Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-78 CITY OF LAKEVILLE Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday May 18, 1878 • Chairman Hazel began the meeting at $:OD PM by calling the meeting to order. in addition to the planning members, Administrator P. McGarvey, Attorney R. Knutson, Planner S. Ryan, Engineer F. Burg, and Councilmember M. Cuzxy were present--and an audience of 1.nterested citizens numbering betwddn fifty and sixty. 7$.96 Lutgens-Enright motioned that the minutes of the meeting held May 4, 1978 be approved. Roll call resulted in "aye" votes: Asmus, Enright, Antolik, Lutgens, Jensvold, Piereeall, and Hazel. A continuation of the hearing on the God's Family Church request for a variance and a conditional use permit to build a church in Section 6, at the east end of 161st St., corner of 3acquard Av. was the first agenda item.. Because he is a member of this congregation, J. Antolik, asked to be excused from sitting on the hearing. Architedt Burroughs gave a brief resume' of what had been explained at other meetings. The building is proposed to be ~0' from the front and 5Q' from the rear. The build- ing will be located approximately 224' from the west property line and a little more than that from the east side. The building, itself, will contain approximately 5,2©0 square feet. The main entrance would be located on the east side. Planting, also screening fence of the parking lot is included in Phase I. This property is located in the short-range area for sewer availability. Some of the fencing will have to be removed to make way for parking in the fud~fse. Appropriate curbs are going to be provided. Because of the topography, the east-west street is not practical. The north-south street will provide access to the church. A 60' right-of way should be dedicated. F. Burg said that in past plans, drainage would apparently go to the east, with nothing to contain it. Now, the drainage wi11 go north. Also, present plans are for a single tier of parking, instead of four, on the west side. "This can be handled t3. K;, Mr. Burg said.: Centers, of a type which require state ]icensing, would not be an activity in the proposed God's Family Church. Mr. Lee Christopherson, Evangelical Synod representative, spoke, saying they wished to assist God's Family Church in every way. Engineer Burg said he would like. to see the results of the soil testing before the request of God's Family Church $oes to Council level. 78.97 Jensvold-Lutgens motioned to close the hearing of application request of God's Family Church. Voting "aye" were Enright, {Antolk was abstaining), Lutgens, 3ensvold, Piereeall, Hazel, and Asmus. .The hearing of God's Family Church resulted in three motions. These dealt with • (1) variance to front yard setback, (2) permission to erect a church in a residential area, and (3) permission to construct an on-site septic system on a parcel of land less than ten acres. 78.98 Lutgens-Asmus motioned to recommend approval of the variance request of God's Family Church regarding front-yard setback, subject to stipulations asked by the Planner in his letter of May 2, 1978. Approval was recommended in this case, because of the topography of the land creating a hardship to locate the building on any other part of the land. Voting "aye".were Lutgens, Jensvold, Piereeall, Ha zel, Asmus, and Esiright. 7$.99 Asmus-Enright motioned to recommend approval of the request of God's Family Church to construct a church in a residential area, subject to (1) the Church would file an application for a conditional use permit.if, at any time in the future, they would • introduce a use which required licensing by the Dept of Welfare, and (2) file an application for a legal subdivision. Voting "aye" were Jensvold, Piereeall, Hazel, Asmus, Enright, and Lutgens. 78.10© Jensvold-Lutgens motioned to recommend approval for the construction of an on-site septic system for God's Family Church on a parcel of land less than ten scree, subject to the engineer's approval of the septic tank and drainfeld. (1) MAY 18, 1978 PLANNING CSSICN Voting "aye" were Pierceall, Hazel, Asmus, Enright, Lutgens, and Jensvold. (2) PLANNING SSZ4N MAY 18, 1978 Representatives of God's Family Church were told that their requests would be on the Council's agenda for the evening of June 5, 1978. • P. McGarvey attested to the legality of a public hearing on the. request of Ken Larson and Len Bjorkland to rezone property north of 205th Street and east of Iberia Av. The parcel is to be known as LZDC4 Addition. Mr. Larson said the proposal i$ for five lots measuring 244' by 144' each.. The present zoning is R-1C, and he is asking for a zcming of R-3A, for multiple housing. The exteriors would be of wood. LIDC4 would like to locate two duplexes, proposing to "front" on Iberia Av, The other three lots would run the long way, 204', north and south and would"front" on 245th Street. 4-plexes are desired by LZDC4 at this location. D. Whittier, resident-neighbor of the above proposal, had been asking questions as to size of the proposed buildings. He now asked about the increased traffic this development would generate. Across the street from the proposal is a park which is weir-used by youngsters who belong to Little League baseball teams. Mr. Bob McNevin, resident-neighbor,. asked about the size of the larger buildings proposed. Mr. Larson said the three buildings would be 12-units each. Mrs. Whittier "fears misplaced property, debris, and increased traffic", if the rezoning is approved and larger housing units are built. B. Mahowald, who resides on Tot east of the LIDC4 development proposal, also was concerned with an increased traffic problem possibility, and would "rather see it as single-family lots than multiple housing". • E. Johnson, also a neighbor of the proposal, said he has had a great deal of run-off from the existing aparianents. Hs would not like to have the problem increased. He, also, was concerned with "the lay-out of the property". K. Larson spoke for the approval of his requests, deeming them reasonable and feasible because of the apartment-zoning which exists 3ust north of his proposal-- . and the property immediately across the street from the proposal ispresently "industrial". Planner Ryan commented that most of the talk had centered around property main- tenance. Multiples do generate more traffic than singles--but the zoning across the street is B-~+. We have to think of those who might move into single-zoned homes. Transcendental kind of uses, which would provide for that kind of bu~Per, were not made and adopted in 1975. Property. standards need to be enforced. It is our recommendation that the property is adapted to transcendential use. Mrs. J. Emond stated that since the Lamplighter Apes were built, the neighborhood has changed. N. Jensvold thought this might be a case of spot-zoning. R. Knutson explained that spot-zoning is where you pick out a small area and put it in a large one. Here, if You look at the surroundings, You will find comparable zoning. Mr. McNevin suggested that the arrangement be transposed--put the duplexes an ~e • east side, instead of the west. The question of easements arose. Mr. Larson said there are none on the property. Also, he had arranged the housing so there would be a maximum of green area. Mr. Whittier asked about proper screening, from lights, etc. J. Pierceall said it seemed to him that the owner wishes to develop and the home- owners wish the property kept completely residential--we are asked to increase the value of his land, and the homeowners believe it will lessen theirs. N&~. McNevin asked about possible evacuation, with only one street? K. Lutgens asked, if you rezone it, can the developer put in all 4-plexes? This.. could be done. i Mr. J. Asmus asked "what would be the problem if You rezoned to R-2?" Mr. Larson replied that "we would have to re-style." He went on to say that would the neighbors like a different style any better? 78.141 Lutgens-Asmus motioned to continue the hearing on Mr. Carson's requests until June 15, 1978. Voting "aye" were Hazel, Asmus, Enright, Antolik, Lutgens, Jensvold, and Pierceall. l ~ 1 DT A AIATTAln_ n rnu~rrc~ c T.,s, MAY 18 . 197$ (3j PLANNINGSSION MAY 18, 19?8 R. Knutson said that in order to ascertain proper notice had been mailed for hearing which was No. 5 on the agenda, preliminary plat hearing for a parcel of property located north of 205th Street and east of Iberia Av., the hearing should • be opened, then tabled. Public hearing for a parcel of property located north of 205th Street and east of Iberia Av., a preliminary plat hearing, was opened. 78.102 Lutgens-Antolik motioned to table the request of K. Larson and L. B~orkland for preliminary hearing for parcel of property described in above paragraph, until the meeting to be held the evening of June 15, 1978. Voting "aye" were Asmus, Enright, Antolk, Lutgens, Jensvold, Piereeall, and Hazel. In regards to Motion No.'s 78.101 and 78.102, the Whittiers asked for a list of those property owners who had been notified of the public hearings, Mr. Bailey Seida was present,. representing Lucerne Trail Partners, to answer any questions concerning Wildwood Ponds North and South, in connection with the preliminary plat hearing. The rearing began. The "north" part of Wildwood Ponds contains 140 acres and lies to the north of of CoRd 64 (25th Street), with the exception of an "L" shaped piece in the center of the acreage, on 205th Street, which belongs to Mr. Bob Clark. Thera are 27 Tots planned. The "south" section of Wildwood Ponds consists of 13 lots, each containing 5 acres, or more, south of CoRd 64, and a little to the asst. Dr. Jacobson has his home on one of the lots at the present time. It is this "south" section which the Lucerne Trail Partners wish to begin immediately, upon approval. There will be ~0' road right-of-ways, with an additional 20' on each side given in easements. This will enable the preservation of many largo trees. The addition is heavily wooded. Soil borings are being done by Braun Engineering. An upstream evaluation is also being done. Both Natural Resources Committee and Park & Ree Committee have reviewed the site plans. There was a problem, existing, in the NE corner of Wildwood .Ponds South. plat, which Mr. Seida thought the Commission should be aware. This problem exists in the NE corner of Section 26. There was a remauntization by Dakota Co. in 1974, and they found the NE corner, as then existed, was not the NE corner, after all--it was shifted some thirty feet to the east. Mr. Dennis Bungart, the neighbor in the NE corner, very much affected by this "shift" was in the audience, asking what had become of the thirty feet? it was the opinion of R. Knutson, that, by our ordinance, "we should look at it to see if the corner, is in fact, the corner of the land. Chairman Hazel said we would accept the attorney's opinion. 78.103 Piereeall-Lutgens motioned to table the hearing on Wildwood Ponds preliminary plat until the City attorney has had an opportuy~i.ty to .review the matter and the update • be given the Planning Commission by Jung 15, 1978. Voting "aye" were Enright, Antolik, Lutgens, Jensvold, Piereeall, Hazel, and Asmus. An item for discussion and review, only, was the concept of a proposed plat of Geo. Grohoski's, located north of 185th Street and east of Highway 50. Mr. Steve Grohoski was present to represent his father.. The Planning Commission did review this property in 1876--it has she been re-done. It is now proposed to plat 24 lots on a 20-acre piece of land--each lot will be 3/4 to 1 acre in size. The present plan is to construct homes in the X150,000 valuation bracket, and up. Mr. McGarvey spoke,. saying, nothing can be done until sewer is available. (Water is available.). Mr. Grohoski. further said a temporary cul-d~-sac is planned on the north, for aceass. The next ~+0 acres, to the north, is also owned by the Grohosk's, Item No. 8 on the agenda this evening was a review and discussion of property owned by Mr. Ray Anderson, 20 acres located south of 185th Street, and east of Highway 50. The Planner thought the traffic flow through the projected plat could be improved, there was a double-frontage on the south part which was objectionable. Thane are throe lots on the SW corner which era 9©°. This too, is not desireabie, if there is a way around the problem. (3) PLARR+TING COMMISq-SON A9n._ 18, 1978 . (4) PLANNING CICN MAY 18, ].978 The Planner presented a re-drawing of the Anderson property, with 34 lots planned, and ~~F lots eventually. An estimate in savings of street construction with this plan was given at a $I~C,Ot~4-figure. Mr. McGarvey said the proposal was premature. for development in 1978, but might be an actuality in 1979. Mr. Anderson said he was interested in getting an acceptable concept. A request of Astrid Gola to replat lot 1 of Gola Heights Addition into two Lots was the next item. This is known as an administrative subdivisiorn, and can be done under the new subdivision ordinance. Gola Heights is an addition S'W of Jackson Heights 2nd Addition. 78.I4~+ Lutgens-Asmus motioned to recommend approval of the replotting of Lot 1 of Gola Heights Addition into two lots--east and west. Voting "aye" were Antolk, Lutgens, Jensvold, Pierceall, Hazel, Asmus, and Enright. The next item was the continued hearing on an amendment to Qrdinanee No. 42, which would provide for the use of a mobile home, through the issuance of a conditional use permit, outside of a mobile home park, under certain conditions. Mr. Jensvold asked for an opinion on an unoccupied mobile home being left on property. Mr. Dale Harris, and his son, were present because of an interest in this proposed amendment. They are farmers in Section 11. There is a present mobile home on the property, which is occupied by someone else. The son will be getting married in the near future and would like to move a mobile home onto .the farm. 8.105 Pierceall-Antolik motioned to close the hearing on an amendment to Grdinance No. 42, providing for the use of a mobile home outside a mobile home park, under certain conditions. Voting "aye" were Lutgens, Jensvold, Pierceall, Hazel, Aamus, Enright, and Antolik. L. Hazel was of the opinion a catastrophic-type incident should be included in the amendment, if one were to be formulated. 78,106 .Pierceall-Enright motioned that Ordinance No. ~+2 might be amended to a13ow the use of a mobile hone outside a mobile home park in the event, and only in the event, of casualty loss to an individual residence. Such a permit is not/~ceed one year, Voting "aye" were Jensvold, Pierceall, Hazel, Asmus, Enright, Antolik, and Lutgens.. 78.1D7 Lutgens-Pierceall motioned to recommend no other changes in the ordinance governing the use of mobile homes outside m©bile home parks. Vote results were: Pierceall, aye; Hazel, nay; Asmus, aye; Enright, nay; Antolik, aye; Lutgens, aye, and Jensvold, nay,- motion passed by a ~+-3 vote. Reasons given for the "nay" votes, were "there is a reasonable amount of land that can adequately afford a mobile home without any discredit to the surrounding area", and "law should be flexible enough,; with certain restrictions, that would make them acceptable". • M. Curry thought it would be advisable to notify the Farmington school district when such matters come before the Planning Commission, that would affect them, particularly in development of mobile home parks' ordinance. Planner Ryan suggested taking the Redwood Falls mobile home ordinance for study, and make suggestions on such an ordinance next meeting, June 1, 1978. Mr. McGarvey said the final plat hearing of Dodd Park Addition is tabled until next meeting, at the developer's request. This would also be June I, 1978... Mr. Bob Peterson was present for concept approval of Sanasha Knolls proposed development of C)utlot B, Dakota Heights 7th Addition. M. Curry suggested that the name be changed to avoid conflict with other similar names in the City. Water and sewer is in the proposed area. Mr, F. Burg says "I have no problem with it. Planner Ryan suggests that the curb cuts be .not more than 22'--these are 33'. These items can be resolved at a Staff meeting, it was thought. 78.1Q8 Pierceall-Antolik motioned to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Pierceall made several suggestions on plans to shorten the lengthy Commission meetings. one was to have a set time for adjournment, and another was to limit the time an individual could speak d ring a ring. RespectfLilly submitted,. mek xt titi,+ ce.,,,..,+ t 1