Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-77 CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COSION MEETING MINUTES ~ PAGE 1 THURSDAY 8:00 PM 20 JANUARY 1977 MUNICIPAL BUILDING AIRLAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK The meeting began at 8 PM, when the new chairman, Bill Campbell, called the meeting to order. Answering roll call, besides Campbell, were Antolik, Jojade, Spande, and Asmus. . (Lutgens was not able to come because of illness and Hazel was out of town.) Attorney Knutson Planner D. Licht, and Building Inspector D. Goodermont were also in attendance. Motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held January 6th was made by Asmas and Spande. Motion carried. The attorney attested to the legality of the continuation of Brad Johnson's public hearing for re-zoning and variances for Lots 7, 8, 9--Block 1,..Fairfield Addition. Brad was present and explained that he wishes to build one ~+-plex and one 6-plea apartment building, side by side, with garages. He introduced his architect, Joe Weiseh- selbaum, who was present this evening, from Rochester; if there were any questions that the Commission wished to ask him, he would be glad to try to answer them. Brad went on to .say that the new buildings will look like the ones that are already there. They will hold ten units--six two-bedroom apartments, and four one-bedroom apartments. Chairman Campbell read a letter which had been received from Lakeville Supt of Schools, Don McGuire, that the district has no objections to the proposed Johnson construction. Planner Licht had written a staff report, with Mark Johnson,. on the. Johnson Apartment Proposal, dated January 10th. D. Licht went on to elaborate on some of Midwest's findings. Position on the re-zoning is a favorable one, however the variance application needs re- vising to code; The first variance would have to be a recommendation for denial, on the 9-10 unit building, because of the square footage of 2,300. There is a drainage. problem to be corrected; reeornmendations of landscape screening installations on all sides, particularly where the construction abuts single-family dwellings, was noted. Licht stated .he does not foresee any traffic problem. Mrs. Baker and Mrs. Hobbs, in the audience, asked about the promised correction of the drainage problem that now exists, sodding, etc. John Byrne asked about the height of the proposed screening--"height of car lights"? The answer was favorable. Fred Taft, also in the audience, asked that there be no outlet on 209th Street. On the proposed plat map, such an outlet is shown, but he was told there would not be one.. J. Weisehselbaum asked, "how can you deny access to a public street"'? Lcht's res- pranse was that it was being treated as a complex, rather than an individual. Another question asked by Weischselbaum was, "where is screening?" Licht: "along the property lines". Mrs. Hobbs wished to know how soon these buildings would be built. B. Johnson answered, "when the frost is out': J. Antolik wondered about increased traffic on 209th Street. F. Taft responded, "as a citizen, I think we will have a traffic problem here. 77.7 Motion to close the public hearings of Brad Johnson .for re-zoning and variances was made by Antolik and Spande. Voting "aye", were Campbell, Antolik, Jojade, Spande, and Asmus. Motion carried. 77.8 Motion to recommend approval of re-zoning on Lots 7, 8, and 9, Fairfield Addition, was made by Asmus and Jojade. Voting "aye", were Antolik, Jojade, Spande, Asmus, and Campbell. Motion carried. •77x~ Motion to recommend acceptance of the side-yard variance request of Brad Johnson on Lots 7, 8, and 9, Fairfield Addition, was made by Spande, seconded by Antolik, however, recommendation is made to deny the variance request on lot areas- The four criteria recommended by the Planner, dealing with the drainage problem of water flowing to adjacent property be corrected, garage size should be maintained, .landscape screening. be provided on entire complex where single-family units directly abut, and access to the north onto 289th St. be eliminated and this area be landscaped and designed for recreational-open space use, are asked to be con- ditions of granting applicant's request. Voting "aye" to this complete motion were Jojade, Spande, Asmus, Campbell, and Antolik. Motion carried. (Reason given for recommending denial above, re variance request on lot area, was the shortage of 2,300 square feet from the 2+,800 square foot requirement of City's ordinance. 77.10 Motion that the four recommendations as set forth by the Planner in staff report • on B. Johnson Apartment Proposal, dated January 10th, as outlined in above motion, be the criteria upon which approval. is continge~; was made by Asmus, seconded by Spande. Voting "aye" were Spande, Asmus, Campbell, Antolik, and Jojade. Motion carried. Planning Commission 20th January 1977 PAGE 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MS 20 JANUARY l~ PAGE 2 Mr. Howard Anderson, of NW Bituminous, having arrived, discussion began on plans for re-building their truck maintenance building which had recently undergone fire-damage. Mr. Anderson stated they would like to enlarge the building, also. Building Inspector Goodermont spoke saying there is a concern with a means to keep the • same fire problem from re-occuring. Mr. .Anderson said there had been a period of two weeks before the fire that the last work'had been done in the building; also, they are now planning infra red..:+heating, which will mean a more constant tempertire. 77.11 Motion made to approve building plans of NW Bituminous, subject to the Building Inspector's reviewal and approval, was made by Spande and Asmus. Voting "aye" were Asmus, Campbell, Antolik, Jojade, and Spande. Motion a arried. X7.12 Motion to consider motion to re-open hearing on Woodridge preliminary plat, G & G Builders, ~ of E2 of NWT, Section 18, was made by Spande, 2nd by Antolik. Voting "aye" were Campbell, Antolik, Jojade, Spande, and Asmus. Motion carried. 77.13 Motion to re-open public hearing, directly above, was made by Spande and Antolik. Voting "aye" were Antolik, Jojade, Spande, Asmus, and Campbell. Motion carried. .New materials received on Woodridge hearing were (1) a letter from City Engineer speaking of grading and drainage problems, and (2) Strand properties, lying to the west of proposed Woodbridge, show no access. Planner spoke saying there has to be some co-ordination between the developers. Sanitary sewer is not available to the site, but water is available, through easements in the area. This may be a premature sub-division". However, he said further, "not in a position to judge". Mr. Strand was present for this hearing. He is the adjoinai~g property owner, possessing ~+3 acres on the NW of Woodbridge. He showed plans drawn by Harry Johnson for development of this area. Planner maintained that "G & G met zoning intent, but Commission is not in a position to make a final decision--there are details to be worked out", and he wants documentation. 77.1 Motion to continue hearing on Woodridge preliminary plat until additional information that is requested is available, was made by Spande and Asmus. Voting "aye" were Jojade, Spande, Asmus, Campbell, and Antolik. Motion carried. D. Licht gave a report on the Metro Systems Statement, "boils down to no problem what- soever", he said. "Industrial is a point ©f disagreement". Planner also spoke on a need to get together on PUD requirements. Chairman Campbell asked that a schedule be made, perhaps on the monthly calendar that is sent, so that Planning Commission have representative at Council meetings. He will go to the next meeting, which will be on February 7th. If the member designated cannot attend, it is asked that he will let the Chairman know. J. Asmus asked about insulation standards. Goodermont replied that it has been increased, for saving energy. Motion came to adjourn the meeting--Asmus and Jojade.. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Larry Hazel, secretary mek i Planning Commission 20th January 1977 PAGE 2