Loading...
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.