HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 08-15-1979Planning Commission Meeting of August 15, 1979
Present. Chairman Schneider-, Commissioners Threinan, Barron, Vasiliou, Larson and dire
Absent: Commissioner Eagleton
Staff Present: Planning Director Blair Tremere Development Coordinator 1ary Ray,
and director of Public Works Fred !Moore
The meeting was called to order at 7;35 p.m. by Chairman Schneider.
Amend:nents to Thoroughfare and
United Properties, Inc,- (A-856) Land Use Guide Plans
Staff reviewed the August 10, 1979 report and the JOy 25, 1979 Planning Commission
minutes. Staff explained that the Commission had ordered a public hearing for the
proposed amendments oto the Land Use Guide Plan as proposed by United Properties, Inc.
for that area generally described as north of State Highway 55, east of 1-494i and
south and west of Plymouth Creek.
Commissioner byre noted that the August 10th Engineer's memorandum stated a pre-
ferenc% for the proposed Thoroughfare Guide Plan amendment in accordance with
Sketch D"` contained in the duly 25 1979 i nfornational booklet prepared by
McCombs -Knutson Associates, and he asked the City Engineer to explain the recom-
mendation. Mr. Moore stated that the design was responsive to City and County
concerns with the proper alignment of County Road 61 north of Highway 55 and
the location of future street intersections. Commissioner Wire stated that an
alternate design shown on "Sketch C" represented the east -west crossi,:g of
County Road 61 by proposed Xenium Lane/26th Avenue further away fro, -J Highway 55
than 'the intersection shown on "Sketch D." He stated it would seem it would have
less potential for traffic congestion and more stacking distance with "C" rather
than I'u."
Mr... Moore responded that the design on "Sketch D"" was preferred since it would
tend to allow fewer or no private accesses onto County Road 61, whereas "Sketch
C" could encourage that because of the additional length between Highway 55 and
the Xenium Lane/26th Avenue intersection,
In r -:sponse to a question by Chairman Schneider, Mr. Moore stated that the dis-
tance from Highway 55 to the Xenium-26th Avenue intersection on "Sketch D"" was
approximately 600 feet, compared to approximately 900 feet on "Sketch C." In
response to a question by Commissioner Barron, Mr. Moore stated that this would
compare with an approximate distance of 250 feet from Highway 55 to the f} ontage
road le.~ding to the Radisson Inn across from this property to the south.
Staff revtewed traffic generation figures based upon the proposed guiding layouts
using data prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates for various land uss.
Chairman Schneider announced that the public hearing was open and he recognized
Mr. Rick Knutson who represented the petitioner,
Mr. Knutson reviewed the information contained in the July 25, 1979 informational
packet, noting that the Thoroughfare Guide Plan options reflected development in
the area with and without direct participation by Munsingwear, Inc. whose land
would be affected by the designs. Mr. Knutson ,also noted possible exchanges of
land between the petitioner and the City and between the petitioner and Munsingwear.
Planning Commission Meeting -2- August 15, 1979
Commissioner Threinan stated that the existing Guide plan classifications "fit" this
area in consideration of the present road plans; and that it appeared that the new
guiding was designed to reflect the possible new thoroughfares in this :area.. Mr.
Knutson stated that the primary consideration in the guiding proposal was the impact
of proposed County Road 61,
Chairman Schneider stated that the current guiding was based upon more than just the
anticipated roads but also recognized the topography and natural characteristics of
the area.
Commissioner Threinan further explained his concern thatsince the proposed guiding
seems to relate to the proposed alignment of roads, the roads are being designed in
response to ownership of land versus natural features and other characteristics.
Mr. Knutson concurred and explained the situation was very complex as to ownership
and the .ability to put together a "land package" in this area.
Chairman Schneider recognized Mr. Moore, the City Engineer, who explained that
the primary issue was the accomplishment of the thoroughfare direction given by
the City Council', which could be evaluated notwithstanding ownership or the Land
Use Guide Plan issues.
Chairman Schneider recognized'Mr. Don Brauer, who represented Munsingwear, the
owner of property at the south portion of the area. He stated that his client
was not proposing any specific project or reguiding and noted that the property
is currently zoned I-1. He stated that Munsingwear, Incorporated was not a
developer and had purchased the land originally for a corporate headquarters
use, which was approved in a 1969 master plan. He stated that Munsingwear had
been cooperating by attending meetings with this pettio,,er, the City, and the
County and that concept plans had been developed which, in his ,judgment, conformed
with County Highway Department criteria.
Mr. Brauer stated that Munsingwear desired to have a commercial guiding on their
land which would permit a B_3 type zoning which would permit retail (versus B-1
office service zoning) as a compensation measure for the loss which would be
realized on this land because of the proposed road systema
Substantial discussion ensued as to why Munsingwear had not developed the land
over the past ten years and how the proposed road systzm had a negative impact
on the owner's ability to put the land to a reasonable use, albeit different
from the original master plan.
Chairman SOrteider noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and he recognized
Mr. Heins, 2920 Berkshire Lane, who stated he was concerned with the road design
for the area, especially in the westerly portion. Mr. Moore reiterated his earlier
comments that the main issue involvedCounty Road 61 and the Xenium Lane/26th Avenue
North east -west road. Mr. Moore commented that all other roads represented on the
plan were conceptual only and could vary depending on the development proposed.
Mr. Lee Lovosol'o, 12710 - 26th Avenue North, referred to earlier Munsingwear
development proposals including commitments made by the original land devf-loper,
t„e Carlson Companies, as to buffering between the property and the re:idential
homes to the east. He stated the neighbors da not want industrial or commercial
development any closer to the residential neighborhood than that approved by the
City in 1969.
Planning Commission Meeting -3 August 15, 1979
Mr. Brauer responded that it was Munsingwear's intent at this time -to retain the
140 foot buffer zone that was {designed on the property; however, the primary issue
is the effect of the road plan on the land which could result in different types of
uses.
Mr. Clayton Ziebarth, 2715 Sycamore Lane, stated that the Creekwood Heights Home-
owners preferred that the Munsingwear land, be left 1-1 and that the "Sketch q
with respect to County Road 61 and Xenium Lane/26th Avenue North alignment was
preferred.
Ray Lottie, 12715 - 27th Avenue North, stated concern with maintaining the char cter
of the neighborhood and felt the Munsingwear area should be left 1-1 Frith no colmer
cial encroachment,
At the request of the Chairman, staff reviewed the Zoning: Ordinance permitted and
conditional uses for the B-1 and 1-1 zoning distr'cts. Staff also explained the
differences between a commerciallimited business guiding and a commercial service
guiding which would allow for retail use.
Marren Christian, 12808 27th Avenue North, commented as to neighborhood concerns
dating back, ten years relative to the Munsingwear property; he stated that additional
industrial (,r commercial land in this area was not warranted.
Peter Kitchak, attorney representing Munsingwear, stated concern that some people
were worried about development intents -ok Munsingwear. He stated the real issue
is road plans adopted by the City and the County and the effect on the property.
He stated his client did not have any development intents other than those
originally proposed and the current situation had, in effect, been imposed
upon them. fie stated his client would be willing to sell the property with-
out profit since they were not a developer; in response to a question by Commis-
sioner
ommis-
s oner Threinen he stated the selling -rice cf -the land sould be determined
on the amount originally paid, the amount put into the land over the years,
and a "reale- e" interest on carrying charges for holdinc the land.
Mr. Kitchak continued' stating that the approximate seven acres which would be taken
for road purposes requires compensation of some sort and that a partial compensation
could be achieved by a higher commercial rezoning.
Staff responded that if the land necessary for the prop^sed thoroughfares must be
taken through condemnation or purchase, the owner would, in fast, be monetarily
compensated. Staff cautioned that Land Use decision should not be premised upon
economic compensation for necessary public improvements.
Commission Barron stated the two basic issues were proposed changes to the Thorough-
fare Guide Plan made in response to City Council direction; and proposed changes to
the Land Use Guide Plan which reflected not only the proposed Thoroughfare Guide Plan
changes, but also the ownership situation.
0
I*
Planning f. sion Meeting --4- August 15, 1979
Commissioner Barron recalled that at the last extensive hearing on this matter,
Munsingwear representatives had indicateu they could support the road :'*ignment
on "Sketch R"} whereas it seemed that at this meeting the Munsingwear representa-
tives were saying they were not in favor of that road alignment. Commissioner
Barron stated that the matter of proper compensation for road right-of-way was
not one which could be Pesolved through Land Use decision.
Mr. Brauer responded that his client was not objecting to the Thoroughfare Guide
Plan changes, but wanted to make it very clear that Munsingwear believes a signi-
ficant property value loss will be realized and that the type of zoning applied
to the land may be deemed compensation for some of that loss.
Chairman Schneider closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Threinen, to act on this
petition at this meeting.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0-0 All in favor
The meeting recessed at 9.20 p.m. and resumed at 9.30 p.m4
MOTION by Comt.A- goner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Barron, to make the
following recommendation to the City Council.
That the Thoroughfare Guide Plan amendment and road alignment relative to
County Road 61 and to Xenium Lane/26th Avenue North north of Highway 55 be
approved as represented on Sketch Plan "R" as contained in the J!Jly 25,
is 1979 report from McCombs Knutson Associates.
Commissioner Threinen stated it was the intent to separate the Thoroughfare issue
front the Land Use Guide issue and that the motion recognized the proposal to be
responsive to the City Council's January 8, 1979 directions; and further, recognized
the observations of the City Engineer that the consideration at this time involved
County Road 61 and the Xenium Lane/26th Avenue North roads only.
MOTION CARRIED 6_0-0 All in favor
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Wire, t6 defer the Land
Use Guide Plan amendments as proposed in the July 25, 1979 report from McCombs -
Knutson Associates with the direction that the amount of LA -4 land not be reduced.
Commissioner Threinen cited the original basis for the existing guiding; the
significance of the location of County Road 61, and the adopted City goals to
provide suitable housing and environment and to promote economic vitality for
the community. He stated there had been some erosion of the amount of LA -4 land
in the City already,, and that there was aserious concern with the provision for
housing needs in the community. He stated that as to buffering the freeway, this
could be done by design and thus LA -4 land adjacent to the freeway was appropriate..
Commissioner Threinen also stated that the elimination of the LA -2 guided area of
appro.im telt' three acres was negligible since that area was within the flood plain.
Chairman Schneider stated concern that deferral of the item would represent further
delay for the landowner.
I*
Planning Commission Meeting --5K August 15, 1975
MOTION .by Conissiover Wire to apply the following direction insofar as Land Use
guiding is concerned.
That the "SJH" property be guided IP; that the Munsingwear property :be left
zoned I-1 in its entirety.
Motion faileC for lack of a second.
Further discussion ensued regarding the balance of the various Land Use Guiding
Districts..
MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded. by Commissioner Threinen to amend the
Main Motion with the addition of Item 2
No additional land uses shall be included other than LA -4, CL, and IP.,
W. Dick Knutson stated that the petitioner would prefer no deferral and suggested.
action one way or another so that the matter could be Drought to the City Council's
attention.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Barron, to
make the following recommendation to the City Council;
That the amendments to the Land Use Guide Plan, as contained in the duly 25,
1979 report from McCombs -Knutson Associates, be approved subject to the fol-
lowing conditions:
1. That the area shown as LA -4 be extended to the south so that the total
amount guided LA -4 remains at 50 acres;
2. That the recommendation is based upon approval by the City, rouncil of
the approved amendments to the Thoroughfare Guide Plan .fie, bis area.
Commissioner Threinen stated it was the intent of Item I to assure that the amount
of LA -4 land remained the same;, recognizing the design of the guided area might
change from the existing layout.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0-0 All in favor
Curtis Martin (79051) Variance for Lot Consolidation
Staff introduced'tk7e item and reviewed the staff report of August 10, 1979 regarding
the consolidation of two substandard lots into a substandard lot in the northeast
quadrant of South Shore Drive and.. Peninsula Road directly north of the Apple Blossom
Inn tavern.
Commissioner Threinen recalled that, in addition to the 1572 rezoning attempt in
this area (A-399), there had been at least one proposal before the Board of Zoning
Adjustment some years aqo to build a single family home in this area. Commissioner
Threineii also voted that observation of the area indicated a substantial number of
vehicles related to existing dwellings in this area which use the ,ervice drive.
Planning Commission Meeting -5- August 15, 1979
Chairman Schneider recognized the petitioner who stated he agreed with staff observa-
tion that the life of the taverin was probably limited due to the physical condition
of the building, but that he diel not own the Apple Blossom Inn land and that the
Owner of the land was not interested in selling it; at this time.
Dennis Otteson, the prospective builder, stated he supported the request and cited
smaller lots in lakeshore areas in the Metropolitan area.
Substantial discussion ensued as to the planning concerns in this area considering
the non -conforming use of the Apple Blossom Inn and the potential for larger lots
at such time that that property becomes developable with a conforming use.,
Concerns were noted as to proper turn -around at the: east end of the service drive
In front of this property.
MOTION by Commissioner lire, seconded by Commissioner Barron, to make the following
recotr"nendati ort to the City Council
That the request of Curtis Martin for subdivision variances to permit the
consolidation of Lots 7 and 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 355, in the north-
east Quadrant of South Shore Drive and Peninsula Road be approved subject
to the following conditions:
I. Compliance with the City Engineers memorandum
2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied;
3. A six foot high opaque fence shall be erected along the entire south
property line to provide screening from the adjacent non -conforming
commercial use; said, fence shall include six by six inch posts at
least 10 foot on center;
4. Compliance with City Council Policy Resolution No. 79--80 regarding
minimum floor elevations for new structures on sites adjacent to or
containing open storm water drainage facilities.
MOTION FAILED 3-3-0, Commissioners Larson, Schneider
and Threinen opposed
CoIrnissiorer lreinen stated that the requested variances indicate the proposed lot
to be substandard in all respects and City water is not available to the property.
Chairman Scheider concurred with respect oto the substantial variances.
Commissioner Barron stated he supported the motion because the existing lots alone
are not usable and the consolidation represented an improvement to that situation.
Variance to Permit Lot
David Olsen {79059} Consolidation and Division
Staff intr000ced the item and reviewed the August 10, 1979 report regarding the
proposed consolidation and division ff platted lots between Medicine Lake and.
South Shore Wale west of Bassett Creek. Staff explained that the petitioner
proposes to consolidate three platted lots together with a vacated street right
ol'-tgay and to divide the resulting property into three new. lots
Planning Comiission me<tiq 7- August 15, 1979
Staff noted that the petitioner also owns, and shows on the submitted survey, the
platted lot on the west gide of the property and the platted lot on the east side.
of the property*
Staff noted further concerns regarding the dilapidated structures on the west por-
tion of the property and the two single family dwellings on one lot on the east
Portion of the nroperty.
Chairman Schneider recognized Kr, Rolf Nelson who represented the petitioner and
who explained the pro!,nsal. He ;stated the petitioner's faiilily had owned the property
for fifty years and that at -time there was a commercial use of the area in the
old boat house. He stated it was the petitioner's intent to upgrade the area and
was not one, of lay.d speculation.
Mr. Nels:)n continued th-t-t- considering the lot widths existing throughout this area
and the age of this existing plat, the proposal was an improvement, although it did
not fully comply with the existing ordinance.
lie stated it was the petitioner's desire to spread the land area of the vacated
street throughout the three lots and it was the petitioner's belief toere was a
unique, situation involved primarily due to the Lakeshore frontage.
1-. Nelson explained th t with regard to the east parcel containing the two single
family dwellings, this property had been purchased as is by the petitioner several
years ago and that both dwellings were rented.
He finally explained that the petitioner's intent regarding the west parcel con-
taining the dilapidated structure was to upgrade an reiinovate it within codes if
at all possible.
Extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Threinen inquired whether some ad-
justments could not be made to the propose,layout to resolve the problem on
Parcel V containing the two single family homes. Several possibilitie were
discussed including an easement along the east side of "Parcel V to assure at
least that there would be access to the rear of "Parcel V. The petitioner,
Mr. Olsen; stated that one dwelling had been built as a guest house only and
that it was not his intention to seek a division of that parcel but rather to
rent both dwellings on a single parcel.
Further discus.;Ion ensued regarding the need to demolish or remove the dilapidated
structures if they could not be rennovated within code.
MOTION by Commissioner Vasil lou, seconded by Commissioner Wire, to make the
following recommendation to 'the City Council-,
That the request of David Olsen for subdivision variances to permit the
consolidation and division of property described as Lots 13 and 14, Block 1,
and Lot 1, Block 2, Medicine Lake Park First Division, and vacated Columbia
Avenue south of Medicine Lake adjacent .to South Shore Drive and west of
Bassett Creek be approved subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting -8- August 15, 1979
1. Compliance with the Engineer's memorandum;
2. No vaHances are granted or implied as to yard setbacks for
structures on the proposed lots,,
Dilapidated structures on "Parcel A" and "Parcel 8`" should be
rennovated or removed in accordance with City codes and a per-
formance bond assuring the same shall be submitted prior to filing;
4. Compliance with City Council Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding
minimum floor elevations for structures in subdivisions or on sites
adjacent to or containing open storm eater drainage facilities,
8. Payment of park dedication fees in lieu of dedication for each of
the new created lots in accordance with City Park Dedication Policy
in effect at the time of filing.
6. Provision for necessary utility and drainage easements as approved
by the City Engineer- prior to fi'1 ince.
Mr. Nelsen question!cd the requirement for park dedication fees and Chairman
Schneider explained that City policy is applied 'to all new divisions of land
that have not been subject to park dedication or payment of fees in lieu of
dedication previously.
Commissioner Threinen noted concern that no City water is available in this area;
staff commented that building permits would not he issued until the owner had pro-
vided evidence of a potable water supply. Staff also commented that City water is
not available to any of the properties along South Shore Drive west of Bassett Creek."
MOTION CARRIED 6-0-0 All in favor
Chairman Schneider adjourned the meeting at 1.1:30 p.m.