Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-02 CITY OF LAKEVILLE Planning Commission Meeting Minutes FEBRUARY 21, 2002 The February 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Wulff in the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. Flag pledge and roll call of members: Present: Michaud, Wulff, Detjen, Stolte, Drotning, ex-officio Puncochar. Absent: Grenz, Larson Staff Present: David Olson, Community and Economic Development Director; Frank Dempsey, Associate Planner; Ron Mullenbach, Associate Planner; Alyson Morris, Development/Design Engineer; Jay Rubash, Assistant City Engineer; Thomas Scott, Assistant City Attorney; and Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary. ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The February 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as presented. The January 31, 2002 Planning Commission work session minutes were approved. as presented. The .February 7, 2002 Planning Commission work session minutes were approved as presented. ITEM 4: ANNOUNCEMENTS: The following .items were distributed to the Planning Commission members and staff before tonight's meeting: 1. February 20, 2002 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee meeting motions and recommendations regarding the Vistaglen Preliminary and Final plat . 2. E-mail from Carol Hara to Frank Dempsey regarding Vistaglen. 3. Memo from Daryl Morey regarding the City Council decision on the zoning ordinance Text amendment for the C-1 District .(seating accessory). 4. Letter to the Editor published in the ThisWeek newspaper regarding variances. 5. Blueprint 2030 handout from the Metropolitan Council regarding workshops. 6. Letter from Lee E. Sheehy, the new regional administrator for the Metropolitan Council. Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 2 • ITEM 5: CITY OF LAKEVILLE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Chair Wulff continued the public hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow health club/.fitness center uses within the C-1 District. Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach presented the staff report. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that at the February 7, 2002 the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a draft zoning ordinance text. amendment for consideration at tonight's meeting. He stated that the consensus of the Planning Commission was that health club/fitness centers. should be allowed. as a conditional use provided the activities and intensity of the use be limited by specific stipulations. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that the Planning Commission members discussed the necessity to differentiate the "fitness center" type of use from general commercial recreation uses. In addition, Mr. Mullenbach stated that the .consensus of the. Planning Commission members was that group classes, hot tubs, saunas, and competitive sport facilities should not be allowed as part of a fitness center. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that .City staff is recommending adding the language stated in the February 14, 2002 Planning Report for a fitness center definition. Mr. Mullenbach stated that the Zoning Ordinance currently does not include a parking provision for fitness center uses. Therefore, City staff is recommending approval of an amendment to add the language stated in the February 14, 2002 .Planning Report for a parking requirement to Section 11-19-13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mullenbach stated that . Planning Commission members indicated that stipulations should be placed on fitness center uses to limit the intensity of the use. City staff is recommending four stipulations, which are listed in the February 14, 2002 Planning Report.. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that the proposed text amendment is recommended to address scale, parking, intensity, compatibility and hours of operation. Mr. Mullenbach stated that Planning Department staff is recommending approval of the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance Text related to fitness center uses in the C-1, Retail Commercial District. . Mr. Mullenbach also indicated that Planning Department staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider adopting similar performance standards for fitness Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 3 centers in the C-CBD, Central Business District commercial District as part of the overall Zoning Ordinance review. Chair Wulff .invited Ms. McKnight and Ms. Sauber, the proposed owners of Ladies Workout Express, to speak if they had any further comments. Ms. McKnight indicated that they would not be able to open Ladies Workout Express with less than 20 stations, which are 10 cardiovascular machines and 10 platforms or recovery stations. Ms McKnight and her sister, Ms. Sauber were discouraged with the way the process of rezoning this property has been handled.. Commissioner Drotning stated that the City initiated the rezoning process for the C-1 Districts and it has been done in a very timely fashion. Chair Wulff stated that the property owner knew adequate parking was going to be a challenge, regardless of whether the Zoning Ordinance text amendment is approved to allow fitness center uses. . Chair Wulff indicated that a conditional use permit to allow Ladies Workout Express in Ipava Marketplace is not .guaranteed.. to be approved. The Planning Commission feels that the number of stalls built at the site, the few stalls in proximity to the end of the building proposed for Ladies Workout Express to locate, and the infancy of existing businesses would have to be considered. 02.18 Motion by Michaud, Second by Drotning to recommend to City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment related to health club/fitness center uses in the C-1, Retail Commercial District, as presented. Ayes: Michaud, Wulff, Detjen, Stolte, Drotning Nays: 0 ITEM 6. VISTAGLEN Chair Wulff opened the public hearing to consider the application of Basic Builders, Inc. and Michael and Jan Sheady for a preliminary and final plat of four attached twin home lots for a total of 8 twin home units on property zoned RST-2, Single and Two Family Residential district, and the vacation of a public drainage and utility easement, located north of 165 Street and west of Java Lane. Assistant City Attorney Scott attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance . with state statutes and City Code. Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 4 • The Planning Commission entered into the public record a letter from Carol Hara, a resident of Lakeville,. regarding Vistaglen. Jeff Nivala, from Basic Builders, Inc. and Chris Uckwig from Probe Engineering were in attendance to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or the public may have. Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented the planning report. Mr. Dempsey stated that Basic Builders, Incorporated has submitted preliminary and final plat plans for the development of an eight unit twin home residential development located north of 165 Street and west of Java Lane. The preliminary and final plat consists of four lots on one block. Mr. Dempsey stated that the twin homes will be sold as owner occupied units. Each parcel will be administratively subdivided following completion of the building foundation to ensure accurate placement of the common wall for each unit in relation to the property line. Mr. Dempsey .outlined the minimum requirements for development in the RST-2 District, which included a detailed description of the proposed Vistaglen twin home development, as stated in the February 15, 2002 Planning Report. Mr. Dempsey stated that the preliminary and final plat property is currently zoned RST-2, Single and Two Family Residential District and has been zoned for residential development since the late 1960's. Mr. Dempsey stated that the drainage and utility easement along the east five feet of the south leg of Lot '7, Block 2, Crystal Ridge Estates, which is the Sheady property, will be vacated to allow that portion of the lot to be platted with the Vistaglen preliminary and final plat. Mr. Dempsey stated that a tree inventory has been submitted with the Vistaglen plans, and it identifies 107 trees on the property. Most trees are elm and box elders with some oaks, cherry and aspen. The plan proposes to save 35 trees and remove 72. Nineteen trees will be custom saved. He indicated that of the 9 oak trees on site, 6 will be saved. Mr. Dempsey indicated that staff recommended and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Committee made a motion to approve a cash requirement of $12,000 to satisfy park dedication requirements for the proposed eight units. Chair Wulff opened the hearing to the public for comment. • Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 5 • Scott Schmidt, 16367 Java Lane. Resides directly north of the Vistaglen development. ? Wanted to be sure the city and the developer were aware of the drainage problem in this area. ? Wants the ground water addressed. ? Could the developer eliminate the slope of the hill? ? Wants to see more trees for privacy and erosion control. ? As a result of excavation, if the developer disturbs .too much land and the neighbors start having. more water problems, who is liable. ? Is the 12 inch drain pipe on the north side of the plat on the property line? ? He is happy with the type of structure. Kathleen Burk, 16395 Java Lane. ? Major water issues addressed. Wanted landscaping to be more natural looking. Could the trees be staggered rather than a straight line, which is what is shown on the landscape plan? ? Questioned the possible impact to her property with the construction.. of he drain the coming down between Sheady's property and her own property. Dale Royer, 16359 Java Lane. ? Drainage issue, and what's going to happen if they run into more water? ? Any guarantees of no additional water problems? 02.19 Motion by Drotning, Second by Stolte to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ayes: Wulff, Detjen, Stolte, Drotning, Michaud. Nays: 0 Mr. Ockwig from Prope Engineering addressed the neighbors' concerns regarding the drainage and ground water problems in this .area. Staff. had requested that he obtain soil boring information prior to plat approval to ensure that the proposed storm sewer will alleviate groundwater problems in this area. Mr. Ockwig stated that they did two soil borings along the back line and only one showed any water. Mr. Ockwig indicated that staff recommended that drain the be put in with a stub to each unit and all along the back. Mr. Dempsey indicated that the city has had great success with using drain tile. • .Planning Commission Meeting February 21,.2002 Page 6 Commissioner Stolte asked who maintains the drain tile. Assistant City Engineer Rubach indicated that the 12" drain file will be in a public easement, so the city can maintain it. Commissioner Michaud wanted to address Mr. Schmidt's question of who is responsible if water damages the other homes because of this development. Assistant City Attorney Scott stated that it is the developer's responsibility. Regarding the landscaping, Chair Wulff and Commissioner Detjen asked Mr. Nivala, of Basic Builders if they would stagger the evergreen trees as requested by the neighbors. Mr. Nivala indicated that yes they could stagger the trees. Commissioner Stolte, along with Detjen and Michaud concurred that the drainage is adequately addressed with the swell and the use of drain tile. There would be no reason to change the elevation of the hill in the back of the development. Chair Wulff indicated that she thought this development will blend well with the neighborhood. • Break at 7:25 Reconvened 7:40 Commissioner Drotning addressed the issues that were brought up in the letter received from Carol Hara. Commissioner Drotning wanted to stress that the developer was saving the most valuable trees on the property and that they complied with the Zoning Ordinance. There will be an association for the twin homes so there will be a uniformity in maintenance. There was a comment made in Ms. Hara's letter referring to the Planning Commission making their decisions before the Public Hearing. Commissioner Drotning stated that the Commissioners rely on experts, ordinances, phraseology, and review of the planning reports, along with listening to the neighbors before they make any decisions. There was also a comment made in the letter regarding sending information to the school district and if this was just a formality. Commissioner Drotning indicated that this is done to keep the school district informed and they do respond with their comments for the Planning Commission to consider. He stated that the Planning Commission tries to manage and control development, not promote it. Planning Commission Meeting . February 21, 2002 Page 7 .And the final issue that Commissioner Drotning discussed was driveways. Ms. Hara thought it was not a good idea to have 4 additional driveways installed on 165 Street. Commissioner Drotning indicated that there could have been five driveways if there had been five single family homes put in on this property. With the twin homes, there will be only 4 driveways with hammerheads so the residents don't have to back out onto 165 Street. 02.20 Motion by Detjen, Second by Michaud to recommend to City Council approval of the Vistaglen .preliminary and final plat and easement vacation, subject to the 7 stipulations listed in the February 15, 2002 Planning Report. Ayes: Detjen, Stolte Drotning, Michaud, Wulff Nays: 0 ITEM 7. CITY OF LAKEVILLE Chair Wulff opened the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Title 9, Chapter 3 of the Lakeville City Code (the Sign Ordinance). Assistant City Attorney Scott attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with state w statutes and City Code. Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach presented the. planning report. Mr. Mullenbach stated that the proposed amendment "cleans up" certain areas of the Sign Ordinance related to business signage that needs clarification and adds language that would allow multiple tenant office buildings to list individual tenants. on a freestanding business sign provided the sign does not. exceed the maximum allowed within the respective zoning district. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that the proposed amendment also will allow two separate commercial or industrial uses to co-locate on one freestanding business sign consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation at their January 31, 2002 work session. Mr. Mullenbach stated that the draft Sign Ordinance amendment has been forwarded to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) for review and comment. To date, Mr. Mullenbach indicated that staff has received comments from several EDC members who .support the proposed amendment, and no members opposed it. Mr. Mullenbach stated that Planning Department and Community and Economic • Development Department staff recommend approval of the amendment to the Sign Ordinance as proposed in the February 7, 2002 NAC memo. Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 8 Chair Wulff opened the hearing to the public for comment. There were no comments from the audience. 02.21 Motion by Michaud, Second by Detjen to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ayes: Stolte, Drotning, Michaud, Wulff, Detjen. Nays: 0 Chair Wulff wanted clarification of the definition of a building sign and an area identification sign. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that a building sign is one building with multiple tenants and an area identification sign identifies a development. The following are changes that the Planning Commission recommended making to the memo from Daniel Licht, NAC, dated February 7, 2002: ? .Page 4, new paragraph 5, "The individual: business signs shall be located only on exterior walls of the tenant space being identified." ? Page 5, under Building Simon, change the word "premises" to "parcel." 02.22 Motion by Drotning, Second by Michaud to recommend to the. City. Council approval of an .ordinance amending Title 9, Chapter 3 of the Lakeville City Code (the Sign .ordinance), as amended. Ayes: Drotning, Michaud, Wulff, Detjen, Stolte. Nays: 0 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Penny g, Recordin ecretary AT ~ P W ulff it Y ~C a