Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-27-1988CITY OF PLY14O Tt t PL4rkNHTNC CO ISSION MTNU.TFS i APRIL 27, 1988 til Regular i €?e t nC t3 V V , P y au; , t # 0 called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRMS.'t4T: Charman Pauba, Commissioners Wire, j Stulber ,. Zylla, Marof%ky and Tierney ME"BEERS ABSENT Commissiz tter Plufka STAFF PRESENT-. Community Development Wreotor Stair Tremere Assistant City Fn4ineer John Sweeney Public Yorks Director Vied Moore Communit*- Development tooreinator Chuck Dillerud CNk.iTFS Chairman, Pauba and the Commission deferred action on: the K nuts for April 13, 1988 until later in the Meeting. Director Tremer-e introduced Community Development Coordina- tor Chuck tai..lerud, PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Pauba called for a review of the April :i t 1988 PATRTC GOOF staffreport. Director Tremere explained the purpose of the GOFF` Htt S T +CM hearing and, that the City Council had approved the Rezoni.nq SITE PLM AND and Preilminary Plat for this property in February., COMITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR, "FERHOROOK Commissioner Marof sky inquired about the availability of KANOWI (880159) sewer ii -t the arca. Assistant Engineer Sweeney explained the constraints, and the location of the Sewer District.. . The east portion of the property would be very difficult to serves Chairman Pauba opened the Public Hearing, Randy Mord-, 4420 Marbor Lane North. Mr. (lord :stated he was speaking as President of the Kingsv ew= H'eights Homeow iers Association. He reiterated ; the concern a of many of the neighbors who spoke at the ReZoning a.nd 'Preliminary Plat hearing,. e, stated concerns focused on property value -,.i acid the Impact of the proposed development: He state.i the neighbors had met with the petitioner and had identiSed concerns in a ,letter to which they had: nc received a formal response,. He inquired whether the., vernal, assurances, from, the developer to them still had: standing. He said that transition is critical and the Association fee -is that the City ;should require owner occupancy of the proposed, units, Page 94 planning Com i.ssiort Jljnutes April. 27, Patrick Cuff, ptitit toner, stated tl,at he agrees IYUb mast, of the items in the letter referenced by the Homeowners Asso(} anon, Chairman Pauba closed the Public Baer ng. Commissioner Zy.11a expressed concern about proposed Condition Ne, 6 regardinq the variance from Fire Code requirements for fire lanes and the Fire Inspectorl5 March 30, 1988 memorandum,, He. stated the requirement to sprinkler owner -occupied units was "ludicrous" and he felt the matter should be brought to the ..City CounclAPs attention. He stated hc• dial not see a iy purpose in the requiretrr,""I and that it: Nas not real istlc,. lie questioned whether the City Code Fare Lane requi.rMeLLS were reasonable as well. Director Tremere explained the City Fire, Code re ji.rements and that the sprinkler 'requirement was ar optioa available to the petitioner in -lieu of the required fire lanes. He exxplai'°ied that, the City 'Council had recently reviewed amend - meats to the City Code r ega-r ding sprinkler requirements and that the Public SafetyDepartment had conducted t. .-ensive research about the need for such systems-. Fire Codd! vari- ances are reserved for City Council action because the Cour<11 is the 6o4rd of Appeals or Fire Code matters; the information about the requested variance- is provided as a F matter of information to the Pl.anainq Commission Con nlssio er Zyi.la 'stated that he appreciated the matter of Jurisdictionon but that he intended to raise the matter with the City Council as a matter of policy, Commissioner Marofsky s.tated there should be delineation between the proposed east common area and the City parte he stated he was concerned with potential liability and the need to provide demarcation of the boundaries. PIQTrtaN by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner "OTION TO APPROVE Swlbetq to recommend approval of the applicatior, by Patrick Goff -Homes, subject to the ten conditions lst ^d in the April 18, 1988 staff report.` MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky to amend the I -lain Motion by adding an 11th con i.t iGn as follows. Tt* east Qommon area shall be delineated from, the puvlic park area with fencing or signage or shrubbery) so to effectively indicate the boundary. MOTION died for lack of second. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes,; Commissioner Marofsky, Nay. MOTION YORE M MOTION CARRIED carried. Page 95 Planainq Commission 141T,,tutes April 27, 1985 Commissioner Marofskv c-1 rifled hs vote, noting ttaat he was concerned rtIth the proximity of the two buildings near Fern - brook Lane, as well as the need to betterdelineate the public park from the common open space. Commissioner Zylla reiterated his disagreeme>tt with the philosophy of the City Cod., regarding fire .lanes. Chairman Pduba called for a review of the April 18, 1988 ACUS DEVELOPMENT staff report by Di r ettor Tremere. The petition includes a LAND USE GUIDE PLS housekeeping item directed by the City Council & egard ng the fTs REZONING adjacent. so-called "Larson Automotive" property. Also, the PRELIMIRCZY PLAT staff report cover page indicatt,!s the current Culde Plan FINAL PLATO SICTE Classification and -Zoning. The City Council did approve a PLAN AND VARIANCE requidinc which was. conditlona,lized on the implementation; of 88022) , the proposed plans. The submitted plans wi11ch are subject to review at this stage, have been reviewed in terms of proposed zoning, based on the approved new quiiding, Commiss loner Marofsky suggested that Condition fro. 11 of Resolution leo., 87{ a be carried forward to the proposed Resolution regarding the Larson Automotive property, That condition stipulates when the Development Contract` should be executed and bdildinq permits issued. Chairman Pauba' recogrri v},& t=rare:' Senn, petitioner, who reyie ed the application. stated trta.t approval was not sought at this time for proposed Lot 1, Klock 2. That would be subject, to future Site, Plan approval wh a the peoperty is cleared and ready for re -development. He rev`: ewed the requested variances, stating they were .. eeded Cue to ori t i- cal location considerate -loos for the buildinq aftd to- cosi actor He stated that the eooxzomles of the 0evelogment Avere such than: the proposed building was (,ssentl al'to the success of the develop`-aeot: Mr. Senn also referred to the Engineer's Memorandu,) Mem 27 C.) and indicated that grey desired to retain in entrance from West Medicine Lake Road, contrary to the recommendation He also stated concern with tie second item unc°er Cond"tlon 4o. 9 of theproposed Resol.'ut,.en regarding re rovu.l of 411 existing structures prior to the .issuance, of building per nits. He suggested that this be tied to the issuancu of are Occupancy Permittit acrd not to the issuance of -a building permit. David Davenport, attorney for the pot,i loner, stated that the petitioner ' could r.desirtn -the site to eliminate the variances, but thatti4 petitioner's tiringsry tight. p:lannina Commission Minutes April 27t 198 i He stated that the options included Eliminate both side yard setback var.ianc.-s as suggested f eliminate one of the variances, either one of which would require an. adjustment of the number of parking spaces since the build - would i,ltd- would have to be moved; or, reduce the buildinq size which is not economically feasible Mr., Davenport cited a number of factors which should be taken into account. including, the expense df constructing the frontage roads the upgrading of West Medicine Lake Drive and Highway SS intersectioat, arid, the direction that a diffet-en- tial be paid with respect to sower and water area charges because of the chance in the Land Use jrdidinq. He stated that the original building had been: larder than that now proposed and that the petitioner is committed to develcpi.nc a major design statement at this f.,itersectaon. He also stated that the inclusion of the Larsen Automotive property was undertaken at the direction of the City Council and had proven to be very costty. He stated than the etitianer recounizes many of these items wer.! economic considerations' he stated that there are also site condi+ti.ons which warrant varidneess The wetland caracteristics and the area road layout, Mr. Davenport further discussed the rationale for setbacks and for the proposed var iances. lie noted the pet it;i mer' narrative and the description of the proim ,t,y of neighbor- inq buildings, He stated the site sloes provide effective transition. He stated the topography of the site represented a hardship beoause of the constraints it placed on this type of development. He also explained that the 'variance di.mensior was about 7 ft rather than the 5 ft., indicated in the staff report. Mr*, Davenport commented on the concerns expressed by the peti.tllonor' with the taming for the removal of ` existing buildings. He stated that it should be a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy and the petitioner ` would be pre- pared to provide the accessary legal assurances th,a* ghat would occur, Chairman Pauba inquired as to Oe prospective tenancies and Mr. Senn stated that they were firming up a number of tenants but he was not prepared to. indicate specific ones at this time, CX issioner Marofsky noted that3. Condition No. 12 of Resolu- tion No. 87-555X55 called for the uppradi,nq of the Larson Auto- motive property ars part of this development and that the petitioner .seemed to be i idicatfing that that worts would ba aqe 7 Planning Commiss-*on Minutes April V, 198q deferred until some future date when the Larson Automotive site was actually built Capon. If this is acceptable., it shouldbe specii icaliy carried forward with the Ovelopment approval Commissioner Wire inquired as to the color and ,exterior finish of the proposed bulldinq$ noting, that there were no graphigs that detailed that Mr. Senn responded that they were not sure at this time what the color scheme would be; he st ted they were not that far along to address it Discussion ensued regarding exterior ligntinq and the Ordinance standards with respect to glare. Comnl sioner Zylla inquired about traffic He asked whether the service road was a City street or a'` highway property and, he wondered why the developer had to pay: for. the Improvements of the sere +oe roar+. Public Works Director Moore responded and explained the City policy` and the ownership of the service road Commissioner Zylla. inquired as to why 'the City and/or the 1laway Department would want to close the curb out onto Highway 55 and, whether it Gould be required. Public Works Director Moore stated the City could' require this since i is a private driveb not a public- access. He explained the traffic safety ,reasons fur doing that either' now or to the ttuLej especially as the area developed with businesses, such as this: Commissioner Zylla noted the petition: which had been received at the meeting from neighboring businesses. Direc- tor rec- for Tremer noted :the persons who. had signed the petition and et ition 1d the location of the businesses with respect to, this property and the access onto Highway 55. Commissioner Zylla inquircd whether the City .should consider ba,vinq this reviewed by a traffic consultant- Public Works Director Macre` indicated that the project was reviewed by the Cis traffic co,45dltant: He stated the problems that were cited could be resp}l,ved with the .recommended' improvements. Commissioner Zylla inquired whether Miers was any City inancial. assistance involved with this proje .t, such as lax Increment Financing. Uir eu or Tremere responded there was none. Page 9 Pl:anninq Commission flinutes April 71 19" Chairman Pauba opened the Public Hearing,, He explained that I Altion hack bef)tn °co ved from neicthborinq business i.iterests, regarding the rec,)mmended closure of the orive aoceLs onto Highway 55 x He also, rioted that a letter had been received from a Rlohard`Edwards. Richard Edwards , 112a5 l th Avenue Horth, #81 stated that h wrote the, letter and he reiterated . his concerns with the impact upon the wetlands and the wildlife. He stated this prof t would have a grave ne€tative impact. He stated he has lived In the area for about two years and he is i.mpres- sel wz t;.h the account of ; wildlife, that has taken refuge in this wooded area. Chairman Pauha stated that the option of no. development would be only possible' if the City orsome other puha,%c agency were to buy all the lana and that that was not feasible. El izabe th 11orns, 2099 Peninsula Rd . , ` Medicine Lake, stated that she owns an apartment complex north of the sit te. She disagrees with any variances -from the yard' setback standards and especially ones that would allow a larger development beyond the City requirements. She stated she was concerned with the increased traffic ,in the area and noted that many of her tenants were concerned, :the stated that the inten, ity of the development was greater than the area could sup- port dnd that reconsidez ation should, be given to the size of the project, Her primary concern was proper transition and; the impact upon the neighborhood Erwin Strobbe, 11215 12th Avenkie Porth, stated that he was in favor of the development and would even favor some access from the north which would tend to brinq more traffio past the apartment, which could be stood for his business. He stated he owned an apartment complex north of the project as well; and that the uses proposed would be proper for the art: Alard Wheeler, ,11331; Highway 55, stated that: he wanted to clarify the scope of the future improvements a;, the area because he was concerned with traffic circulation problems today and In the f i* ure A brief discu,sion > ensued regarding the ;proposed ;upgrading of t -he Intersection and the frontage marl. Harvey chzebe, i 5 Goldenr;d lanes stated that he hard submitted the petition from some of the area businesses and that he owned the "Wheel Center'; shoppinq center to the cast of this propprty.t He said that businesses In the area were eonsµrued -boutcirculation prpbler^s and that access onto Highway 55'` was critical. 4 s aqe 99 Pla,Jiinq Commission Minutes April 27, 1788 Chairman Pauba closed the Public Hearing. k ire for Tremere stated that a summary of the, issues at this. point included the t minq for removal of the buildings; whether there should bt 4 private drie access onto Medicine Lake Drive} arid, the yard setback variances. KITION by Commissioner Mardfsky seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Wire, to recommeno approval of the Land Use Guide Plan RECt 'IDIK, A,mendmo-t, adding the following condition: The Development Contract shall, he executed and the building permit_ shall be issued with all, fees paid prior to, September 19. 1988, o this Resolution will be void and the requidjnq wi..11 not t,II,e place Fv*-ther, there shall _beno extension of this deadline,_ D scu cion` ensued regarding the added condition and Commis- sioner Zvlla a --ked .,Yhether the September 1, 1088 deadline was too short, Mr: Sean stated that it was no.t and that they plan to be underway with the development by that date Di rein -.tor Tremere clarified, however, that the condition was being placed on the requi.din of the Larson Automotive property which now Yr 'ul.d' be considered part of the overall development. Mr. Senn Reiterated that he had no problem with the condition. . Roll Call. Vote 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. , VOTE -- MOTION r.ARRI MOTION by, Commissioner Wire, seconded by > Commissioner NICO Ib 1, 11101PROVE Marofsky to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat a}id PPZt-11M11 V PLAT the Vezoninq for the land 1!,vol,inq the prop sed "Plymouth RE 6471 G Peiat" development, subject to the eight condi:tiegs as listed ire the staff recommendations and subject to the zon- ing be "nditi ned upon the effectuatldn of the approved. Land Use Guide Plan classifications.. Roll Call': Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED. Comi.s :ioner Maro sky discussed. with Mr. Senn the degree of the rear yard var a.nc-... It. was verified that it is 7 ft. and not 5'' ft. Extensive diseussio.n ensued reclarding the Site Flans and Chairman,Pauba polled the rommi.ssioners as to whether either or any of the variances were appropriate. MOTION by, Commissioner Wise, seconded by Commissioner Zylla M01ION TO APPROVE to recommend approval of, Ute Site Plan and Varianc` for Lot SITE PL44 ANO 1Lock 1, of Plymouth Point, for Marcus Development VARIANCE . ecd - Corporation, sub eot to the conditions the staff recom- menda ion with, the following excepticeN tr The seoond itemmendation ender. Condition No. 9 should tae the rel, val of existinq a April-981 WU tur s to ssua the lea te of uu a Per:: approved by the, City AttOrnPYi InQluolnq' the placement a v rva t on the Project to assure the impjementatiota; opproved variancefor the side yard only a t s d, and no, rear yard variance approved; e build- jhg, hall be redesiqt" the extent n ssa k l m nat . t ft variance- -0 its shall be earried, f orward cell,ativ to the u c ,Idi ;1, Lot t su) t t furtherreview and approval, u a separate Site, Plana. Dis ussi t: Onsued regarding the recommendatidn, ' and , Mr. Davenport and 14r 'I'Bene concurred that the building could be r daslod to eliminate the rear yard 'setback varianee, with impacting the required, arkinQ for the development* Mr. Berm asked whether, the detailed Site- Plans 'could b revised C l. action- Director r m re resounded in tete affirmative. dIt Call Vote. 6 Ayes,, MOTIOR carried. UDVOTEVT 'CARR rmy auba wa ved the r ad*,n of the ri 1,1+1 '1988 DIAL NO Cha staff` report. COWITXORAL USE He r a n d r. Nord, ' wrto ;ox al ud his request d utd was for purpose y# sr'+ ingt yt ,}[} ad.'` t}there h .r' elop =lent that r, h * . lu 4R ff.`s Autw j $, ". Mr. Nord stated tie u durstoo(I the concerns expressed in the t auruao lrS.i. report but that felt to sPeC meat proposed would riot compromi,t,.e the development ur set An undesirable precedent, sa i tj he had examined alt v a iv s and that they were not feasible for this u r r l l a t h, is area a rma t Pauba iiut< d that there were a number o -car ar aqees In the area which were apparently, tly, designed and built with the original home$ brief W oussion ensued reqerdiog possible alternatives such s eon t- uctinf, a detached Garage { airman Pauba geed t e Pu ll Hear uq- and, oon deter- lnI. q that o one was present to s a ,. c u d t ar o ss o eltulber res- sed concerns, about s tabl is l q sedapreodet Vithjn the PUD which was based u un certain- parameters speCial " dent whichcould Impact. g future pr sod flee s. orot es and house adds do sa ae.0 annin 'C cbtu April 27, 19S_8 In further discus 1, ,, it was n t:-(' that:, the ` 10 ft* sides yard setback represents r duct n From she City's normal standard s( a a d ` ' s e i " to plan would,not, apply thruu huut the development as, a variation of the side yard setback" MOTION by Ctha rmon Pauba s u d d by Commissioner tuI er X)TION, TO DENY r nd denial of the Condit"Ma type e rmit Amendment aferealsonssed *1 draft, eq s t RandallNord, for the r h j_TS F ie oomme }ANS& .'x n < Roll Call 10 to. 6 Ayes. MOTION oarried OLD 13USIRESS Cha Irman Pattba -1s ° for a rev lew of the March '1986 OWLEY 110 staffreport and th _- r i ] , 1988 Memorandum. i r tor REVISED SIT r m r ax .a n d that t petitioner had not been r pr l- WETTO t s nt at the first meat .n and the C m IS, had dei gradd Y. the item to this meeting, He also noted that, In, response to an nus'Co Iss un bar 's ,. 't had r 1 d that the Commission would n ,effect belactinq upon r v sad Site Plan in udin the feta for a n s ru ural` additionAn the fors of . parkim. ramp., The'petitioner, has submltt+d plans showlaq the prof 11e Of such an addWon if it, n c,ssary. fi rman 'at1 a r niz d r bra« ley n.t, who a her explained the propos it and stated they did riot expec to have to build the ramp but were prepared to show 1- x5ss n MF S 'ty* : SY 1i titiAwner whet R.Ae h ?uX{ stood and agreed to proposed Condition No. 81. Mr. . Hoyt responded in the a firmative* Et nsi d ,scuss.Aun ensued and Director Tremere x lain d the recent City counall action r gardInq another developer w'ho hadqua dthat reuirme t r i ss s n r ar f sky';stated It eras important fur the petitioner to realize that a ramp could be required at any t me erased, u n the detarminat un that a ar ink arobm exi std 40 t sta ndinq the speoift erg nta e Of the udq data to cit sppace, r* utatd ads stood that but felt lul ramp would never )e fteeded as a practical matt r4 He stated that as a matter of tokunomie' s, it, wou d even e questionable whether it was worth reta nin 1n fact,a parking ramp- were needed . the building Jfir rtur rme r xaand that as a mattrK o nurment g r ad ar probtzni could a resolved ire zany ay$ before the remedy o f a rimp, was n ad d Page 102 Planting Commission t~* inutse April 27,. 198 r c ea t l. 5 r, se f -e airing thei'explained th4. City u f'i'i,.JG T' pu p, .,{ ..;. covenant was to flag that possibility for future owners. MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded ,by Commil sioner MOTION To APPRWVE tulberg, to recommend approval of the Conditional. Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment for 3radley Hoyt, subject to the eight conditions listed in the draft recommendatim Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carred. VIE - MOTION. CARRIED WROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Zyl la, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Marofsky, to approve the Minutes of the April 13, 10.88 meet- Ing, noting two grammatical. chanqes. Vote. A Ayes* MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED OTHER BUSINESS' Director Tremere distributed additional. information ` from Barton-Aschman Associates regarding the C;Ltv's parking standards and the study they made of those standards. He stated the Commission had dirpcted the pkeptiration of additional: information based upon the City's standards and this would 4,e available at the next meeting, Fxtens,ive discussion ensued about the appropriateness of reducing City) parking standards when there did not appear to be a pressing problem :other than the desire of property owners and developers to increase the amount of buildable l.artd. Coimii,ssioner Wire stated he was particularly concerned that: evidence might seem to indicate today that: a particular shopping center and:d its tenant mix did not need as many spaces, however, the zoning such as 8-3, might allow more intense uses that would oenerate a higher level, of parking in the future for 'the asama shopping facility. He stated the City Ordinance must anticipate that event. Commissioner Marofs_ky noted that: there is a significant degree of overlap in the Zoning Ordinance between zhe 8 - and 8--3 Districts and thus, it is diffi.cvlt to explain why the current Ordinance parking standards require one level for shoppa nq centers in the 8-2- District;` and another ,lovel, for virtually the same development: in the R-3 District,., Director Tremer noted that the study indicates the need to clarify the City standards, al.tho`igh it does not suggest that the City must reduce its standards. r