Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-79 CITY OF LAKEVILLE s° • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MaY 3, 1979 Council Bldg • Answering roll call when Ch. Asmus called for order were PC members: Asmus, C. Johnson, Enright, and Antolik. .Member M. Geisness came within a short while. Present, also, were Attorney Knutson, Planner Ryan, Engineer Burg, and Administrator. McGarvey. Two Council members, Curry and Spande, were in the audience. Between 35 and 50 interested people made up an audience for the public hearings this evening. 79.53 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Johnson, to approve the minutes of the meeting held April 19, 1979• Voting aye: Johnson, Enright, Antolik, and Asmus. Attorney testified to the effect that proper notification had been made to justify the legality of the public hearing on the proposed Aevelopment/Framework Plan for the City of Lakeville. A presentation of past history, suggested changes, thoughts on projected zoning, etc., was made by Planner Ryan. In reference to the zoning map proposal, S. Ryan said, "the zoning map is part of the zoning text", and we are "trying to show a thrust, not drawn down to a property line". He further said that the City of Lake- ville consists of 38 square miles--about 13 of those square miles is what is developed today. Maps and graphs.-used by S. Ryan in his presentation were (1) proposed zoning map, (2} planning map, which showed reduced land use designations, . (3) planning districts, generalized land uses, (5) the proposal for the approx- imate northern 2 of the I-35 corridor, regarding "noise" solutions, (6) land-use for the "downtown" area, and, (7) existing zoning of year 1976.. Following the presentation, Planner Ryan asked for COiCBrients from the audience. First to speak was T. tdurst, an attorney, representing the owners of 2D acres of land just to the NE of the interchange of Z-35 and Hwy 50. (The owners are the Mills family who develop Mills Fleet Farm Stores.) Mr. Wurst said the property had been zoned B-~F, general business,. when purchased. Now the zoning has become B-3, with. proposed zoning change. They would like the zoning to remain B-~+. Gerald Frisch, representing Alvin Melba, owner of the Texaco Station, Hwy 50 and I-35w, expressed the thought that B-~+ zoning was to their best interests, in a freeway area. Douglas James, of James Refrigeration, owners of the "Tom. Thumb Shopping Center" near I-35W, on Hwy 50, said the only renter he has in his building, presently, that would comply with the requirements of the zoning change, would be the Lakeville Off-Sale Liquor Store. He has another tenant who wishes to locate here, as well, who would not conform with the requirements, either. He also wished to know if the taxes would be lowered because of the down-grading of his property .values if the planned re-zoning takes affect? Attorney Knutson answered that the City does not control these matters and it would have to be taken up with the County officials. Bill Stewart next spoke, saying he is a member of a development company which purchased 33 acres at the junction of Hwy 6~+ and I-35W in 1973. At that time the zoning was B-4. Now it is proposed to be R 1 (residential). It does not fit their plans for the property. He expressed the thought that"dollars are flowing by on the freeway that could be pulled into Lakeville". (1) Planning Commission 5~3I79 (2) Planning Cession 5/3/79 Atty Glenn Nord spok~referrin~ to what is known as "Downtown Lakeville"--a smaller strip of land that is occupied, mainly, by single-family homes, with a few apartment houses. He has his home in the area. He used a small rnap he had • colored to represent the lots affected, to illustrate his presentation.. He said there were 11 immediate affected property owners, and another 10 to 15 owners with abutting property. "This land has been developed, and has been for many years.. Improvements have been made, solely of a residential nature", he stated. He further suggested that each area, where there is a change, should have some sort of written notice sent to the property owners, and hear all sides of an issue before any change is made. Mr. Nord then asked that letters he had brought with him from his neighbors, be put on file. Phil Pophen asked. about any long-range plans for a bridge over 35W at 173rd Street? S. Ryan replied that this plan does recognize that a bridge has been an issue for some time, however the State is not programming any money in this direction pres- ently. It might be that the City might well ask for such an interchange, was his expression. Whereupon Mr. Pophen said, "zoning on the west side of the road would have to be changed". Ms. Cecelia Mahoney, owner of a farm near the Mills property, asked what is proposed for the Mahoney property'? The answer was, R 1. She then asked what distance from the freeway this designation would apply? She was told that it could be up to approximately 500 feet. Bob Fors asked, where in the City of Lakeville, could you then locate a large grocery store, for example? He was shown. an 80-acre piece north of Hwy 50, north of the present downtown area. T. Wurst then asked what could be located in a B~+ zoning? This was a general • business area. Mr. McGarvey answered, .too, that there are 29 uses in a B 2 zoning plan. l~,r. Frisch expressed the thought that the. plan .proposals showed everything for residential areas and that business' interests should be more inclusive. Mr. Daniel Kehren, interested in property north of 165th Street, east of 35~~ asked about the term of "high residential"' term of zoning used to describe this property designation. 10 units per acre, was the reply. "Business transition" is a term that applies to this property, as well. G. Nord asked if there were any contemplated changes in the zoning of the Chart House area? He was told. that the zoning stays the same--R 1. Ron Eeklein, owner of 23 acres east of 35-W, asked about the zoning proposed for his property? It is proposed RB--residential.. He asked if the Commission was aware of the possible extention of 185th Street? The answer was that it is proposed in the plan. Don Johnson, representing Chas. F. Freidheim properties, asked about the zoning of a gravel company? He was answered-that since gravel companies could be con- sidered, really, as a temporary use, it could well be handled as a conditional use. Kevin Mahowald asked if specific property owners could receive a notification of these meetings? Mr. Asmus said such a notification would be a momentous task. A publication is made of each meeting and hearing in the official newspaper .and the public is asked to read the notices. Pat Harvey, in the audience, stated "watching the paper really works". D. Kehren stated, "when you down-zone, or re-estimate, property, you depreciate values". (2) Planning Commission 5/3/79 (3) Planning Co~sion 5/379 Attorney Knutson reed that such a situation "does n©t create any liability to the City". 79.5+ Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Johnson, that the public hearing on • the proposed Development Framework?Policy Plan for the City of Lakeville be continued until the next meeting, May 17, 1979• Voting aye were Enright, Antolik, Asmus, and Johnson. The public hearing on the application of Niakwa, Inc. for a preliminary plat- . PUD approval for Niakwa Village, location in the Valley Park area, was the next item on the agenda. It began upon R. Knutson stating that such a public hearing had been legally publicized. Bruce Patterson gave a short history of the area and its contemplated development with references to the existing Townhouses of Shannon, which Niakwa Village would surround on three sides., north, east, and south. He said that from the number of townhouses that Vern Donnay had proposed, Niakwa has lessened the figure, drastically, to 6.6 units per acre, condominiums. They are proposing h+0 units, total, in 35 buildings, at the present time. In the NE area of the proposal is an 80' x 300' piece of land that will be designated for children's activity. Upon being asked, Mr. Patterson said that no basic areas will be held in common. Desires to build fences, plant trees, etc., will have to be approved by the homeowners' association. Parking was a concern of the Commission, also the parking of recreational vehicles. Mr. Patterson said the homeowners' assn. prevents outside storage of such articles. He was asked when such an association is established? The reply was, at the time • of the final platting. The developers' responsibility would be tree plantings, landscaping, and things of that nature. Ron Kausak, one of the directors of the Townhouses of Shannon:Homeowners' Assn,, said there were three concerns very Important t0 residents here. They were (1) parking, (2) playground for children, and (3) the hill located in the NE part of Shannon, SE part of Niakwa, equally between them, approximately. Talhen cars are parked, particularly in the SW corner of Shannon, no matter if parallel or vertical, behind their garages, no other vehicle can go up the street, whether it be another car, or an emergency vehicle. What happens to the topsoil of the manmade hill on the boundary of the two additions? The other consideration was, what will be provided for children's recreation? There is nothing in Shannon. Ch. Asmus suggested the .Shannon Homeowners' Assn. and the developers of Niakwa meet and discuss these problems. Lance Nye, representing Niakwa developers, while willing to meet with Shannon residents, was concerned about any further time elapse. Engineer Burg asked about the exchanging of easements? Mr. Patterson said this would be so, there are common interests. Mrs. Jean Bryant, resident of Shannon, wanted to know more about the privacy fences. They will be in height, made of wood, with landscaping between the sections of fence. Gene Smith asked if it was their idea, (in connection with the fences}, to keep all the children confined? Mr. Patterson sand that in another similar development, New Horizons, residents are asking that children's play equipment be removed, because it just isn't used. Dennis Bryant said he believes this is a higher density area than New Horizons. (3) Planning Commission 5/3/79 • (4) Planning~ission 5/3/79 ? r Mr. Bryant further said that his dwelling in Shannon receives heat from the sun. He wanted to know if the Niakwa proposed building would block-out this source in the wintertime? "Not probable"~ was the reply. then the Planner was asked if he had any further conerns with Niakwa planning, he said he still had some questions regarding landscaping, primarily, but nothing that couldn't be worked out between them at a later time. Ch. Asmus wanted to know about the children's play area--"if it does not turn out as they plan, do they have some other provision. to provide for them"? Both Robert Buckingham and Gene Smith wanted additional area and equipment planned for children than what was shown. Lanae Nye expressed that there is a large amount of open space between the buildings, and the islands at the end of the cul-de-saes are 10©' across. PC member, Chas. Johnson, asked about what market there would. be in Niakwa? Lanae Nye said that in a proposal such as theirs, the covenants would be extremely tight. PC member, M. Geisness, was not sure that all the questions the planner and the engineer had expressed had been answered. He also asked about traffic control. Mr. Patterson said that the density that was planned for Niakwa was within the platted land uses for the area. 79.55 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Antolik, to close the public hearing of the applicant, Niakwa, Inc. • Voting aye were Antolik, Asmus , Johnson, Enright, and Geisness. 79.56 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Enright, that a recommendation be made that Homeowners' Assn. members of Townhouses of Shannon and the proposed developers of Niakwa Village, to resolve some of the problems they have. The mota.on was to recommend approval of the preliminary plat PUD of Niakwa Village, after certain modifications to be made with City staff before the application goes to Council. Voting aye were Asmus, Enright, Geisness, and Antolik. Johnson voted nay., explain- ing that he did not feel there is enough play area in the proposal, nor the type of market they will propose is not explained. Niakwa developers were informed that their application would be on the Council agenda the evening of May 21, 1979• After the attorney said the proper notification for a public hearing on the application of Niakwa, Inc. to rezone flutlot F, Donnay's Valley Park 3rd Addn, from R-1C, single-family residence, to R-3B, multiple-family residence, the hearing commenced. 79.57 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Antolik, to close the Niakwa, Inc. public hearing for rezoning Outlot F, explained in the preceding paragraph. Voting aye were Enright, Geisness, Antolik, Asmus, and Johnson. • ?8.58 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of the Niakwa, Inc. application to rezone Outlot F, Donnay's Valley Park 3rd Addn., from R-1C to R-3B zoning. Voting aye were Geisness, Antolik, Asmus, Johnson, and Enright. Planning Commission 5/3/79 y • (5) Planning ~ission 53/79 . Upon oral testimony that proper notification had been made, the public hearing of Brown and Cris, Inc. for conditional u3e permit began. • Engineer F. Burg said that if there was a problem with the on-site septic system, the new owners of the property, Brown and Cris, Inc., had agreed to remedy it. Jack Pavlike, property owner on the east of the former NW Bituminous property, asked what type of equipment and materials would be seen and what type of screening would there be here? The reply by one of tJ3 owners would be that it would be we11- concealed in the "back" pit, to the best of their knowledge at this time. Their machinery will be out on various projects most of the time. In answer to F. Burg's question about a piece of machinery that has been left by the former owner, that is considered an eyesore, the present owners said they planned to dismantle it. 79.59 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Johnson, to close the public hearing concerning the Brown and Cris, Inc. application far a conditional use permit. Voting aye were Antolik, Asmus, Johnson';. Enright, and Geisness. 79.60 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Geisness, to recommend approval of the Brawn and Cris, Inc. application for a conditional use permit for exterior storage of equipment at 197+0 Kenrick Avenue, subject to conditions of planner and engineer. Voting aye were Asmus, Johnson, Enright, Geisness, and Antolik. 79.61 Motion was made by Antolik and Enright to table the Ardmor Mobile Home Park expansion proposal until next meeting, May 17, 1979, because of the request of the applicant. • Voting aye were Johnson, Enright, Geisness, Antolik, and Asmus. 79.62 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Johnson, to table a decision on recommendation of approval of final plat of Purcell's 1st Addition until next meeting, May 17, 1979 because of the request of the applicant. Voting aye were Enright, Geisness, Antolik, Asmus, and Johnson. 79.63 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Geisness, to ask that Council authorize Administrator McGarvey to supply Planning Commission members with transportation to look at new plat proposals, if possible. Voting aye were Geisness, Antolik, Asmus, Johnson, and Enright. Notification was made to Planning Commission that Planner Steve .Ryan would be leaving Midwest Planning Consultants and would not likely attend any mare meetings in Lakeville. He was thanked for all the assistance he has given aver the years. 79.6+ Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Antolik, that a fulltime planner be added to City staff. Voting aye were Antolik, Asmus, Johnson, Enright, and Geisness. Future agenda items will cover, presently, all materials formerly heard by Planning Commission. There is no new public hearing scheduled at the present time. • 79.65 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn .the meeting. Unanimous aye. Respectfully submitted, Charman Seerc?ta.rv