HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 04-14 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
FEBRUARY 14, 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 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell
Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of
Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross.
Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson was out of town
and was excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 31, 1991
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to
approve the minutes of the January 31, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting:
Commissioners Bernards and Ainas.
APPLICATION NOS. 91003 AND 91004 (Frances Lunacek)
Following the Chairpersons's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first two items of business, a request to rezone from R5 to R1
a 41 ' x 132 ' strip of land belonging to the property at 5211 Xerxes
Avenue North and a request for preliminary plat approval to
transfer the 41' x 132 ' strip of land from the property at 5211
Xerxes to the property at 5201 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary
reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission
Information Sheets for Application Nos. 91003 and 91004 attached) .
Commissioner Sander arrives at 7: 39 p.m.
Chairperson Malecki asked whether the fence would stay and whether
it would be on the R1 or R5 property. The Secretary answered that
the property line would basically follow the fence line. He stated
that he would recommend that it be on the R5 property since it
appears to belong to the complex. In response to another question
from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that the property
line could be moved slightly to keep the fence on the R5 property.
Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to
add. Mr. Steve Graffunder, an attorney representing Frances
Lunacek, stated that he had nothing to add and would answer
questions of the Commission. In response to a question from
Chairperson Malecki regarding the fence, Mr. Graf funder stated that
2-14-91 1
he thought the fence should be on the R1 property. The Secretary
noted that, on the other two lots with 12 unit buildings, the fence
continues on the apartment property. He suggested that it might be
more appropriate for the fence to be on the apartment property
since it seems to have served as a security fence for the
apartments in the past.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether the apartment dwellers have
used the vacant land that is the subject of the rezoning. Mr.
Graffunder responded in the negative. He stated that the land had
always been used by Mrs. Lunacek as part of her single family
property. Commissioner Bernards stated that open area for
apartments has been a concern of the Commission recently. He asked
whether the apartment building at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North would
stand on its own as far as land area is concerned. The Secretary
responded in the affirmative. A
Commissioner Ainas stated that he believed the application was so
minor that it did not have to go to a neighborhood advisory group.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 91003 and 91004)
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on
both the rezoning application and the preliminary plat application
and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding those
applications. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the
public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close
the public hearing on Application Nos. 91003 and 91004. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Holmes asked whether a separate condition was needed
as far as the fence. The Secretary stated that he did not think a
condition was really necessary at all and that the fence is really
a civil matter between the single family property and the apartment
property. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any need
to refer, in the resolution recommending approval, to the fact that
the application was not being referred to the neighborhood group.
The Secretary stated that he felt that the comments of Commissioner
Ainas were sufficient.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-3
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO.
91003 SUBMITTED BY FRANCES LUNACEK
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Lowell Ainas, and the motion passed unanimously.
2-14-91 2
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91004 (Frances
Lunacek)
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
recommend approval of Application No. 91004, subject to the
following conditions:
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 . Approval of Application No. 91004 is subject to approval
of rezoning Application No. 91003 .
Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander,
Bernards, Ainas Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
Mr. Louis Sullivan, of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group
then spoke briefly to the Commission. He stated simply that the
application had been well presented.
OTHER BUSINESS
a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Secretary then explained the next item of business to the
Commission, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding the I-2 area
of land in the southwest portion of the City. He noted that a
planned unit development was sought by Twin View Development, Inc.
under Application No. 90028 and that that application is before the
City Council. He noted that the City's PUD Ordinance requires that
a PUD be in an area designated for redevelopment. He explained
that the amendment would be to Figure 15 and Table 14 concerning
Area 118 which would include all of the area of land in the I-2
zone within the City.
The Secretary stated that it would be necessary to amend the Plan
in the future when there may be other redevelopments that involve
planned unit developments. He stated that he would recommend
approval of the Plan Amendment even if the Twin View Development,
Inc. rezoning were denied. He then reviewed the draft resolution
point by point with the Commission.
Chairperson Malecki asked whether the land would still be zoned I-2
after the Plan Amendment. The Planner responded in the affirmative
and noted that rezoning of the land is a separate action.
Chairperson Malecki asked whether the staff could steer developers
towards some alternate use other than I-2 in this area. The
Secretary responded that the Planned Unit Development Ordinance
could be used to allow for certain variances in the design of a
2-14-91 3
project, but that if the City does not want an industrial use or
the underlying zoning of the property, it could change the zoning
to something else. He stated that one area of likely change in the
future was the Joslyn property south of the Soo Line tracks. He
stated that a Planned Unit Development on that property might
comprehend both some industrial use and some open space use or
other land use.
PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing
and asked Mr. Rick Hartmann who was the only one present whether he
wished to comment on the Plan Amendment. Mr. Hartmann declined.
Chairperson Malecki then called for a motion to close the public
hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to
close the public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-2
Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
82-255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I-2
ZONING DISTRICT
The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
Ella Sander and the motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a) Flood Plain Ordinance
The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to an
attached Flood Plain Ordinance. He noted that this ordinance was
considered by the Commission about a year ago, but had not been
acted on by the City Council. He reviewed some of the changes in
the new model Flood Plain Ordinance and in the version drafted for
consideration by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the
definitions in Section 35-900 would be ones which would be
applicable to the entire ordinance, whereas definitions in Section
35-2120 would be those which were specific to the Flood Plain
portion of the ordinance.
Commissioner Ainas asked whether the Commission would have more
time to review the ordinance or whether action was recommended this
evening. The Secretary stated that it was up to the Commission.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he had had dealings with the DNR
regarding the new model ordinance and that he was ready to
recommend approval of the draft ordinance this evening.
2-14-91 4
Commissioner Bernards asked how the new ordinance would affect the
Twin View Development at 51st and France Avenues North and the
proposed townhouse development by Mr. Charles Thompson. The
Secretary answered that there would not be a significant impact on
those developments. The Planner pointed out that the new ordinance
clarifies some of the language of the old ordinance and makes some
additions, but that the provisions are basically the same. He
noted the requirement that finished grade be at least at or above
the 100 year flood elevation for 15 ft. out from the building. He
noted that Mr. Thompson's proposal did not comply with that, but
that the requirement was the same under the old ordinance and the
new ordinance.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to
recommend approval of a revised Flood Plain Ordinance. Voting in
favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas,
Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items for the
February 28, 1991 meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner
Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the
Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Chairperson
2-14-91 5
1
1