HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 09May 14, 2010
Item No.
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP UPDATE
MAY 17, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve: a. ordinance amending Title 10 of the
City Code, the subdivision ordinance, and summary ordinance for publication; b. ordinance amending Title 11 of
the City Code, the zoning ordinance (including zoning map), and summary ordinance for publication; c.
resolution requesting reclassification of the west bay of Lake Marion.
Adoption of this motion will result in an amended Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Map
consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Overview
With the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan by the City Council in December of 2008 the next
step in the process, as required by state statutes, was to update the City's development regulations, including
the Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the goals as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. Over the past 14 months the Planning Commission, Economic Development Commission
and the City.Council have met in work sessions to discuss and consider proposed language amending the City's
development regulations. Many of the updates reflect input and contributions from residential and business
owners, the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce and local residential and commercial developers.
At their April 22, 2010 meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Map. Four interested parties addressed the Planning
Commission during the public hearing. Three residents in attendance had questions regarding the proposed
reclassification of the west bay of Lake Marion as outlined in the proposed revision to Section 102 (Shoreland
Overlay District) of the Zoning Ordinance. A fourth Lake Marion resident addressed the Planning Commission
via an email in support of the proposed revisions. No other public input was submitted as part of the public
hearing. The Planning Commission and staff responded in detail to the questions presented by the residents
regarding the reclassification of the west bay of Lake Marion.
After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendments
to Sections 1-101 of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Map. On a separate vote of
five to two, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments to Section 102 of the Zoning
Ordinance including the reclassification of the west bay of Lake Marion. Staff recommends approval of the
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments as presented.
Primary Issues to Consider
Have the questions and concerns of Lake Marion residents been addressed?
Supporting Information
• Ordinance amending Title 10, Subdivision Ordinance (DVD Copy)
• Summary ordinance for Title 10
• Ordinance amending Title 11, Zoning Ordinance (DVD Copy)
• Summary ordinance for Title 11
• Resolution requesting the DNR reclassify the west bay of Lake Marion
• Zoning Map
• May 11, 2010 TPC executive summary memo
• April 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes
ennen, AICP, Associate Planner
Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Y/N Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Primary Issues to Consider:
Have the questions and concerns expressed by the Lake Marion residents in attendance at the April
30, 2010 Planning Commission public hearing been addressed? The following are the responses that
were provided to the residents by staff and members of the Planning Commission during the public
hearing:
• Why is the west bay of Lake Marion being reclassified?
The reclassification of the west bay of Lake Marion was initiated because the characteristics of the
west bay of Lake Marion fit more with the definition of a Natural Environment Lake than a
Recreational Development Lake, it is consistent with the policies and land use designations of the
2008 Comprehensive Plan, the MUSA Staging Plan (Permanent Rural) supports the Natural
Environment Lake classification, it is consistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations for unsewered lots
(minimum lot size of 10 acres), and it is consistent with the environmental protection requirements of
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances concerning wetlands, tree preservation and development on
unsuitable soils.
• How will the reclassification affect the adjacent Lake Marion property owners?
The lake reclassification will not affect the existing homeowners' use of their property, given the
grandfathering language included in the proposed revisions. The lot and setback requirements for
Natural Environment Lakes will only apply if the property is subdivided, which there is currently no
ability to do because the property is not with the current MUSA. In the future if the property is brought
into the MUSA, subdivision of the properties adjacent to the east side of the west bay of Lake Marion
will be difficult due to street access, lot frontage and wetland restrictions.
• Does the City have the authority to initiate the reclassification?
Following the April 22nd Planning Commission meeting City staff contacted the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources and they have confirmed that the City does have the authority to reclassify the
west bay of Lake Marion from a Recreational Development Lake designation to a Natural
Environment Lake designation and they have indicated that they support the proposed reclassification
(see attached correspondence from the DNR and Lake Marion residents).
is
April 26, 2010
Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
RE: Lakeville Zoning Ordinance Update; Reclassification of the West Bay of Lake
Marion
Dear Mr. Homuth:
As you are aware, the City of Lakeville considered amending Chapter 102 of the Zoning
Ordinance in 2007 to consider reclassification of the west bay of Lake Marion from
Recreational Development to Natural Environment. This process was delayed to allow
for the issue to be revisited as part of the City's required Comprehensive Plan update in
2008 and the general update of the Zoning Ordinance in 2009.
The proposed language drafted in 2007 was reviewed again as part of the 2009 Zoning
Ordinance update and considered at a public hearing on April 22, 2010. The City
received objections to the proposed amendment reclassifying the West Bay of Lake
Marion as a Natural Environment Lake from three property owners adjacent to the water
body and comments supporting the change from one property owner within the
Shoreland Overlay District but not owning a riparian lot. The Planning Commission
voted 5-2 to recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendment as
presented.
Those opposing the proposed reclassification of the West Bay of Lake Marion raised a
number of issues, including that the City and DNR lack authority under current
Minnesota Rules to establish separate classifications for a single water body. I have
attached a copy of an e-mail from one of the property owners opposing the
reclassification (Gang Krebs) to Peder Otterson dated April 12, 2010 that Mr. Krebs
forwarded to our City Attorney. This issue is of concern as the City is completing its
update of the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with our 2008 Comprehensive Plan
update. The City Attorney has advised that the City and DNR are given the authority to
establish the separate classifications for Lake Marion under Minnesota Rules
6120.2800, Subp. 3B, alternative management standards. The dual classification is
referenced with approval in the Minnesota's Alternative Shoreland Management
Standards (Dec. 12, 2005), page 19. 1 1
City of Lakeville • 20195 Holyoke Ave. • Lakeville, MN 55044
952-985-4400 • fax 952-985-4499 • www.lakevillemn.gov
• Southern gateway to the Twin Cities •
Dale Homuth
Page 2
City staff met with Area Hydrologist Janell Miersch on April 16, 2010 to review the
proposed changes to the Shoreland Overlay District provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
During this meeting, it was stated that the proposed reclassification of the West Bay of
Lake Marion is acceptable to DNR staff and would be certified upon formal submission
of the amendments to the DNR for approval along with a letter requesting the
reclassification. This most recent statement of support for the proposed reclassification
of the West Bay of Lake Marion is consistent with the attached letter from Pat Lynch
dated October 24, 2007.
City staff is submitting this letter asking the DNR to verify that: 1) the City currently has
the authority to request the reclassification, and 2) the DNR currently has the authority
to establish separate classifications for Lake Marion. City staff is seeking this
verification prior to City Council consideration of the proposed amendments to the
Shoreland Overlay District. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the
proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance at their meeting on May 17, 2010. As
such, City staff would greatly appreciate your attention and response to this request at
your first opportunity.
Sincerely,
V�
Daryl'
aryl orey
Planning Dire r
Attachment
C. Steven Mielke, City Administrator
Allyn Kuennen, Associate Planner
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Daniel Licht, TPC
Janell Miersch, DNR
Morey, Daryl
From: Homuth, Dale (DNR) [Dale.Homuth@state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:33 AM
To: Morey, Daryl
Cc: Mielke, Steven; Kuennen, Allyn; Roger Knutson; D. DANIEL LICHT; Miersch, Janell (DNR);
Otterson, Peder H (DNR); Wooden, Rebecca A (DNR)
Subject: RE: West Bay Lake Marion Reclassification
Attachments: Marion Reclassification. pdf
Daryl;
I am in receipt of your April 26th letter, and I will disregard the April 23rd version. From the changes you made
to the 4/26 letter, you apparently are NOT seeking DNR approval of the reclassification of West Marion Lake (ID
#19-26-03) at this time. Instead you are asking whether the city can request such a reclassification and whether
the DNR has the authority to alter the classification on a bay of a lake. The answer to both questions is yes, and
this authority has been delegated to me by the Commissioner.
Obviously, we have been discussing this reclassification for several years, and noted in Pat Lynch's 2007 letter to
you, the DNR would most likely look favorably on such a request.
I've attached a copy of an email Peder Otterson recently sent on this question. Our currently rules clearly
provide for such a change, and our proposed rules will make it even clearer that bays of lakes can have differing
shoreland classifications.
I took a quick look at the proposed ordinance you attached to your email. Most of the proposed changes appear
to be substantially compliant with the existing state shoreland rules. However, I will need justification and
further explanation for the proposed changes to Section 11-102-15, A. Unless I'm missing something, it appears
that you propose to delete the requirement that contiguous substandard lots be combined, where practicable,
before they are developed. Such a change would be less restrictive than state standards and would require
special approval by the DNR (Implementation flexibility, per Minn. Rules, part 6120.2800, subpart 3), unless the
requirement is covered elsewhere in your zoning code, or no such lots exist. Sorry for not catching this problem
when I advised Janell on the issue.
-Dale
Dale E. Homuth
Regional Waters Manager
Central Region Waters
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5766
fax: 651-772-7977
email= dale.homuth@state.mn.us
website= www.dnr.state.mn.us
From: Morey, Daryl[mailto:dmorey@ci.lakeville.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Homuth, Dale (DNR)
Cc: Mielke, Steven; Kuennen, Allyn; Roger Knutson; D.
Subject: West Bay Lake Marion Reclassification
5/13/2010
DANIEL LICHT; Miersch, Janell (DNR)
Dale:
Please disregard my previous letter dated April 23, 2010 concerning the reclassification of the west bay
of Lake Marion. I have revised my letter (attached) to more accurately reflect what the City of Lakeville
is requesting of the DNR at this time. I apologize for any confusion this may have created. Please
contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you very much.
Daryl Morey, Planning Director
City of Lakeville 120195 Holyoke Avenue I Lakeville, MN 55044
office: 952-985-4422 1 Fax: 952-985-4499 1 www.lakevillemn.gov
The information contained in this transmission including any attached documentation may be privileged and confidential. It is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify the City of Lakeville immediately by replying to this email.
5/13/2010
Homuth, Dale (DNR)
From: Otterson, Peder H (DNR)
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:40 PM
To: Garry Krebs
Cc: Homuth, Dale (DNR)
Subject: RE: Lake Classification rules changes
Garry, my understanding is that we already have this authority in current state rule; we just
haven't made a practice of using it. The draft rules make it clearer how it would be used in
the future. Dale Homuth has asked if there are past instances when we did approve multiple
classifications on a single lake. The answer is yes. But it is not common practice.
Here's the wording from current shoreland rules:
6120.3000. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Subp. 4. Reclassification.
The commissioner may, as the need arises, reclassify any public water. Also, any local
government may at any time submit a resolution and supporting data requesting a change in any
shoreland management classification of waters within its jurisdiction to the commissioner for
consideration.
Subp. 5. Modification and expansion of system.
The commissioner may, as the need arises, modify or expand the shoreland classification
system to provide specialized shoreland management standards based upon unique
characteristics and capabilities of any public waters.
Sincerely,
Peder H. Otterson, Manager
Shoreland Rules Update Project
DNR Division of Waters/Ecological Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4032
tel. 651-259-5697
fax. 651-296-0445
visit our Web site: http://mndnr.gov/waters/shoreland.html
-----Original Message -----
From: Garry Krebs[mailto:gkrebs@mainstreamcom.net]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:42 AM
To: Otterson, Peder H (DNR)
Subject: Re: Lake Classification rules changes
One more question for you Peder. The Lakeville Planning Commission has approved a plan to
reclassify the west bay of Lake Marion as a Natural Environment Lake. That measure is being
presented to the Lakeville City Council for final approval. How can the DNR approve their
request when the authority to create multiple classifications is not yet state law?
Garry
Otterson, Peder H (DNR) wrote:
> Gary, I believe you are asking about the provision for multiple classifications on a single
lake. Yes, that is still part of the draft rules. The Revisor's Draft, as it is called, has
been reviewed by the commissioner along with the Statement of Need and Reasonableness
(SONAR), and passed on to the governor's office for review and approval to proceed to public
1
hearings. It depends on how long it takes to get out of the governor's office, but the
required hearings could take place later this summer with final approval by the end of the
year.
> Sincerely,
> Peder H. Otterson, Manager
> Shoreland Rules Update Project
> DNR Division of Waters/Ecological Resources 500 Lafayette Road St.
> Paul, MN 55155-4032
> tel. 651-259-5697
> fax. 651-296-0445
> visit our Web site: http://mndnr.gov/waters/shoreland.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garry Krebs[mailto:gkrebs@mainstreamcom.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:01 AM
> To: Info (DNR)
> Subject: Lake Classification rules changes
> I am aware that several rules changes are underway regarding Shoreland
> Overlay Districts.
> Can you tell me if the rule allowing individual bays to be classified
> as Environmental Lakes has made it through the rules change process?
> If not, when is that rule expected to be changed?
> Thank You!
> Garry Krebs
2
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA, COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE LAKEVILLE
CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, CONCERNING
NOMENCLATURE, SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, ENGINEERING STANDARDS,
SECURITIES AND WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS
This ordinance amends the City's subdivision ordinance concerning nomenclature,
submittal requirements, engineering standards, and securities and warranty requirements.
Certain terms defined in the subdivision ordinance are amended. Information required for
administrative subdivisions, sketch plans, preliminary plats and final plats has been changed.
Requirements for temporary cul-de-sacs, right-of-way widths, sidewalks, MPTW, drainage and
utility easements, storm drainage, tree preservation, park land cash contributions, securities,
and warranties are amended.
A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection by any person during
the City Clerk's regular office hours.
Approved for publication by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota, this
17th day of May, 2010.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
Holly Dahl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
151385v01
RNK:04/26/2010
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA, COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE LAKEVILLE
CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING
THE ZONING MAP, ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS, AND ZONING DISTRICT PROVISIONS
This ordinance amends the City's zoning ordinance concerning the zoning map,
administration and general performance standards, and zoning district provisions. The zoning
map has been amended rezoning property and making amendments to zoning district boundaries.
Amendments have been made to administration and general performance standards including:
grading and drainage, lighting, exterior finishes, accessory buildings, landscaping, signs, fences,
wind energy conversion systems, antennas, and home occupations. Wording and substantive
changes have been made to the text of the requirements of the following zoning districts: A -P,
R -A, RAO, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -4, RS -CBD, RSMH, RST -1, RST -2, RM -1, RM -2, RH-1,
RH-2, O -R, C-1, C-2, C-3, C -CBD, O -P, I -CBD, I-1, I-2, PUD, POS, flood plain overlay and
shoreland overlay districts.
A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection by any person during
the City Clerk's regular office hours.
Approved for publication by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota, this
17t' day of May, 2010.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
Holly Dahl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
15139101
RNK:04/26/2010
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF
THE WEST BAY OF LAKE MARION FROM
RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
WHEREAS, the characteristics of the waterbody and the shoreland of the west bay of
Lake Marion is more consistent with the definition of a Natural Environment Lake than a
Recreational Development Lake; and,
WHEREAS, reclassifying the west bay of Lake Marion to Natural Environment is
consistent with the policies and land use designations of the City's 2008
Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City's MUSA Staging Plan (Permanent Rural) supports the Natural
Environment Lake classification for the west bay of Lake Marion to maintain the existing
characteristics of the area; and,
WHEREAS, reclassifying the west bay of Lake Marion to a Natural Environment Lake is
consistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations for unsewered lots (minimum lot size of
10 acres); and,
WHEREAS, reclassifying the west bay of Lake Marion to a Natural Environment Lake is
consistent with the environmental protection requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision ordinances concerning wetlands, tree preservation and development on
unsuitable soils.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Lakeville City Council hereby requests that
the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources reclassify the
west bay of Lake Marion from Recreational Development to Natural Environment.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May, 2010.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
'0
Holly Dahl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(
CITY OF LAKEVILLE )
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. is a true and correct copy of
the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville at a
duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 17th day of May, 2010, as shown by the
minutes of said meeting in my possession.
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
(SEAL)
3601 Thurston Avenue N
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763.427.5860
Facsimile: 763.427.0520
PlanningCo@gmail.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Daryl Morey / Allyn Kuennen
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 11 May 2010
RE: Lakeville — Zoning Ordinance Update
TPC FILE: 135.03
With the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan by the City Council in December
of 2008 the next step in the process, as required by state statutes, was to update the City's
development regulations, including the Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance to reflect the goals as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Over the past 14 months
the Planning Commission, Economic Development Commission and the City Council have met
in work sessions to discuss and consider proposed language amending the City's development
regulations. Many of the updates reflect input and contributions from residential and business
owners, the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce and local residential and commercial developers.
The proposed amendments are attached as Exhibits A — C and outline the specific revisions to
Sections 1 through 102 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance that were
reviewed by City officials. The exhibits attached hereto also include final language
modifications as recommended by the City Attorney. Text to be added is marked as double
n rlinand deleted text is marked by a A draft update of the Zoning
Map is attached as Exhibit D.
Exhibits:
A. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Chapter 11, Sections 1-37
B. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Districts Chapter 11, Sections 45-102
C. Proposed Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 10, Sections 1-6
D. Proposed Zoning Map
ANALYSIS
Administration and General Performance Standards (Sections 1-37). The majority of the
proposed revisions to the administration and performance standard chapters of the Zoning
Ordinance are general updates and clarifications that involved only minor discussion during the
work sessions. However, some proposed revisions were discussed at greater length and these
topics are summarized in the following analysis.
Section 11-16-7.D (Grading and Drainage — Engineer Approval). City staff is
recommending an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to improve the efficiencies
associated with administering the building permit approval process. The amendment will
require builders to provide a certified as -built Certificate of Survey to verify that the final
lot grading and site conditions are consistent with the approved grading plan and
building permit.
D. Ci Engineer Approval:
1. In the case of all single-family lots, multiple -family
lots, business, industrial and institutional
developments, the drainage and erosion control plans
shall be subject to the engineer's written approval.
2. No modification in grade and drainage flow through
fill, cuts, erection of retaining walls or other such
actions shall be permitted until such plans have been
reviewed and received written approval from the City
Engineer.
3. Prior to the release of the required grading securit
an as -built certificate of survey shall be submitted
to verify that the final as -built grades and
elevations of the lot and building are consistent with
the approved grading plan for the development and
amendments as approved by the City Engineer and that
all required property monuments are in place.
Section 11-16-17 (Exterior Lighting). The current standards in the Zoning Ordinance
address basic elements for exterior lighting. A comprehensive revision of this section is
proposed to provide for regulation of exterior lighting to not only prevent glare, but
minimize skyward light pollution, and improve compatibility while protecting public safety
and functionality. One issue the Planning Commission considered carefully is exemption
from these requirements for park, trail and recreational facilities owned or operated by
the City or School Districts. As with the electronic sign issue, a majority of the Planning
Commission believes that potential negative impacts from lighting these facilities will be
properly addressed by elected officials responsible for these facilities. Non City or
School District outdoor recreation areas may also be exempted from the proposed
standards by approval of an interim use permit.
11-17-9 (Exterior Finishes). The Planning Commission has in the past discussed a
desire to promote improvements in the general architectural quality of commercial and
industrial development within the City. This issue was also raised at several of the
Planning District meetings held during the Comprehensive Plan update by both residents
and business owners. City staff presented the proposed revisions to Section 11-17-9 of
the Zoning Ordinance regulating exterior building finishes for commercial, industrial and
institutional buildings to the Planning Commission and Economic Development
Commission. City staff also provided a comparison of how the proposed standards
compare to the City's e*isting requirements and those of other cities within the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area and provided examples of existing commercial and industrial
buildings in Lakeville meeting the proposed requirements.
2
The proposed amendment generally requires the use of the same materials as existing
standards, but includes a percentage requirement to ensure a variation in the exterior
finish of a building. For commercial buildings, the proposed change in standards reflects
recent construction within Lakeville. The same is also true for the exterior building
finishes of industrial buildings, with two significant revisions: The first revision is in
regard to the use of steel, aluminum or cor-ten siding. The current industrial exterior
building finish standards require that any portion of the building abutting a non -industrial
zoning district, public right of way/property and an adjacent building with no metal
exterior materials must be finished with a minimum of 50% stone, brick or precast
concrete panels. The remainder of the exterior of the building may be finished with
steel, aluminum or cor-ten siding. The updated exterior building finish standards
recommend the elimination of steel, aluminum or cor-ten siding as an acceptable
exterior finish material for new buildings constructed in industrial districts. The second
significant revision is in regard to future additions or expansions of existing industrial
buildings. The proposed amendment includes a requirement that any addition that is
greater than 50% of the existing building must meet the proposed exterior building finish
standards.
An open house was held on 15 September 2009 to invite commercial and industrial
property owners to review the proposed exterior finish standards. Comments received
during and after the open house were generally that the City should not make changes
that would negatively affect existing businesses financially or the ability of the City to
recruit new businesses, especially during the current downturn in the economy. Several
comments were also received supporting the proposed standards as a means of
protecting investments made in existing businesses and strengthening the quality of
development in Lakeville.
The Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission reviewed the
proposed amendments separately. The Planning Commission discussed the intent to
advance the architectural quality of commercial and industrial development in Lakeville
without imposing standards burdensome to existing and new businesses. The
Economic Development Commission also had lengthy discussions regarding the
balance of architectural quality versus financial impacts to businesses. The Economic
Development Commission's concerns regarding the proposed standards focused
primarily on the two significant revisions to the industrial districts outlined above. After
further review and consideration the Planning Commission and the Economic
Development Commission recommended that the proposed amendments to the exterior
building materials for the Industrial Districts not be considered at this time but supported
the proposed updates to the exterior building finish standards for commercial districts.
The language of the amendments as currently proposed reflects this recommendation by
both the Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission.
The Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission indicated that
the exterior building material standards for the Industrial District could be reconsidered
after two or three years.
■ Section 11-18-7.D (Accessory Buildings — Single Family Dwellings). The Planning
Commission is recommending additional requirements for garages attached to single
family dwellings including minimum area and width. The intent is to require, functional
space for both vehicles and household storage.
3
■ Section 11-18-9.H. (Accessory Buildings — Sport Courts). City staff developed
proposed regulations for sport courts, which are recreational playing surfaces typically
enclosed by fencing that may include permanent fixtures and/or exterior lighting. The
proposed standards regulate the location of sport courts within the lot, fencing and
exterior lighting.
Section 11-21-9.1) (Required Landscaping — Off street parking areas). The Planning
Commission is also interested in revising the landscape requirements for commercial off-
street parking areas to provide more specific standards that can also more easily be
implemented to improve aesthetics and provide screening. For industrial uses, the
Planning Commission recommends that these revised standards only apply to properties
abutting major collector or arterial streets. The proposed standards would require
installation of a continuous 36 inch screen at the perimeter of the parking area abutting
public rights-of-way and residential districts to more fully screen vehicles and to block
headlight glare.
■ Section 11-23-7.1) (Campaign Signs). Section 11-23-7 of the zoning ordinance will
have to be amended to be consistent with the newly enacted state law dealing with
primaries. The date of state primaries was changed to the 2nd Tuesday in August and
the sign provision in state law was amended accordingly. The new law went into effect
immediately when the Governor signed it on March 3.
Section 11-23-15.1-1 (Electronic Signs). A major impetus of the Sign Ordinance
update in 2007 was to address potential applications for electronic signs in reaction to
court cases in Eden Prairie and Hopkins. The 2007 Sign Ordinance update expanded
the specificity of the prohibition on electronic signs by including various electronic sign
technologies in Section 11-23-17 of the Zoning Ordinance with the expectation that the
issue would be revisited again as part of the 2010 Zoning Ordinance update.
The recommendation is that the allowance of electronic signage for business
identification purposes has potential for significant negative impacts to the aesthetic
character of the City's planned commercial nodes and that these signs represent a
potential traffic hazard. As for the use of electronic billboards, allowance of electronic
signs, even if existing billboard signs are required to be removed is counter to
established policy and objectives for ultimate removal of these signs as provided for by
the current Zoning Ordinance. City staff does not recommend amending the Zoning
Ordinance to allow broader use of electronic signs for business identification or
billboards. However, City staff believes that allowance of electronic signs for City and
School District uses can be justified based on acceptable zoning approaches to sign
regulations.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue over three work sessions with regard to
allowing electronic signs for businesses and public uses or limiting these signs only to
City and School District facilities. The Planning Commission debated whether to allow
electronic signs only for City and School District facilities or to not allow them for any
uses. The majority of the Planning Commission recommends allowing electronic signs
for City and School District facilities because the signs serve an important public
purpose unique to these entities. The majority of the Planning Commission also said
that the potential negative impocts regarding the use of the signs are minimized -as
elected community representatives are ultimately accountable for their installation and
use. The draft Zoning Ordinance amendment limiting electronic signs to the P -OS
District and proposed Zoning Map update would make electronic signs allowed only at
4
City facilities and the two high school campuses. The Planning Commission further
limited allowance of electronic signs for City facilities to only public administration, fire
stations, police department buildings, ice arenas and public maintenance buildings.
■ 11-23-15.Y (Subdivision Signs). The Planning Commission reviewed revised
language consolidating allowances for subdivision signs as part of the general
sign provisions applicable across all zoning districts. The following changes
were directed to the proposed language:
o The Planning Commission directed that the prohibition on commercial
speech on flags displayed at model homes be deleted from subsection
2.b(2):
(2) Not more than three (3) f lags 44, is --4mff
&I =r___L with a maximum area of sixteen
(16) square feet and maximum height of twenty
four (24) feet shall be allowed upon lots within
the subdivision.
o Related to this issue are modifications to signs allowed under subsection
2.c for model homes with some additional allowances made for
freestanding and flexi-flag signs at those locations. An industry request
was also made to revise the limitations on the duration during which these
temporary marketing signs may be displayed to allow a developer/builder
to complete their project.
C. Unless extended by the Zoning Administrator
the temporary signs and flags allowed by
this section shall only be displayed for a
period not to exceed three (3) years from
the date a permit is issued for the sign or
until building permits have been issued for
one hundred (100) percent of the lots or
units within the development, whichever
occurs first.
11-23-19.G (Freeway Corridor District). The Zoning Ordinance currently includes a
Freeway Corridor Sign District with increased area and height limits for signs located
within 1,500 feet of the center line of 1-35. The sign allowances, specifically the height
allowed for signs within the Freeway Corridor District, became a subject of discussion in
May 2008 related to a variance application to allow an increase in the height of a
freestanding sign from 30 feet to 60 feet. The City Council approved the variance
request to 50 feet in order to increase potential visibility from 1-35 for this freeway
oriented use. The Planning Commission has reviewed three issues related to the
Freeway Corridor District sign provisions and recommends the following amendments:
1. First, which properties along the 1-35 corridor should be included as part of the
Freeway Corridor District in terms of proximity to the corridor, visibility and
access? The Planning Commission is recommending that the boundaries of the
Freeway Corridor District change from a static 1,500 feet from the centerline of I-
5
35 to a boundary shown on the Zoning Map encompassing commercial
properties fronting 1-35 (or its frontage streets) and those clustered around the
four interchanges.
2. Second, what is the minimum height of a sign within the Freeway Corridor District
that is likely to be visible from 1-35? The Engineering Department prepared an
exhibit showing the topography along the 1-35 corridor and various spot locations
of the freeway. Near the interchanges is where the difference in elevation is
greatest ranging from approximately 20 to 40 feet. The Planning Commission is
recommending that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow commercial
businesses that are oriented to transient motorists and that are located below the
centerline of the freeway a freestanding sign up to a height (70) feet provided the
sign not does not exceed thirty (30) feet above the centerline elevation of 1-35
adjacent to the subject property.
3. Finally, should the increased sign allowances provided for in the Freeway
Corridor District be limited to certain uses oriented to transient motorists on 1-35?
The Planning Commission is recommending that the increased sign height
allowance for properties located below the centerline of 1-35 be limited to motor
fuel, hotel, and restaurant uses only.
Section 29 (Wind Energy Conversion Systems). The Zoning Ordinance update in
2000 included provisions regulating Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). With
growing interest in natural sources of energy, the use of WECS are being promoted as a
residential alternative. There is also growing interest in alternative forms of energy
including solar energy systems and ground source heat pump systems. The Planning
Commission previously considered regulations applicable to hydronic furnaces. City
staff is recommending that in addition to modifications to the existing WECS regulations,
new regulations be considered for solar energy systems and ground source heat pumps
as part of a revised Chapter 29 that would also include proposed regulations for hydronic
furnaces.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey has done additional research on this subject finding
that most small wind energy systems produce between 2.4 and 10 KWh and some
produce up to 100 KWh to 500 KWh per month or about half the electrical energy for
most homes. In order to be most effective, WECS must be installed to a height up to 30
feet above the tree canopy or surrounding structures in order to get "clean" air. There
are two types of WECS, those with horizontal rotors and those with vertical rotors. The
regulations in the Zoning Ordinance allow WECS in agricultural, commercial or industrial
districts or on other property 2.5 acres in area or larger. The maximum height allowed
for a WECS system by the existing ordinance is 175 feet and the Zoning Ordinance
requires setbacks at a 1:1 ratio with the structure height. The existing ordinance also
specifies minimum clearance requirements for the rotor type WECS system. Based on
the research by our office and City staff the following modifications to Chapter 29 are
recommended:
o Specify that WECS are allowed as an accessory use within any zoning district.
WECS that conform to the height limits of the zoning district in which it is located
would be allowed by administrative] permit. WECS that exceed the allowed
height of the Zoning District would require approval of an interim use permit.
2
o Require submission of a study demonstrating sufficient wind availability for
WECS proposed to exceed the height of the applicable zoning district as an
interim use.
o The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates the size of the rotors on the WECS.
However, this language may not be applicable to all types of WECS, particularly
those with vertical rotors. As such, City staff recommends that the provision be
deleted. In its place, City staff recommends additional provisions related to tower
design be provided.
o Increase the minimum rotor clearance zone radius from 200 feet to 500 feet to
ensure that the turbine accesses sufficient wind to operate efficiently.
o The existing Zoning Ordinance provisions address compliance with electrical
codes and lightning protection. City staff recommends that additional language
be added to require a disconnect switch and that all wiring be installed
underground.
o It is recommended that in addition to regulations regarding lighting of WECS, that
standards be added to address aesthetic issues such as color or reflectivity as
the City does for PCS towers.
o The regulation of noise from WECS cites a general State standard. For
residential areas, a more specific standard of 10dB above surrounding ambient
noise is recommended.
■ Section 11-30-3.K (Antennas). The Planning Commission directed that specific criteria
be added to the Zoning Ordinance for the analysis required to demonstrate need for new
antenna locations.
Section 32 (Home Occupations). The Planning Commission requested review of the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance regulating home occupations. Almost all of the
home occupations classified as special home occupations that come before the Planning
Commission for the initial public hearing and subsequent mandatory review are
approved without significant issue or concern. The primary issue in regulating home
occupations is to ensure that they are limited in scale so as not to cause compatibility
issues within the residential neighborhood in which they are located. A secondary issue
is that because the City promotes economic development within designated commercial
and industrial areas, home occupations can create competition for businesses in these
areas with unfair advantages in terms of building requirements, property taxes, etc.
Based on these considerations City staff recommends the following:
o Allowing all home occupations by administrative permit.
o Limiting home occupations to only those service activities involving not more than
one patron being served at a time, except for instructional classes as an interim
use in a single family home.
o Not allowing any employees that are not residents of the principal dwelling.
o Many service businesses such as hair salons or massage therapy are subject to
State licensing requirements.
7
Miler CUP. The City Council in June of 2009 approved a conditional use permit (CUP)
for a single family residential property located at 12428 - 167th Street allowing more than
one detached accessory building and an accessory building taller than 15 feet. The
application also involved an existing accessory structure encroaching within an
established drainage and utility easement. In considering the application, both the
Planning Commission and the City Council discussed at length issues regarding allowed
accessory building height and location:
o Accessory Building Height. The Planning Commission recommends that
Section 11-18-9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance measure building height for
accessory buildings in the same manner as principal buildings, which will
effectively increase the allowed height by measuring to the mid -point of a pitched
roof versus to the peak of the structure as currently regulated. Criteria will also
be added to the Zoning Ordinance for evaluating CUP applications to increase
the height of accessory buildings.
o Easement Encroachment. Allowing encroachments subject to an agreement
with the City would increase a property owner's use of the area of their property
restricted by the public drainage and utility easement. However, these
encroachments are also an obstacle to the City utilizing the drainage and utility
easement for the purposes under which it was dedicated. Removal of structures
encroaching within drainage and utility easements would potentially add
additional time and cost to City projects and raises issues as to where the
structures are to be moved to or who is responsible if the structure or other
property is damaged when utility or drainage work is being completed. The
Planning Commission does not recommend amending the Zoning Ordinance to
allow for the encroachment of structures within drainage and utility easements.
Zoning Districts (Sections 45-102) The Zoning District section of the Zoning Ordinance was
updated to include both generalized changes as well as implementation strategies for policies
adopted as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
■ General changes.
o Each district now includes a full listing of allowed uses.
o Allowed building height is identified in each of the respective districts.
o State statutes have been amended to require the City to allow in home
daycare with up to 14 persons (previously 12) accessory to single family
dwellings.
o Within residential districts, amend outdoor commercial recreation allowed
as a conditional use to golf courses only.
o Within the RST -2, RM -1, RM -2, RH-1 and RH-2 Districts amend the
exterior building material requirements for two-family, detached
townhomes and townhomes to:
1. Require 25 percent brick, stucco or natural stone on each fagade
whereas the current standards require the same amount of
masonry, but does not require it to be on each fagade.
2. Allow use of rock face block or cement fiber board to meet the
masonry material requirements on sides of buildings not facing
public rights-of-way or private drives.
o Within the RM -1, RM -2, RH-1 and RH-2 Districts, encourage greater use
of public streets thus minimizing the need for HOA owned and maintained
infrastructure by:
Restricting the use of private drives for two-family, detached
townhomes and attached townhomes to not more than six units or
one building per side. These private drives would be required to be
a minimum width of 24 feet.
2. Building setbacks to internal public rights-of-way are proposed to
be reduced from 30 feet to 20 feet for the principal building, except
that the garage face must be setback at least 25 feet.
o The listing of permitted uses within commercial districts has been
simplified by utilizing the more generalized designations of commercial
uses defined in Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance update.
o Eliminate the keeping of animals as a permitted accessory use within
commercial and industrial districts except in relation to a specific use such
as a pet shop or veterinary clinic.
o Religious institutions are proposed to be added as conditional uses within
commercial districts. Because of court decisions related to freedom of
religion the City must allow religious institutions to locate in the same
manner as theaters or "places of assembly". To stay consistent with the
updated regulations, theater uses which are currently allowed as permitted
uses in the C-2 and C-3 District are proposed to be revised to be
conditional uses with the C-2 and C-3 Districts.
o Building height of up to six stories or 65 feet is proposed to be allowed
within the O -P District as a permitted use. The primary stipulation is that
the building must be setback 50 feet from residentially zoned property.
Buildings taller than six stories or 65 feet may also be considered as a
conditional use under the provisions of Section 11-17-7 General Yard, Lot
Area and Building Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
o Allow nursing homes and residential care facilites as a conditional use
within the C-3 and C -CBD Districts based on their more institutional
character.
E
■ Section 45 (General Zoning District Provisions)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 46 (A -P District)
o Added golf courses as a conditional use.
■ Section 47 (R -A District)
o Added golf courses as a conditional use.
■ Section 48 (RAO District)
o Eliminate the allowance of uses allowed by the underlying zoning district
to prevent premature development of urban uses outside of the MUSA.
■ Section 50 (RS -1 District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 51 (RS -2 District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 52 (RS -3 District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 53 (RS -4 District)
o The Planning Commission reviewed a study prepared by City staff
regarding small lot single family developments. In preparing the study,
City staff toured several developments within the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area and met with developers to obtain input as to market trends and
appropriate lot standards. The developers that met with City staff were
also asked to provide example house plans applicable to small lot
subdivision designs. Based on the study completed by staff and
discussions with the developers, City staff is recommending the following
lot requirements for the RS -4 District.
Lot area:
Corner
11,259 10.200 square feet
Interior
9,375 8,400 square feet
Lot width:
Corner
85feet
10
1
Interior
70 feet
Setbacks:
Front yards
20 feet to the pringipal buildin • and
253-9 feet to the garage face
Rear yards
30
feet
Side yards
7
n
of
feet from the adjacent lot, or 20 feet
the side yard abutting a public right
way
Maximum Building
4 -Q --percent
Covera e:
o Implementation of this study will affect the zoning district text as well as
the zoning map by designating some of the areas guided for low to
medium density uses on the 2030 Land Use Plan for new RS -4 District
development. The Planning Commission indicated that the initial area
zoned for new RS -4 District development should be limited to avoid an
oversupply of land designated for small lot single family homes. The
intent of the Planning Commission in this regard is to avoid a situation
similar to the oversupply of land guided for medium density residential
land uses on the 1998 Land Use Plan that was zoned RM -1 District in
2000.
o The Planning Commission is recommending that the revised RS -4 District
standards be reviewed after two or three years (subject to the approval
and construction of new subdivisions) to verify that the implementation of
the small lot single family developments is consistent with community
goals.
■ Section 54 (RS -CBD District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 55 (RSMH District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 56 (RST -1 District)
o City staff recommends revising the lot requirements for detached single
family dwellings to be consistent with those proposed for the RS -4 District.
■ Section 57 (RST -2 District)
1
o City staff recommends revising the lot requirements for detached single
family dwellings to be consistent with those proposed for the RS -4 District.
11
■ Section 58 (RM -1 District)
o Allow single family detached dwellings as a permitted use subject to the
proposed lot requirements of the RS -4 District.
o Townhouses will be limited to structures including not more than six units
and not more than two common walls per unit consistent with the
directives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
■ Section 59 (RM -2 District)
o The RM -2 District is a new zoning district directed by the 2008
Comprehensive Plan to allow for back-to-back type townhomes in areas
guided for Medium to High Density Residential on the 2030 Land Use
Plan. The RM -2 District otherwise mirrors the RM -1 District except that
single family detached dwellings are not an allowed use unless required
as a transition.
■ Section 61 (RH-1 District)
o Add senior assisted living and continuing care retirement communities as
a permitted use with an allowed density of 1,500 square feet of lot area
per dwelling unit.
■ Section 62 (RH-2 District)
o The RH-2 District is a new zoning district directed by the 2008
Comprehensive Plan to allow for multiple family dwellings taller than three
stories as allowed in the RH-1 District. This district will be designated on
the Zoning Map at specific locations to allow increased building height.
The maximum building height in the RH-2 District is proposed as four
stories or 45 feet. Buildings taller than four stories or 45 feet may also be
considered as a conditional use under the provisions of Section 11-17-7 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
■ Section 70 (O -R District)
o Uses allowed within the O -R District are proposed to be expanded to
include as conditional uses preschool or adult education facilities, fitness
centers limited to 2,000 square feet and senior assisted living or
continuing care retirement communities.
■ Section 71 (C-1 District)
o No significant changes.
12
■ Section 72 (C-2 District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 73 (C-3 District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 74 (C -CBD District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 75 (O -P District)
o The O -P, Office Park District is a new district established to correspond to
the office land use designation on the 2030 Land Use Plan. The O -P
District is generally the existing CC, Corporate Campus District with
allowance of existing C -W, Commercial Warehouse and limited light
industrial uses as conditional uses. The C -W and CC Districts are
proposed to be eliminated.
o The O -P District includes allowance of existing established uses as
allowed in the 1-1 District as interim uses to not cause existing industrial
businesses located along Kenrick Avenue south of CSAH 70, east of 1-35
to become non -conforming.
o Hospitals are proposed as a conditional use within the O -P District.
■ Section 85 (I -CBD District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 86 (1-1 District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 87 (1-2 District)
o No significant changes.
■ Section 96 (PUD District)
o The PUD District is amended to eliminate the listing of individual approved
PUDs.
■ Section 97 (POS District)
13
o The POS District is revised to eliminate all non -city of Lakeville uses
except for high schools and park and ride facilities for the purpose of
allowing electronic message signs by zoning district.
o Park and ride facilities were also added as a permitted use.
■ Section 102 (Shoreland Overlay District)
o Reclassification of the portion of Lake Marion west of 1-35 as a Natural
Environment Lake allowing existing lots of record to maintain the minimum
lot and setback requirements for a Recreational Development Lake,
unless rezoned or subdivided. Up to 209 dwelling units will be reserved
in a residential density bank for allocation to any Shoreland Overlay
District as part of a PUD in conjunction with the classification of the West
Bay of Lake Marion as a Natural Environment Lake.
o Incorporation of DNR and City staff interpretation allowing the area of
public buffers along streams to be credited toward compliance with
maximum impervious surface limits.
o Elimination of setback requirements from public rights-of-way and side lot
lines as repetitive of base zoning district regulations and not required for
protection of shoreland features. Provisions regarding the location of
streets, private driveways and parking lots are also clarified to state that
principal building setbacks apply only from the OHWL or bluff line.
o Modification of the non -conforming lot provisions to include criteria
enacted by the Legislature for building on lots with less than the minimum
lot area required within a Shoreland Overlay District. The intent of this
change is to allow building on non -conforming lots of record without a
variance, which Lakeville already allowed. However, the ordinance
provisions requiring contiguous lots of record to be combined when one or
both parcels has less than the minimum area required must also be
deleted as this requirement may be a potential taking of property rights.
Subdivision Ordinance. Proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance are
attached hereto as Exhibit C. The proposed revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance
have been identified primarily by Engineering Department staff and consist of updates
to reflect current nomenclature as well as updated application submittal and
environmental review requirements.
Zoning Map. A draft update of the Zoning Map indicating the specific parcels that are
proposed to be rezoned to bring them into consistency with the 2008 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan is attached as Exhibit D. The changes from the current Zoning Map to
the proposed Zoning Map are summarized in the table below:
14
District
Current
Acres
Proposed
Acres
Change
A -P
256
256
--
RA
2,928
2,724
-204
RS -1
662
646
-16
RS -2
1,966
1,918
-48
RS -3
4,395
4,833
+438
RS -4
114
374
+260
RS -CBD
53
53
--
RSMH
215
215
--
RST-1
81
77
-4
RST -2
733
490
-243
RM -1
1,669
1,038
-631
RM -2
0
552
+552
RH-1
295
96
-199
RH-2
0
32
+32
O -R
50
69
+19
C-1
21
21
--
C-2
108
108
--
C-3
718
791.5
+73.5
C -CBD
17
17
--
CC
348
0
-348
C -W
121
0
-121
O -P
0
745.5
745.5
1-1
861
416
-445
1-2
711
809
+98
I -CBD
16
7
-9
POS
1,961
2,429
+468
PUD
1,790
1,384
-406
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider recommendations to the
City Council regarding adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance updates. The Planning Commission voted separately to recommend
approval of the proposed amendments to the Shoreland Overlay District and the
balance of the updated regulations, including the Zoning Map. The City Council will
consider the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance updates at their meeting on
17 May 2010.
C. Steve Mielke
David Olson
Keith Nelson
Zach Johnson
Roger Knutson
Andrea Poehler
15
1
Dear Holly
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Please have read aloud at tonight's , 7:00 PM Lakeville city council meeting. If that isn't permitable,
please at minimum, distribute to all council members and make part of the "record".
Robert H. Leibman, my attorney will be emailing this afternoon to you this letter to you in a word
document as to allow you to email to those involved, council members and the like.
The truth is that because I have so much at stake, I'm frightened.
I feel like I've been cornered, it is not a pleasant feeling.
Robert H.leibman is trying to rearrange prior engagements he has for this evening as so he can attend. If
he can make it, I will be there also. If he can't, I may or may not attend.
I have also, with this correspondence with you, included a various material.
My email is dremes@msn.com
9
City of Lakeville, Mayor
Holly Dahl
20195 Holyoke Ave
Lakeville Mn, 55044
May 17 2010
My name is Dan Remes, on December 17th 2009; 1 purchased the residents at 18631 Knollwood Circle.
This is an 11 acre property with approximately 850 feet of shore line on Lake Marion.
This correspondence is a summary or highlights of a 15 page document I wrote that is currently being
tweaked by my lead real estate attorney Robert H.Leibman, which will be available after Wednesday.
I am in strong opposition to the proposed change of use, or classification or any term otherwise used by
the city.
Had I know that the city was going to allow the DNR to take this lake or specifically the west bay of the
lake and reclassify it from the current; RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT to natural environmental, I would
have NEVER, I repeat NEVER purchased this property. In the enter time I negotiated to buy 18631
Knollwood Circle, nearly the entire calendar year 2009, not one word was mentioned to me by the
sellers or their realtor about this proposed change, reclassification.
It was only one week prior to the commission meeting on the April 22nd, did I learn about the proposed
change by neighbor Gerry Krebs who stopped by to inform me of this issue.
Gerry has for years stood in opposition.
Because of the short notice afforded to me, has left me no reasonable amount of time to research and
develop solid legal and deeper philosophical reasons to argue against this "taking", of some of my
property rights, value, I formal request, service by this document, and in the name of decency, that you
hold off on this action for 6 months.
If my request or points of reason aren't compelling enough, let me share with you a few nuggets of truth
and facts that I discovered in my day long field trip last Friday May 14th to both the central and regional
offices of the DNR, 500 Lafayette and 1200 Warner Road, respectively. I spend all day there talking to
the highest ranking officers I could get in front of. My goal was to as quickly as possible find the cities
finger prints on how, why and by what means the city got in hawk with the DNR. I have now in my
position countless emails and correspondence between the DNR and Lakeville going back 2003 to
present. At the central office, I found information that more than satisfied my suspicions that this
reclassification of Lake Marion was most certainly involved or part of the "pay back" owed to the DNR.
I found yet more gold at the regional office, where I meet with among others Dale Homuth, who Pat
Lynch reported to.
Within 20 minutes of my visit with Dale, I found what I could only dreamed to have discovered with
weeks of searching and "subpoena". Correspondences between the DNR and the Lakeville. It is clear
that indeed Lakeville was in hawk with the DNR for various violations of DNR , "code" and that to make
it right this classification change is, would, become a part if not big part of the compensation; the quid
pro quo.
I still needed understand how these things are resolved.
I was confused about under what guidelines does DNR account for these values needed to be relinquish
to them by cities that are "out of compliance" or owes for a violation , exchanges or otherwise. So I
inquired. And boom, I heard the words that flung the open the door to the missing piece.
Implementation Flexibility.
It is the under that provision that cities or counties can get out of hawk with the DNR. The commissioner
can by his sole authority grant amnesty to cities or counties, as long as enough compensating values are
given to the DNR. It allows, for lack of a better phrase, "offer and compromise"
And it is here we are back to my property. My property and my adjacent neighbor's properties are part if
not all the part of this "offer and compromise".
Now circling back for a moment to the April 22nd commission meeting. It was extremely troubling to me
the obvious avoidances, the smoke and mirrors, given to the questions raised by Gerry Krebs and Dr
Thomas Hendrickson.
When the questions were being addressed or asked to staff or commissioners what are the offsets or
credits the city owes owed the DNR, they would act as though the question was without meaning and or
act like they have no idea what was being meant by using the terms offsets or credits. And technically
maybe the denial of offsets or credits is the truth, because those terms are more slang than official. But
let us be honest, the represenative from NAC, Inc, Daniel Licht and others knew exactly what Gerry
Krebs was trying to get at. What staff should be doing in those situations is not to smoke screen and play
naive, but rather to HELP OUT the citizen and say something like, "well, we owe the DNR, yes we do, but
the terms are not called offsets or credit, what your inquiring about is under the heading
Implementation Flexibility . For instances because of overbuilding the density on the Kinsley Lake area,
or perhaps significant leeway on wet land restrictions on the super target deal, or whatever, that is
how we got in "debt", in "arrears" in "hawk" with the DNR, and we are repaying them by give them
your land, or at least restricting your uses". Something honest like that.
I must say in the 30- 40 minutes I listened to Daniel Licht , I was impressed with his tremendous insight
of this and that provisions or ordinance, knowing the procedures forwarded and backward, extremely
smart articled man. But to questions to offset, credits -or the need to change this classification raised by
Gerry Krebs, he started speaking mumbo jumbo, lawyer like.
I get that he is trying to get the best deal for the city, works for them, gets paid by them, but he has a
higher fiduciary to protect the citizens of the community. Doesn't he? Shouldn't he?
Among other reason I bought 18631 Knollwood is for all the activities that are available to me under the
Rural Agricultural zoning. I have 4 wheelers, motocross bikes, fishing boats, speed boats, jet boats, and
jet skis. My cylinder index is high. I am working on stabling for horses. I can raise and sell numerous
types of farm animals, if I wish. I can build an 8,000, that's eight thousand square foot accesary building.
I can, could legally cut down ever one of the 500 Red Oak trees in my yard, sod the entire 11 acres, and
then enter for Scott's Fertilizer "yard of the year award". On and on. To those who say none of my
enjoyments or uses will change. I say your either being dishonest or don't live on this planet. We all
know how this works, restrictions beget restrictions. I could give you a thousand scenarios. Here's one,
say 5 or 6 years from now, a couple in a canoe, doesn't like hearing or seeing a dirt bike screaming
around this beautiful area. They call the authorities, and before you know it there are strangers entering
my property, without my permission, but of course they'll tell me that they don't need it, "and by the
way spread your legs and put your heads behind your head, so we can cuff you". You want a dozen
more, ask me. That's how the government restrictions work. Like milfoil itself. Which by the way, I won't
be able to treat with chemically as I can under the current classification. Once it becomes natural
environmental lakes classification the enforcement agency changes from the DNR to the Division of
Fisheries. How about that. And under their rules NO chemicals are allowable once a lake is reclassified
natural environmental. Not so, you say. Call and ask Peder Otterson, one of the big cheese's, at DNR's
central office. This fact was one of the random little nuggets he shared with me during my nice visit to
his office. Nice man more should be like him.
That again was Radom, only weeks after being told at the commission meeting, (read the minutes), that
weed control would not change. Heard that from both staff and a commissioner. And technically
correct, the DNR would still allow the removal. But by the law of unintended consequences, it becomes
the Fisheries jursidiction. Two things, yet another example of wild goose chase, staff address the
question that technical is true but hides these types of fact. And on this one, I'll give the benefit of the
doubt, staff didn't know this. But if this is the case it speaks volumes to the fact that staff or the city CAN
NOT offers guarantees and protections to us. Remember my scenario. You change the classification and
you change my property rights in countless ways for ever.
Oh, and then we hear, "oh don't worry we'll grandfather you in on uses"
We all know that at best, "grandfather" provisions would sunset. Is the city going to offer that forever
and ever, future owner are grandfathered. No? Well I guess that means my property isn't worth as
much.
But the main reason I purchased 18631 Knollwood is the value this 11 acres will have, 15 to 30 years
down the road. And a huge part of that value is in the potential for further development, addition units.
That potential, as slim as some may think, is being take from me the minute you would change this
classification. And I get nothing for that? But the city gets flush with the DNR and is allowed some other
goodies elsewhere and down the road. I say not in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
If Lakeville does vote through this reclassification, I will sue the city. NOT a threat, a promise. Now you
may think I'm just a nobody. Go ahead, but I promise you, I have in my corner some extremely formable
people and organizations. At minimum, I will do everything within my legal right and power to make
Lakeville the poster child for how NOT to treat citizens of the United States. To the Star Tribune, in front
of cameras at WCCO, KARE 11, you name it, I'll showing the world how Lakeville is tearing my arms off.
I currently have two of my attorneys on this, the aforementioned , Robert H.Liebman, who will after
review all related correspondence between Lakeville and the DNR, deliver to you a legal responds to this
letter.
The city has the right to decide to go in to "debt" with the DNR by developing land they otherwise could
not. By making these development decision generates 10's of millions in tax revenue and otherwise.
But they must recognize their fair share of cost associated with these actions. To attempt to take
something for nothing, my property rights is less the honorable and in these United States of America,
unconstitutional.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sinceoemes Dani
cc, Robert H. Leibman
Attorney at Law
7515 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 231
St. Louis Park, MN 55426