HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-13-1979PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
June 13, 1979
A regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Davenport at 7,30 PM in the City Council Chambers, 3400 Plymouth Blvd.
MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman Davenport, Commissioners Threinen, Barron, Schneider,
Vasiliou, Eagleton, Wire
MEMBERS APSENTR None
STAFF PRESENT. Director of Planning, Blair Tremere•, Community Development
Coordinator, Mary Ray
Dcmars--Gabriel for Keith Stotts, (79017) Rezoning/Preliminary Plat
Staff reviewed the June 8, 1979, staff report regarding the request for rezoning
and subdivision of five single family residential lots on property addressed
at 17420 County Road 24 southwesterly of the Seven Ponrt Subdivision. Staff ex-
plained that Hennepin County had verbally stated. concern, about the intersection
of the proposed entrance to the subdivision with County Road 24 in light of the
existing curb cuts, Staff also stated that this submitted preliminary plat
did riot, indicate train right-of-way and that the adopted corridor us& plan showed
a community trail along County Road 24 which could involve up to 100 feet of
right -of' -way. Staff suggested that the petitioner work with the Park and Rec-
reation Director -to determine a functionaldesignprior to final platting.
Staff noted that according to the title on this property, when it -is platted the
area shown as a 10 foot easement driveway for the property adjacent to the
northeast is to be conveyed, staff suggested that the approximate 10 foot ease
ment be shown as an outlof on the, final plat to facilitate that conveyance.
Chairman Davenport opened the public hearing and recognized Mr. Gabriel. He
stated that the petitioner was willing to show the 10 foot easement on the north-
east side as an outlot and to work with staff relative to the area needed -dor, the
trail along County Road 24,
rn response to a question by Commissioner Threinen, Mr. Gabriel :stated that the,
petitioner objected to the county observations about the location of the street
entrance and the possible use of the northeasterly driveway and street.
Chairman .Davenport also recognized Mr, Stotts who stated he had nothing further
to add.
Chairman Davenport cloned the public hearing;
Commissioner Wire questioned whether approximately 10 additional feet of ease-
ment for trail purposes would be adequate considering the type of trail proposed.
Staff responded that the estimated 10 feet was mentioned by staff in terms of
possible dedication rather than easemea+,t. Staff indicated 'that per final review
by ,the Park and 'Recreation Departmont tas to precise trail reeds, exact dedication
and/or easement dimensions could be established.
i
PLANNING COMMISSIOR MINUTES -2- dune 13, 1979
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Mire to act on the
petition at this meeting.
MOTION CARRIED7-0-0 All in favor
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Barron to make the
following recormendation to the City Council:
That the request of Demars-Gabriel on behalf of Keith Stotts for rezoning
from R -O 'to 'R1 -A and preliminary plat for five single family= residential
lots at 1742.0 County Road 24 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1, Compliance with the provisions of the City Engineer's memorandum;
Payment of park dedication fees in lieu of dedication in accordance
with the Park Dedication Policy in effect at the time of final. plat;
3. Compliance with the requirements of Hennepin County with respect to
right-of-way needs and access ;permits onto County Road 24 with the
location of the street intersection to be as. proposed;
4. No private curb cuts from proposed lot 1 or proposed lot 5 onto
County Road 24
S. Street names shall be based upon the adopted City street naming scheme;
6.. An outlot shall be provided 1.0.22 feet in width along the north-
easterly line of proposed lot 5 coinciding with existing easement to be
conveyed to the-djacent property at the time of final plat;
7. Compliance with City Council policy Resolution 79-80 regarding
minimum floor elevation for subdivision containing or adjacent to
storm waster drainage areas;
8 Petitioner to` work with City staff in determining specific trail
right-of-way and design along County Road. 24 per the corridor use
plan prior to final platting.
Commissioner Threinen commented that the trail matter should be referred to the
Park and Recreation Advisory Committee since the petitioner had not indicated the
trail provisions and since it appeared the actual trail needs would be Less than the
100 foot right-of-way called for in the corridor, use plan,
Commissioners Threinen and Barron stated they did not agree with the County's
observations about street access into the subdivision.
Chairman Davenport called for a vote,
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.3 All in favor
Lowry hill Construction Compal ,, (79034) Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
Staff introduced 'the item and reviewed the June 8, 1979, staff report, Staff ex-
plained that there were several items which should be resolved which could affect ti
the layout and proposed number of lots Those items include vacation of 62nd
Ave, N. looping of the internal street system rather than 'the proposed cul -de --sac
alignment, written input from the Hennepin County Park Preserve District asto
the intent to acquire land at the east end of this subdivision for regional park
purposes, and submittal by petitioner of a, general development plan per Ordinance
PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES -3'-- June 13, 1579
requirements establishing that each of the proposed "grid pattern" lots can in
fact be developed givers the existing topography and land characteristics,
Commissioner Dire inquired about the corridor use plan which showed a trail cor-
ridor, along 62nd Ave. N. right-of-way,
Staff responded that the most recent information from the Hennepin Councy Park
Preserve District was that the regional trail corridor would be to the north in
Maple Grove and that the Plymouth Parks Director indicated thattherewould.
therefore be no need for a City trail corridor at that location. Staff also
explained that a copy of the proposed subdivision had been submitted to the City
of Maple Grove and that a forms] response had not been received,
Chairman Davenport opened the public hearing and recognized Mr. George Burkards
who represented the petitioner. He stated that the proposed lot: sizes were within
Ordinance minimum and that while it had beer; anticipated 62nd Ave. N, would be
utilized for trail purposes, the hand once vacated could be incorporated into the
lots. He stated concern regarding the recommendation that the proposed cul -tie -sac
streets be looped. He stated the petitioner would prefer the proposed design to
avoid a through traffic situation. He also stated the petitioner disagreed with
the staff recommendation that a general development plan be submitted showing
typical structure layouts on the lots since it was the intent to grade out -the
streets and sell the lots with each buyer designing a custom home to fit the
topography and shape of the 'lots. He also stated' the petitioner would prepare an
environmental assessment worksheet for the City review recognizing the land con-
ditions on the property.. He questioned whether a 50 foot setback from Hemlock
Lane as proposed by staff was necessary since it was their understanding Hemlock
Lane would not be used as a County road in the future,
Commissioner Threinen inquired whether it was the petitioner's intent to remove
the existing structure on proposed lot 1, block 2 at the corner of Hemlock Lane
and 61st Ave., the response was affirmative.
As to the possible acquisition by the Hennepin County Park Preserve District of the
east portion of the subdivision, Mr. Burkards stated that petitioner had not been
in contact with the County but that the petitioner would not agree to voluntary
purchase of the land; any land to be acquired would have to be via eminant domain
procedures,
Commissioner Threinen stated that a general development plan should be submitted
especially indicating where the petitioner felt the buildable portions of the
lots were and where fill would be required and how fill would be provided from the
site.
Staff explained that the submitted grading and drainage plan was based upon April
1960 aerial photographs and not upon a current survey of the property. He stated
that the petitioner bad submitted a letter stating that a topographical survey
would be prepared following preliminary plat approval.:
C.hairrran Davenport noted that County and City maps indicated 61st Ave, right-of-way
extended from Hemlock !ane to Pike Lake but that the petitioner's layout incor-
porated that land from the end of constructed 61st Ave. N, to the lake.
Mrs, Dorothy Krekelberg, one of the petitioners, stated that the portion of 61st
Ave. N to her knowledge had been vacated some years ago.
Chairman Davenport suggested that staff verify that,
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- June 13, 1979
Mr. ,ferry Hanson, president the Red Pox Cove Homeowner's Association in Maple
Grove to the north of the property, stated concerns with the present drainage
geek across the north portion and with the possible vacation of 61st Ave. N.
Dan Blashack of 1165 61st Ave. N. stated concerns about assessments of the improve-
ments in the Pike Lake area.
Chairman Davenport stated that questions regarding assessments of public improve-
ments should be conveyed to the City Council,
Richard Vierzba of 6015 Goldenrod Lane was roncerned with drainage in the arAa ,end
especially in regard to existing north irta cage creek in the north portion of his
property.
Mr. Darrell Ha>ximond of 6075 Goldenrod Lane stated that i i le he was not opposed to
the proposed subdivision he had several questions and suggestions relative to con-
cerns about assessments. Chairman Davenport referred Mr, Hamm,nd to the City Council.
Mr. Hammond suggested -that the west street intersection be aligned with Goldenrod
Lane and that the proposed cul -,de= -sac should be connected to provide a looped street.
Mr. Hammond' also commented abolat the use of park dedication funds in the area and
about sight distance problems at Hemlock Lane and 61st. Ave. N. Mr. Hammond also
stated that the City should retain storm drainage easements across the north part
of this property even if the right-of-way is vacated.
Mr. John Priestley of 6070 Goldenrod Lane stated his questions had been responded to.
Dr. Patrick Gimerson of 11615 61st Ave. N. stated concerns about the construction
of 61st Ave:.: and possible erosion problems at the east end. He also commented
on park needs in the area and inquired whether there would be access to Pike Lake
per the proposed developw.9t. He also commented on the traffic situation on Hem-
lock Lane and County Road 10 particularly at the peak rush hours.
Mr. Bernard Barr, one of the owners and petitioners, commented on previous remarks
by residents of Maple Grove. He noted that certain damming had been permitted in
Maple Grove to create ponding which had restricted the flow of the drainage creek,
he also commented that the development immediately north of this land in Maple
Grove periodically resulted in drainage problems on his land.
Mr. Burkards responded to comments regardir!, the creekway drainage and stated the
grading and drainage plan spoke to proper design. He restated that the petitioner
felt the cul-de-sac street alignment was most appropriate for this area and that
the :street intersection should .remain,
Commissioner Wire also stated concerns about the construction of 61st Ave. :N, par -
titularly at the east end where there appeared to be erosion problems. Staff was
asked to investigate this with the Engineering Department and the contractor,
MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Commissioner, Wire.to act on this
petition tonight.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0 All in favor
Following further discussion there was a INIOTION by Commissioner Threinen aid
seconded by Commissioner Barron to defer action on this petition to permit the
development of further Ordinance required information and possible redesign in
consideration of the following;
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5 Jane 13, 1979
1. The Hennepin County Park Preserve District should be contacted regarding
the possible acquisition of the east portion ofthis property for regional
park purposes and a written statement of intent should be submitted,
2 If it is determined that the Hennepin County, Park Preserve District is
not going to acquire the land indicated on the acquisition map, the
proposed plat should be referred to the Park and Recreation Advisory
Committee to specifically determine City park and/or trail needs in this
area;
3. Petitioner submii, a general development plan indicating; the use of these
proposed lots with typical building locations per Ordinance standards and
indicating any required fill and the source -of such.fill;
4. The street design should be a looped street and the west street inter-
section of 61st Ave. N. should be realigned with Goldenrod Lane, Redesign
may cor(prehend the vacation of 62nd Ave. N. right-of-way.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0_0 All in favor
Chairman Davenport directed staff to renotify the neighboring property owners when
the item is rescheduled.
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Vasiliou to support any
petitions by the land owner for vacation of 62nd Ave. N. and is it has not been
accomplished, the vacation of the easterly portion of 61st Ave. N.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0 All in favor
Tree meeting recessed at 9.35 PM and rQsumed at 9.50 PM.
S.W. and Leo Harris Company, (79035) Rezoning
Staff introduced the item and reviewed the June 8, 1979, staff report and the
proposal to rezone from R-0 to R-1 the westerly 12,2 acre portion of the vacant
land north of Harbor Lane and east of Fernbrook Lane. Staff explained that the
petitioner had submitted a general development plan for the rezoning but had not
petitioned for preliminary plat approval
Chairman Davenport opened the public hearing and recognized Mr, Frank Harriss who
offereda brief history of the development of the area and stated that he felt it
was appropriate not to plan or plat too far ahead until specific development was
eminent, ter. Harris stated that the property should have been zoned by the City
at the time his company purchased it at the request of the City, Mr Harris ex-
plained that the development proposal was pending involving a large motel complex
at the south end of the total property which includes the already zoned 12.2
acre site to the east and a portion of the Freeway Center Addition adjacent to
Harbor Lane. He stated that tho desire of the petitioner was to create the
approximate 7 acre site for that development and that the general development plan
for the entire area was considered premature. Mr. Harris stated that the petitioner
realized the specific sites for development would have to be platted' but to plat
the entire area at this time was not financially sould. Mr. Harris stated that
he was seeking four considerations:
1. Approval of the rezoning which would enable the creation and development
of a site for the motel complex
2 Don't commit to a general development plan at this time;
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- dune 13 1979
3, Defer certain decisions such, as the intersection ofany internal street
with i ernbrook Lane such as, that indicated on the submitted plan;
4> Postpone a final decision of access to the property to the east via pro-
posed 34th Ave. N, and consider that provisions should be made for a
shared cost" ,with the property owner to the east.
Mr. Harris suggested that perhaps the proposed site of the motel only could be
rezoned noting that only a small portion was in the R-0 district and platted apart
from the rest of the land.
Chairman Davenport inquired as to why Mr. Harris was reluctant to subject the entire
area to a preliminary plat and general development plan in accordance with the
Ordinance requirements,: He stated that the final plat could consist of the proposed
development site with the rest, being platted as outlots and needed rights-of-way.
Mr. Harris responded that he was concerned the costs involved in platting
and the higher taxes and assessments He stated that the cost of preparing plans
thus far were deemed unnecessary for creating only one site.
Chairman Davenport responded that commercial land of this magnitude was routinely
stbiected to Ordinance platting and zoning requirements when development was initiated.,
Commissioner Threinen stated he did recall petitioner being asked by the City to
purchase land from the State Highway Department and that given the guiding of the
area, it was plausable that the vetitioner would assume the zoning had been es-
tablished for tha entire property.
Chairman Davenport and Commissioner Wire asked the secretary to review the require-
ments equirementsofSection11oftheZoningOrdinanceespeciallyregardingtheprovisions
for a general development plan and platting.
The petitioner stated he was not prepared to enter into the committments of platting
since he was not prepared to answer questions about future development of the land.
He also indicated he did not concur with the recommendations of the Engineer's memo.
9
Commissioner Threinen stated that he did not agree with the petitioner's observation
about the need for a general development plan and. platting.
Chairman Davenport stated concern with precedent in approving a rezoning of a major
commercial area without platting. He recognized Mr, Don Olson of WRC Investment
Corporation who stated that he represented the developer of a motel on the proposed
site.: He stated he was present to answer questions the Commissioners may have
about the proposed development,
Mr. Tom Reersgord, representing the ownership of the property adjacent to the east,
stated concerns about getting adequate access to his property and whether the
proposed construction of 34th Ave, N. along the north end would be appropriate in
consideration of topography. He stated he had no objections to the proposed rezoning.`
MOTION by Commissioner Barron and seconded by Commissioner Threinen to act on this
petition at this meeting,
MOTION CARRIED 6-1-0 Chairman Davenport opposed
stating that the item should be properly deferred so that a preliminary pl-at could'
be submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- dune 13, 1979
MOTION by Commissioner Schneider and seconded by Comtdissioner Vasiliou to make the
10 following recommendation to the City Council
That the request by BX and. Leo Harris Company for rezoning property in the
northeast uadrnnt of H rbo L n d F r b k L b d d b
0
It a r a en e n rao ane _,e em e ecause a
preliminary plat had not been submitted and the petitioner has }indicated that
he is not repared to do so at this time.
In further discussion Commissioners Schneider and Threinen stated that the proposed
zoning was found to be consistent with the guiding for the area, and that con-
sideration had been given to previous history of this area and the petitioner's
acquisition of 4t at the City's request; but that the City development procedures
required a preliminary plat for large commercial areas such as this and that a
preliminary plat should be submitted prior to development.
Chairman Davenport called nor a vote on the main motion.
MOTION CARRIED 7-.0-0 All in favor
Lewis Supplee, (79037) Rezonin.
Staff reviewed the June 8, 1979, report regarding the proposed rezoning of the 1.2
acre site at 1410 State Highway 101 from RI -A to B-1, Staff recommended denial
of the petition based upon the LA -1 guiding of the area and the impact of the
commercial zoning of the property on the surrounding area and upon the uV ity
system since the proposed use would be more intense than single family residential,
Chairman Davenport opened the public hearing,
Mr. Henry Stenquist representing the petitioner presented graphics of the area and
of the general development plan for the property.. He explained the proposed use
was an approximate 16,000 sq. ft. office building and tfiat the proposed layout
considered the surrounding area and particularly the adjacent residential land.
Mr. Stenquist also noted 'that existing commercial and other nonsingle family land
uses in the area of Highway 101 and County Road 6 should be considered as basis
for rezoning.
Commissioner Wire inquired as to the proposed site layout and Mr. Stenquist re-
sponded that Ordinance setbacks virtually prohibited a building on the south portion
of -the property adjacent to the single family residential land.
Commissioner Schneider noted the LA -1 guiding and. stated that the rezoning proposal
did not justify the major change to commercial guiding which would permit a B-1
land use. He stated concern for the residents for the area who should have pur-
chased their properties with the knowledge and assurance of the established guiding.
In response: to a question by Commissioner Schneider as to the benefit of the pro-
posed rezoning to adjoining properties and to the City, Mr. Stenquist ;mated the
proposed use would provide necessary service office facilities for the neighborhood,
Lewis Supplee, the petitioner, stated that he had owned the property since 1961 and
had been aware of the guiding.
David Johnson of 17230 14th Ave. N. stated that he owned three properties in the
area and lived on one of them. He stated he was opposed to the proposed rezoning
in that it would have a negative impact on the area and was not consistent with
the guiding.. He stated he purchased his properties in 1959,` 1961 and 1973.
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. June 13, 1979
Hazler Johnson of 17300 14th Ave. N. stated he was opposed to the rezoning and
submitted a petition dated June 8, 1979, signed by 43 persons who reside in the
area which oppose the rezoning.
Chairman Davenport read the petition for the record;
Herb Johiison, owner of land adjacent to the north of the subject property, commented:
on the history of the area development and stated he did not support the proposal.
MOTION by Commissioner Schneider, seconded byCommissioner 'Wire to act on this
petition at this meeting.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0 All in favor
MOTION' by Coiimissioner Barron, seconded by Commissioner `Jasiliou to make the
following recommendation to the City Council:
That the request of Lewis Suppl^e to rezone the property at 1410 State 8ighway
101 from R1 -A to B--1 be denied F=_,cause the proposed zoning is not con-
sistent with the Guide Plan and the proposed use represents an undesirable
intensity. as to traffic generation and utility capacity for the: area.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0 All in favor
Commissioner Uasl-iou left the table.
L.W. Samuelson Construction Company (79038) Site Plan Approval
Staff reviewed the June 8, 1979, report regarding the proposed 2850 sq. ft, addition
to an existing 2386 sq. ft: clinic at 1025 Evergreen Lane. Staff explained that the
proposal includes building setback variances from the required 75 feet on the east
and on the north. Staff also explained the zoning around the property is R-1 in-
cluding the property across Evergreen Lane to the east; the areas are developed
with single family homes. Staff showed slides uF the site and other gray': cs
representing the existing facility as well as the original' plans which were
approved approximately 10 years ago,
Chairman Davenport recognized the petititoner who stated he was the contractor.
In response to the staff report, 'he stated he had considered other designs but
that the proposed one seemed ti minimize necessary setback variances and access
problems. He stated the intended use was for dental and optometric clinic uses,
Commissioner Schneider noted the petitioner was the original contractor for the
site and a discussion ensued as to original concerns expressed by the neighborhood
when the property was rezoned:
Commissioner Threinen stated his recollection was that the neighborhood had many
objections to the rezoning and that in consideration of the approved rezoning and
site plan several measures were to be taken including a lim'itation'as to the
amount of parking and appropriate screening. He stated that it did not appear
that the conditions of original approval had been successfully carried out.
Commissioner Schneider inouired whether the petitioner had met with the ne4ghbors
and Mr. Samuelson stated that the owner did now believe that was ne,;essary for
site plan approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- June 13, 1979
Commissioner Eagleton inquired as to the present use of the building and Mr,
is Samuelson stated that to his knowledge the uses were dental clinic and dental
laboratory. Coamissioner Eagleton stated that he had been on the site and noted
that there was a non -dental use, viand Associates, a manufacture's representative,
Commissioner Eac,Ieton stated concern that the facility was used for general office
I•
purposes which could be expanded into the addition.
Mrs. Deininger of 1100 E.ergreen Lane recounted the history of the development
and the neighborhood objections to the rezoning. She stated that there was neigh-
borhood concern. about the nonresidential land use especially with the proposed
expansion which would generate additional traffic and would intensify existing
problems with the site. She stated that the proposal represented an unnecessary
intrusion into the residential neighborhood.
Mrs, Mickalski of 1020-B Evergreen Lane stated she agreed with Mrs. Deininger's
comments and was op; >ed to the proposed expansion,
Commissioner Schneider asked the petitioner to eAplasn the basis for the proposed
setback variance,
Mr. Samuelson stated that the proposed addition would be in line with the existing
building relative to the north setback; and that regarding the east setback Ever-
green Lane was the effective front of the property since a service road ;parallel
to Highway 55 was not possible
MOTIONby Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Eagleton to make the
following recommendation to the City Council:
That the request by L.W. Samuelson Construction Company for site plan approval
for an addition to the clinic at 1025 Evergreen Lane be denied for the
following reasons;
I. The proposal represents an unwarranted expansion of a commercial use
in a predominant single family area, considering especially that the
tenants of the use have not been limited to clinic use and thus
there appears to be increased potential for general office use en-
croachment into the neighborhood,
2. Petitioner has not established a clear hardship for the necessary
building setback variances on the north and east where there is
abuttment to single family homes.
Chairman Davenport stated that the request represented further exacerbation of a
gereral' planning problem,
Commissioner Barron stated that the petitioner should note the existing building
was not erected as per original plans, that opaque screening had not been provided,
from the parking area and that the proposed use would further intensity -the
commercial activity,
Chairman Davenport called for a vote,
MOTION CARRIED 6-0-0 All in favor
McCombs Knutson Associates (79043); Conditional Use Permit
Staff reviewed the report for June 8 1979,.and explained that the petition was in
response to the condition of Resolution 78-169 approving the petitioner's building
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10- Jane 13, 1979
at 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. which in itself was a conditional use, permit in an
industrial district, Staff also recalled that petitioner had appeared before the40Commissionlastyearandhadinquiredwhetherseveralofficetenancies, in addition
to the petitioner's, could be approved under a '*blanket'. conditional use pemit
the Commission had responded in the affirmative stating concerns about traffic
intensity and parking capacity on the. site,
Chairman Davenport recognized Kate Marx representing the petitioner who s+ated that
they had not .been able. to °rind specific traffic generation. data for the proposed
uses which included an architect, an insurance agent, a secretarial service and
an accountant,
Ms. Marx inquired whether the Commission would consider allowing additional tenants,
similar to those proposed, without individual conditional use permit requests..
She also stated concern about the recommended one year duration of the conditional
use permits for the proposed tenants.
Commissioner Barroi stated that in accordance with the original resolution, each
proposed office tenant or group of tenants, such as that submitted, should be
reviewed by the City. He also stated that the proposed one year review of the
conditional uses was standard and that the intent was not to establish an expiration
of the permits but rather to have an initial annual review to assure there were
no problems..
In response to a question from the Commission, Staff stated that information supplied
by the petitioner indicates approximately 5400 sq. ft. remain for leasing and that
the accrued number of employees, intensity of uses and capacity for parking on
the site need to be reviewed.
MOTIOt by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Commisrioner Wire to make the following
recommendation to the City Cuuncil:
That 'the request by McCombs Knutson Associates for four general office tenants
per the petitioner's letter of Jane 7, 1979, be approved in accordance with
the Council Resolution 78-169 subject to the following conditions
1 A permit is issued to the, petitioner acting on behalf of each of the
four tenants and shall not be transferrable to any other tenants;
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, n lanances and req -
lations and violation thereof shall be grounds .or revoc,, tion for any
one or all of the uses,
3. The operation of the building specifically with regard to the
conditional use office occupancies shall be for one year at which
time observations of the capacity of this site to support the uses
in terms of parking and traffic generation will be reported.
MOTION CARRIED 6•-0-0 All in favor
A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing Company, 7 020) Conditional Use Permit
Staff reviewed the staff report of June 8, 1979, and explained that at the May1816, 1979, meeting the Commission indicated to the petitioner that outside storage
of material would be approved subjec-4, to submittal of a detailed landscape plan
with screening-.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -11 dune 13, 1979
Chairman Davenport recognized Mr, Richard Maberle and fir, Richard And,-leson who
represented the petitioner.
The Commission reviewed the submitted landscape plan and Commissioner Schneider
stated concerns with the screening effect of the outside storage on the east side,
Commissioner Wire stated concern as to the view from the west.
Commissioner Eagleton inquired as to the nature of the proposed storage and the
type of operation which would involvc activity at the outside storage area,
Mr. 14aberl e responded that -access to the pipe storage would be infrequent and other
than the initial loading and stacking, removal of the pipe generally would be by
hand. Mr. Haberle also stated the petitioner was concerned with site aesthetics
and wished to cooperate with the City in establishing an acceptable landscaping
and screening design.
MOTION by Commissioner Barron, soconded by Commissioner Schneider to make the
following recommendation to the City Council'.
That the request of A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing Company for a conditional
use permit to allow outside ;storage of pipe at 13415 water Tower Circle be
approved subject ,to the following conditions:
1 No manufacturing on the site;
2 All outside storage shall be within the approved areas, shall not
exceed 5 feet in height and there shall be no storage of materials
or equipment on the loading dock ocher than during business hours;
0
3. Trash disposal facilities shall be within the building;
4. A fi'nanci'al guarantee ensuring completion of the approved land-
scaping and screening shall be submitted and termed for 18 months;
5 The permit is issued to the petitioner and is, not transferrable;
6. Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
Following further discussion there was a MOTION by Commissioner Schneider, seconded
by Chairman Davenport to amend the main motion as follows:"
1. Item 4 should provide for a term of 24 months rather than 18 months;
2. Add a 7th condition as follows: plant six (6) Black Spruce (planting #4)
in lieu of the five (5) lilac plantings and in lieu of the three (3)
pfitxer plantings at the northeast corner; add four (4) Black Spruce at
the west end of the north yard; add four (4) Black Spruce to the north
end of the west yard:
Chairman Davenport called for a vote on the amendment.
MOTION CARRIED 4-1-1 Commissioner Wire abstained
and Commissioner Eagleton opposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 1979
Chairman Davenport teen called for a vote on the main motion as amended..
MOTION CARRIED 4-1-1 Commissioner Mire ab-
stained and Commissioner Eagleton opposed.
Commissioner Wire explained that he was not present at the first hearing and he
did not support outside storage at this location, Commissioner Eagleton stated
that he voted in opposition because he had opposed the initial Mote on the con-
ditional use permit request for outside storage,
Chairman Davenport left the table,. Commissioner Vasiliou returned,
Clarence A. Jansson (A-632) Conditional Use Permit Renewal:
Staff reviewed the report of dune 8, 1979, and explained that the petitioner had
originally received a conditional use permit in October, 1975 which was renewed
once in 1976 to operate a furniture hauling and package delivery service from his
home at 1280 Highway 101. Staff explained the item had come to staff's attention
with a complaint from a neighbor that numerous vehicles were parked in the yard:,
Staff presented slides of the property and of the area and a brief discussion en-
sued.
Vice Chairman Schneider recognized the petitioner who stated that the recommended
condition R, that "he petitioner be allowed to park two passenger vans only at
the residence might be the basis for some misunderstanding. He indicated that a
distinction should be made between his personal vehicles and those used for his
business.
A discussion ensued as to the number of vehicles, which petitioner indicated in-
cluded two vans used for the business; one van as a private vehicle; and, one
private a;itomobile.
MOTILINby Commissioner Vasiliou., seconded by Commissioner Barron to make the
following recommendation to the City Coun,ila
That the request of Clarence A. Jansson of 1`50P Highway 101' for renewal of a
conditional use permit involving the operation of a furriture hauling and
package delivery service as a home occupation be approved subject to the
following conditions;
1. The permit be renewed annually;
2. The petitioner be limited to a maximum of two business-related
vehicles parked on the property;
3. Permit is subiect to all codes, ordinances and regulations and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
MOTION CARRIED 6-C-0 All in favor
Chairman Davenport returned to the table,
Lundgren Bros Construction, (A-792) Revised Final Plat
Staff reviewed the June 8, 1979, report indicating that petitioner had deleted
one Tot from the final plat which had been reviewed on May 16, 1979; the total
number of lots now being 19 rather than 30.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES x-13- ]ane 13, 1979
MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Commissioner lire to make the following
recommendation to the City Council:
That the request by Lundgren Bros, Construction for revised final plat for
Burl Oaks 2nd Addition at the southeast corner of Highway 101 and 6th Ave.. N.
consisting of 29 single family lots be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum for this project;
1,
2. Payment of park dedication fees in lieu of dedication based on 29
lots according to City Park Dedication Policy in effect at the time
of final platting,•,
3. All lots, on the northern periphery of the project shall be a minimum
15,500 sq. ft and this shall be certified in writing prior to filing,
4. Structure setbacks along Highway 101 shall be a m rjimum 50 feet;
minimum structure setbacks on the internal streets of the project
sha.11 be 35 feet for front yard and 10 feet for side yard;
S. Private drive access to HI.ghway 101 shall be prohibited;
6. All diseased or dying trees on the site shall be removed at the
owner's expense•,
7. Compliance with City Council policy Resolution 79-80 regarding minimum
floor elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to or
containing open storm water drainage facilities:
MOTION CARRIED 7'-0-0 All in favor
MOTION by Commissioner Schneider, seconded by Commissioner Vasiliou to approve the
minutes of the May 16, 1979, meeting as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 Commissioner Wire abstained
There being no fuf Cher business, Chairman Davenport adjourned the meeting at '12:30 PIS{.
i
i