan made recommendations on land use throughout the City, but that the City did not rezone every parcel to conform with the plan. He added that the Plan document needs to be flexible enough to be amended. Commissioner Johnson stated that the City was presently dealing with one micro issue and that he would like to deal with more micro issues at one time as long as we are going through the process. The Secretary answered simply that development proposals stimulate analysis of land use questions that are difficult to foresee ahead of time. PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate the I-2 district within the City as a redevelopment area for Planned Unit Developments and or light industrial. She asked whether anyone present wished to comment on the draft amendment. Mr. John Johnson, of Merila and Associates, expressed support for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There followed a brief discussion of the process of reviewing and approving Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Johnson stated that he would encourage conformity between the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the owner of the Murphy Warehouse knew about the proposal to rezone the land adjacent to that property to R1 and to make it nonconforming. The Planner stated that he had discussed the proposal with the owner of the warehouse early on in the process, but not lately. He stated that he believed he had told her the possibility that her building could become nonconforming. He pointed out that she had not attended any of the meetings to date. ACTION CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to continue the public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding area #18 of the Land Use Revisions map until the February 14, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would be gone from early February until late April. 1-31-91 14 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:49 p.m. Chairperson 1-31-91 15