Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 05-31 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER May 31, 2018 Regular Session 1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Regular Meeting Agenda Motion to Approve Planning Commission Regular Session Meeting Agenda for May 31, 2018 4. Approval of Minutes Motion to Approve the May 17, 2018, Meeting Minutes 5. 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. 6. Planning Items None. 7. Discussion Items a. City Council Planning Commission Applications Update b. Upcoming Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meetings 8. Other Business None. 9. Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER May 31, 2018 Work Session Immediately Following Regular Planning Commission Meeting which begins at 7 p.m. Work Session Item 1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Process with Jennifer Haskamp of Swanson Haskamp Consulting (SHC) PC Minutes 05-17-18 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MAY 17, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Christensen at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Chair Randall Christensen, Commissioners Alexander Koenig, Jack MacMillan, Stephen Schonning, Rochelle Sweeney, and Susan Tade were present. Commissioner Abraham Rizvi was absent and unexcused. &LW\3ODQQHU and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, and Community Development Director Meg Beekman were also present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – MAY 17, 2018 There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney, to approve the agenda for the May 17, 2018 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 26, 2018 REGULAR SESSION AND WORK SESSION 4a). APRIL 26, 2018 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to approve the Regular Session minutes of the April 26, 2018 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 4b). APRIL 26, 2018 WORK SESSION MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to approve the Work Session minutes of the April 26, 2018 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 5. CHAIRPERSON’S EXPLANATION Chair Christensen 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. PC Minutes 05-17-18 -2- DRAFT 6. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS 6a). APPLICATION NO. 2018-008 APPLICANT: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE (I-1, I-2, C-2 DISTRICTS) City Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh introduced Application No. 2018-008. She reviewed the background and purpose of the request to amend Chapter 35 of the City Code to allow for the addition of an ,nterim 8se 3ermit that would allow for the off-site storage of new vehicles. Ms. McIntosh also highlighted the proposed parameters outlined in the proposed ordinance. There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tade, to open the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Linda McGinty of Luther Automotive addressed the Planning Commission. She noted Luther Automotive’s need to identify off-site storage for new vehicles, as the recently approved new Mazda/Mitsubishi Dealership site at 4435 68th Avenue North cannot begin construction until a location is identified to move the vehicles currently stored on-site, off-site. Approval of an ,nterim 8se 3ermit would provide an opportunity for Luther to temporarily store new vehicles for sale at the local Brooklyn Center dealerships off-site, and would help alleviate an issue with lack of vehicle storage in proximity to the dealerships. Chair Christensen asked if there are any issues Ms. McGinty sees within the plan. Ms. McGinty stated she doesn’t believe so. She stated they are willing to go above and beyond to work towards a solution with the City and noted they are looking into lighting for the lots as well as 24-hour security if that is needed, pending approval of an ,nterim 8se 3ermit that would allow for off-site vehicle storage. Ms. McGinty asked if there is a specific reason they would want the cars to have individual parking spots. Chair Christensen explained the barriers the Planning Commission saw when looking at the proposal for the temporary storage of vehicles. Commissioner Koenig stated if they were aware of the net income difference between the dealership storing the cars in their normal “stacked” manner as opposed to having them in individual spots DVthat would be helpful knowing if it would make a big impact one way or another. Ms. McGinty noted she believes the size of the lot they are looking at creating would accommodate the cars being parked in spots. The Commissioners noted that as part of the review of the proposed amendment to Chapter 35, the overall aesthetics of this type of storage were important and the Commission wanted any off- site vehicle storage to be presented in an neat, orderly fashion, rather than that of a storage yard. There was a motion by Commissioner Sweeney, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2018-008 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, REQUESTING PC Minutes 05-17-18 -3- DRAFT APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A NEW SECTION 35-420, WHICH WOULD ALLOW AUTO DEALERSHIPS IN THE CITY TO STORE NEW VEHICLES OFF-SITE FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME WITH AN APPROVED INTERIM USE PERMIT. There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-008, Proposing an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code to Establish a New Section 35-420, to Allow Auto Dealerships in the City to Store New Vehicles Off-Site for a Specific Period of Time with an Approved Interim Use Permit as submitted. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Schonning, Sweeney, and Tade. 6b). APPLICATION NO. 2018-006 APPLICANT: ALAN MILAVETZ (MILAVETZ, GALLOP & MILAVETZ) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1915 57TH AVENUE NORTH AND 2001 57TH AVENUE NORTH (VACANT) City Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh introduced Application No. 2018-006. She provided background on the subject property and outlined the Applicant’s requests to construct a small 1,222-square foot addition onto an existing office building, expand the existing parking lot area, and approve a request to pursue a tax parcel combination through Hennepin County. Approval of the parcel combination is necessary as the building addition and parking lot expansion would otherwise encroach into neighboring vacant property (2001 57th Avenue North), which is under common ownership with the subject property. Commissioner MacMillan asked if the Applicant has applied through Hennepin County yet. Ms. McIntosh stated they provided a draft application for Hennepin County and explained the different ways Hennepin County handles those applications. As approval of the building addition and expanded parking lot area are contingent upon the two parcels being combined, the Planning Commission and City Council would ultimately need to approve resolutions allowing for the aforementioned requests only if Hennepin County approves of the parcel combination. Commissioner Schonning stated he is pleased they are taking that awkward lot and doing something with it. Chair Christensen asked if the residents will be notified and have a chance to speak to the fence issue. Ms. McIntosh stated they do not have to notify them but the Applicant can reach out for that feedback if they wished to do so. She noted there are quite a number of trees running along the southern property line, between the office building and residential properties. Charles Levin, project architect for the Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated Mr. Milavetz sends his regrets as he is in New York attending his daughter’s graduation at this time. He noted that Mr. Milavetz will be present at the City Council meeting on May 29, 2018 PC Minutes 05-17-18 -4- DRAFT and can certainly speak to the fence issue in depth. Mr. Levin stated he thinks they would maybe rather invest in adding more landscaping as screening instead of adding additional fencing. Chair Christensen stated he is aware of fencing being an issue in the past and residents who had fencing in sight of their homes had grievances. He would like to avoid that with this application if possible, particularly as the office building has been at this location for a long time and without any kind of screening fence. Additional discussion was held by the Commissioners relating to the multiple fence types on either side of the subject property and the introduction of another fence type to address the screening requirements under Chapter 35 of the City Code. Mr. Levin stated they are happy to look at solutions to this issue and find a common ground. Chair Christensen asked if they could add a recommendation to the resolution to not have to put up the opaque fence if it is not desired by neighbors. He stated he would still like screening as recommended, and iQTXLUHG whether a natural screening could be substituted, so long as it offered sufficient screening. Ms. McIntosh stated they can approve the resolution with request to amend condition 6.c. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2018-008 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2018-006 SUBMITTED BY ALAN MILAVETZ (MILAVETZ, GALLOP & MILAVETZ), REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SITE AND BUILDING PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 1,000-SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, EXPAND AN EXISTING PARKING AREA AND COMBINE TWO ADJACENT, COMMON-OWNED LOTS THROUGH HENNEPIN COUNTY (LOCATED AT 1915 57TH AVENUE NORTH AND 2001 57TH AVENUE NORTH), SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION ALLOWING STAFF TO AMEND ITEM 6C OF THE CONDITIONS. There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2018-008 as amended. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Schonning, Sweeney, and Tade. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7a) FOLLOW-UP ON PLANNING COMMISSIONER TRAINING OPPORTUNITES Ms. McIntosh introduced this item and reviewed the upcoming sessions available. She noted that if any of the Commissioners are interested in attending either the September or November sessions, they should contact her. 7b) DISCUSSION IN ADVANCE OF NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) PC Minutes 05-17-18 -5- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh presented this item and stated she can forward the north and south maps previously provided at the last Planning Commission Work Session to reacquaint the Commissioners with the discussion held at the last meeting. Chair Christensen noted that a copy of the Community Development Activities Map would also be helpful. Ms. McIntosh noted that she would send an email containing the maps to the Commissioners as reference. 8. OTHER BUSINESS None. 9. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:31p.m. _______________________________ _______________________________ Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Randall Christensen, Chair 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update City of Brooklyn Center RE: Work session preparation for May 31, 2018 Summary & Recap At our last work session on April 26th we began an opportunity and issue identification mapping exercise for land use and redevelopment in Brooklyn Center. During our session we began with map orientation to identify key physical characteristics of the community including major roadways, local roadways, waterbodies and floodplains, places to learn (schools), places with commerce and shopping, businesses, civic areas, parks, etc. We spent time talking about what areas/neighborhoods in the community represent the ‘character’ of Brooklyn Center, that evolved into a conversation about who lives in the community, where do people shop and how do people think about neighborhood in the community. The conversation concluded with a speed-round identifying areas on the map that the Planning Commission either knows of redevelopment plans or hopes will redevelop within this planning period through 2040. Preparation for 5/31 (Homework!) To help continue our discussion at our upcoming work session we need your help to prepare. Building on our speed-round from April, please do the following: • Select your top two (2) redevelopment areas we identified on the map at the April meeting (see map for reference). Write down a couple of notes about why you chose each site. (i.e. is it an important place to you? The community as a whole? Why/how?) • For each redevelopment area write a list of the following: o Most desirable uses (5 things you do want to see) o Least desirable uses (5 things you don’t want to see) • Go out into the community, or surrounding community, and take a few pictures of some of your favorite places that you think could fit into the two redevelopment sites you chose. (e.g. At the last meeting planning commissioners referenced places in Maple Grove, a restaurant in Minneapolis, etc.) o Send your pictures to Ginny no later than end of day May 30th. WORKSHEET SITE/Area #1: Pick a redevelopment site/area. Where is it located? Why did you choose it? In the following table list your top 5 uses you’d like to see on the site/area, and your bottom 5 uses that you would NOT like to see on the site/area. (Prioritize your list where 1 is most important to have, or most important to avoid). 5 Most Desirable Uses 5 Least Desirable Uses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SITE/Area #2: Pick a redevelopment site/area. Where is it located? Why did you choose it? In the following table list your top 5 uses you’d like to see on the site/area, and your bottom 5 uses that you would NOT like to see on the site/area. (Prioritize your list where 1 is most important to have, or most important to avoid). 5 Most Desirable Uses 5 Least Desirable Uses 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. 3. 4. 5.