HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-00 CITY OF LAKEVILLE
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
M,~,v 4, 2000
The May 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Drotning in
the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m.
Roll call of members was taken:
Present: Bellows, Kot, Drotning, Rieb, Comer, Wulff, Ex-Officio Commission Member
Knutson.
Absent: Skipton.
Staff Present: Robert Erickson, City Administrator; Daryl Morey, Acting Community and
Economic Development Director; Frank Dempsey, Associate Planner; Ron Mullenbach,
Associate Planner; Tim Hanson, Assistant City Engineer; Andrea McDowell Poehler,
Assistant City Attorney; and Donna Quintus, Recording Secretary.
The April 13, 2000 and April 20, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting minutes were
approved as presented.
Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey indicated that.
additional support documents, Dakota. County Soil and Water Conservation Reports and
recommendations from the Environmental Affairs. Committee regarding Agenda Items No.
9 and 10 and correspondence from the City of Apple Valley and Dakota County regarding.
the Vermillion Springs proposed preliminary plat (Agenda Item No. 9) had been.
distributed for the Commission's review and consideration at this evening's meeting.
ITEM 4: CONSENT AGENDA:
00.39 MoTioN by Wulff, Second by Comer to recommend to City Council approval of the May
5, 2000 Planning Commission Consent Agenda as follows:
4a. Approve the application Of James D. Flint for athree-year extension of a Special
Home Occupation to allow the continued operation of a photography studio from
his townhome residence located at 16320 Javari Court, legally described as Lot 5,
Block 1, Town and Country Estates, CIC #242, Crosswinds, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Ayes: Bellows, Kot, Drotning, Rieb, Comer, Wulff.
Nays: 0.
ITEM 5A. Public Hearing (continued from April 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting):
Wayne and Sandra Brown Conditional Use Permit
Wayne Brown requested a 35-day extension to the deadline of his application for an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 88-10 to allow an expansion of an
industrial use on an unsewered parcel outside the MUSA located at 19740 Kenrick
Avenue. Mr. Brown stated he needed more time to prepare a detailed narrative outlining
.Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, :2000
Page 2
his intended use. The extension request would extend the application deadline to
Tuesday, June 20, 20.00.
00.40 MOTION by Wulff, Second by Bellows to approve the request of Wayne and. Sandra Brown
fora 35-day extension. to the deadline for their application for a Conditional. Use Permit
Amendment to Tuesday, June 20, 2000 and to continue the public hearing to a future
date.
Ayes: Kot, Drotning, Rieb, Comer, Wulff, Bellows.
Nays: 0.
cv,,~
ITenn 6. Public Hearing:. Kent Weber Conditional Use Permit and Variance d~
Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Kent
Weber fora conditional use permit to allow the. expansion of an existing non-conforming
single family dwelling and a variance to allow the construction of an addition to :his single
family home within the required setback to the Ordinary High Water Level of Lake Marion
within the Shoreland Overlay District. Assistant City Attorney Poehler attested that the
legal notice had been mailed and published in accordance with state statutes.
Mr. Peter Helget, Quality Construction, was in attendance to represent: Mr. Kent Weber's
request for a variance and conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the construction of
additions onto his home at 10145 - 2051h'Street located on the south side of Lake Marion.
Mr. Weber is proposing to construct a 6' x 22' third stall addition onto the easfi side of his
garage and some interior remodeling that includes a small expansion on the northeast
corner. of the house. The expansion on the northeast corner of the house includes a
remodeling of the existing three-season porch into additional kitchen space. The three-
season porch enclosure and the expansion will be located entirely. under the existing eves
of the house. Mr. Helget indicated that the additional garage area is needed for personal
storage.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented the Planning Report which provides the
details regarding the conditional use permifi and variance applications of Kent Weber. Mr.
Dempsey noted. that the subject property, .platted in 1972, is a legal non-conforming lot of
record in Weichselbaum's First Addition. 1n reviewing the property survey for the
proposed addition, staff identified four non-conforming issues related to the property.. The
non-conforming items include: 1) the parcel is only 70.58 feet wide (the current Zoning
Ordinance. requires a minimum 100-foot lot width in the R-2 District); 2) the existing
house, constructed in 1975, does not meet the 75-foot minimum setback to the Ordinary
High Water Level (OWHL) of Lake Marion within the Shoreland Overlay District; 3) a dog
kennel/shed. structure does not meet the minimum 10-foot side yard. setback; and 4) the
existing site exceeds the maximum 25 percent impervious surface area.
Associate Planner Dempsey noted that two of the non-conformities are being removed as
part of the project including the excess impervious surface area anal the relocation of the
dog kennel/shed to meet the 10-foot side yard setback requirement. The dog kennel
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 3
• structure has already been relocated and meets the minimum setback requirement.
.Further, the plan includes the removal of existing overhead power lines.
Mr. Dempsey stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows an addition or expansion to the
outside dimensions of an existing non-conforming single family structure by CUP. provided
the addition or expansion meets the setback, height, and other requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Dempsey indicated that, with the exception of a small portion of the
proposed third stall addition. to the existing garage, aJl other construction will meet the
setback requirements of the current zoning ordinance. A variance will be required for the
construction of the portion of the garage that would be expanded within the 75-foot
setback of the OHWL.
Associate Planner Dempsey stated -that should the Planning Commission recommend to
City Council approval of the CUP and variance for Kent Weber, Community and Economic
.Development Department staff recommend compliance with the six stipulations listed in
.the April 28,2000 Planning Report.
There were no comments from the audience.
00.41 MoTioN by Kot, Second by Wulff to close the public hearing at 6:20 p.m.
Ayes: Drotning, Rieb, Corner, Wulff, Bellows, Kot.
. Nays: 0.
Commissioner Comer questioned the hardship that drives the request for a variance.
Associate Planner Dempsey responded that the request is for a variance that will have no
visible or physical impact on the lake and is consistent with the neighborhood, the
Comprehensive Land .Use Plan and the planning objectives of the City of Lakeville...
Mr. Helget indicated that the remodeling of the house will improve the home's quality and
appearance. The addition to the garage will provide inside storage area for personal.
possessions and equipment.
In response to Chair Drotning's inquiry as to how other means of storage can be provided
for the applicant, Associate Planner .Dempsey indicated that Mr. Weber would be allowed
to construct a detached garage in lieu of the proposed attached garage addition.
Community and Economic Development staff have determined that the proposed third
stall addition is a more suitable alternative.
Chair Drotning expressed disappointment that the applicant was not in attendance noting
a recent event where a CUP was granted to an applicant who was unclear of the
stipulations approved with the CUP. Chair Drotning indicated he did not want any
misconceptions on what is allowed with the granting of this CUP.
Mr. Helget stated he has been contracted by the applicant and he is fully aware of what
the City would be permitting with this CUP.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 4
Commissioner Comer asked why the applicant was not present. Mr. Helget indicated that
Mr. Weber was out. of town.
Associate Planner Dempsey suggested that the Planning Commission add Stipulation g)
to read as follows: "If the house is removed or destroyed beyond 50 percent of its fair
market value, as determined by the City, the house shall be reconstructed to meet all
setback requirements.."
00.42 MOTION by-Rieb, Second by Wulff to recommend to City Council approval of the
application of Kent Weber for a setback variance and a conditional use permit to allow the
expansion of anon-conforming single family dwelling located at 10145 - 2051h.Street West,
legally described as Lot 6, Block 1, Weichselbaum's First Addition, subject to the six
stipulations as listed in the April 28, 2000 Planning Report with the addition of a seventh
stipulation as discussed above and approval of the Findings of Fact for the variance and
conditional use permit dated May 4, 2D00.
Ayes: Rieb, Wulff, Bellows, Kot, Drotning.
Nays: Comer.
Commissioner Comer indicated his negative vote was twofold:
7) The applicant purchased the property in 1994 and knew of his storage needs. at that
time and should have been aware that this property would not accommodate his
storage needs; and
2) because the applicant was not in attendance, Commissioner Comer noted he was not
.able to gauge the honesty and integrity of the applicant.
ITEM 7. Public Hearing: Jon and Theresa Hendrickson Conditional Use Permit ~'°c~,
.c~
Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Jon and ~
Theresa Hendrickson for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the demolition and
reconstruction of an attached garage in the R-2, Single Family Residential District.
Assistant City Attorney Poehler attested that the legal .notice had been mailed and
published in accordance with state statutes.
Jon Hendrickson presented his application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow him
to reconstruct atwo-car garage on his. property located at 10050 - 185t" Street West. Mr.
Hendrickson stated that his property is 15.79 acres in size and noted that there is an
existing barn and two horse shelters on the property. He indicated he is not proposing to
remove or reconstruct the detached structures at this time.
Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach. presented the Planning Report outlining the details of
the Hendrickson proposal Mr. Mullenbach indicated that Mr. and. Mrs. Hendrickson are
requesting approval of a CUP to allow the demolition and reconstruction of an attached
garage and to allow more than one detached accessory building on a 15.79-acre
unsewered parcel located at 10050 - 185t" Street West. The Hendricksons are proposing
• to remove their existing 720 square foot attached garage located on the north side of their
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 5
existing home and replace it with a new 705 square foot attached garage in a new location
to the rear (south) of the home.
Mr. Mullenbach noted that the request for a CUP triggers the review of the three existing
legal non-conforming accessory buildings which total 3.,732 square feet.. Together with the
proposed 705 square foot attached garage the total accessory building floor area is 4,437.
The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 1,400 square feet of accessory building floor
.area for a lot larger than one acre and a maximum of one detached accessory building in
the R-2, Single Family Residential .District, unless a CUP is .granted to exceed the
maximum square footage allowed.
Associate Planner Mullenbach stated that Community and Economic Development
Department staff has reviewed the request and has determined that the three detached
accessory building would not be compatible with future residential development in this
area. However, if the Planning Commission were to consider. approval. of the CUP
request, staff is proposing a stipulation of the CUP that the accessory building floor area
and number of detached accessory buildings be brought into conformance with the Zoning
Ordinance if they are destroyed or removed by the property owner.
There were no comments from the audience.
~.43 IVIOTION by Kot, Second by Rieb to close the public hearing at 6:37 p.m.
Ayes: Comer, Wulff, Bellows, Kot, Drotning, Rieb.
Nays: 0.
Commissioner Wulff asked if the subject property is located in the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA).
Associate Planner Mullenbach stated #hat the parcel lies within the current MUSA, but is
not currently served by municipal sanitary sewer nor is sanitary sewer available to the
property at this time. However, the parcel is hooked up to municipal water service.
Commissioner Wulff asked whether the new garage location will allow for future
subdivision of the .property into urban lots.
Associate Planner Mullenbach stated that the proposed garage location will not prevent
future subdivision of the lot.
00.44 MoTtoN by Kot, Second by Comer to recommend to City Council approval of the
Hendrickson conditional use permit to allow the demolition and reconstruction of an
attached garage in the R-2, Single. Family District subject to the five stipulations as listed in
the April 27, 2000 Planning Report and approval of the Findings of Fact dated May 4,
2000.
Ayes: Wulff, Bellows, Kot, Drotning, Rieb, Comer.
Nays:. 0.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 6
ITEM 8. Public Hearing: Lakeville Land, Ltd. Road Right-of-Way Vacation
Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Lakeville
Land, Ltd. for the vacation of a portion of Kenrick Avenue right-of-way adjacent to property
located north of 210t" Street (County Road 70), south of 205t" Street and east of Interstate
35. Assistant City Attorney Poehler attested that the legal notice had been mailed and
published in accordance with .state statutes.
Jim Emond, representing Lakeville Land Limited, presented the application for the
vacation of existing road right-of--way on Kenrick Avenue located north of 210t" Street,
south of 205t" Street and adjacent to property owned by the applicant on the west side. of
Kenrick Avenue. Mr. Emond stated that the combination of the existing Lakeville Land
Limited and vacated right-of-way would provide a more viable commercial site.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented the Planning Report outlining the details of
the proposed road right-of-way vacation.. Mr. Dempsey stated -that Kenrick Avenue has
225 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the applicant's property. The City holds the interest in
the entire right-of-way and is proposing to retain 103.4 feet of the right-of-way for Kenrick
Avenue and allocate the remaining road easement to Lakeville Land Limited. In
exchange, the City will obtain a 1,845 square foot section of the southerly most tip of the
Lakeville Land, Ltd. property to be combined with another City-owned parcel for the
s construction of a future 75-space park and ride facility. The City will also obtain a 10,630
square foot section of the northerly-most portion of the Lakeville Land, Ltd. property for
possible future use by Frontier Communications. The park and ride facility will be
constructed when the County Road 70/Interstate 35. interchange is reconstructed in the
future.
Associate Planner Dempsey noted that staff is recommending an amendment to page two
of the April 28, 2000 Planning Report under the .paragraph entitled "Billboards." Staff is
requesting that the second sentence of this paragraph be amended to read as follows:
"The billboards are considered two principal uses of the existing property and must be
removed. prior to the issuance of a building permit."
There were no comments from the audience.
00.45 MorroN by Rieb,"Second by Kot to close the public hearing at 6:48.p.m.
Ayes:. Bellows, Kot, Drotning, Rieb, Comer, Wulff.
Nays: 0~
Chair Drotning questioned whether the resulting City-owned parcel will be adequate for a
future park and ride lot. Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson responded that in studying
the conceptual layout of the reconstructed CR 70/I-35 interchange, there would be enough
. room to construct a 75-parking stall park and ride lot on City property.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000-
Page 7
~.46 MorioN by .Bellows, Second by Kot to recommend to City .Council approval of the
Lakeville Land, Limited application to vacate the Kenrick Avenue (old U.S. Highway 65)
right-of-way as described and shown on Exhibit B in the April 28, 2000 Planning report and
subject town amendment to the April 28, 2000 Planning Report regarding "Billboards" as
discussed above.
Ayes: Kot, Drotning, Rieb, Comer, Wulff, Bellows.
Nays: 0.
Chair Drotning called for aten-minute break. The May 4, 2000 Planning Commission
Meeting was reconvened at 7: 90 p.m.
ITEM 9. Public Hearing: Vermillion Springs
Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of RHB
Enterprises, Inc. for the .preliminary plat of Vermillion Springs. Assistant City Attorney
Poehler attested that the legal notice had been mailed and published in accordance with
state statutes.
Terry Matula, representative for RHB Enterprises, Inc., presented the application of RHB
Enterprises, Inc. for the preliminary plat of Vermillion Springs, a single family residential
development, proposed for a parcel located north of 165t" Street, west. of Highview
Avenue and south of 160t" Street (County Road 46). Mr. Matula noted that the concept for
thin development was initially discussed with City staff approximately two years ago. The
preliminary plat includes the realignment of Highview Avenue to intersect 160t" Street at
Garden View Drive in Apple Valley. The new intersection is proposed to be a full
intersection controlled by a signal. The Dakota County Plat Commission has reviewed the
Vermillion Springs plat and have indicated their support for the proposed roadway
realignment. This has raised some concern from the residents of Apple Valley who reside
in the single family residential neighborhood that abuts Garden View Drive.
Mr. Matula introduced Ray Brandt, applicant and owner of RHB Enterprises, Inc., and
.indicated that both he and Mr. Brandt would be happy to answer any questions the
Planning Commission may have regarding the proposed Vermillion Springs development.
Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey presented the
Planning Report for the Vermillion Springs preliminary plat. Morey indicated that RHB
Enterprises, Inc. is proposing to develop a 78.75-acre parcel located north of 165t" Street,
south of 160t" Street and west of the current Highview Avenue alignment.. The Vermillion
Springs preliminary plat is exempt from the current residential plat moratorium because
the preliminary plat application was submitted prior to the adoption of the moratorium.
Mr. Morey indicated that the proposed single family development inconsistent with the.
Comprehensive .Land Use Plan. The plat consists of 90 single family residential lots, one.
church lot and six outlots. The existing Minnesota Valley Free Lutheran Church property
is being reconfigured from its current approximate 15-acre lot to a 5.55-acre lot within the
Vermillion Springs preliminary plat boundaries. The 90 single family lots and the new
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 8
church lot meet, and most exceed, minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements for fot area,
width and depth. The existing. church building meets the 30-foot building. setback
requirement for their proposed new lot.
Mr. Morey noted- that the Vermillion Springs preliminary plat includes the realignment of
Highview Avenue at County Road 46 across from Garden View Drive in Apple Valley.
This roadway realignment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan
adopted in 1999 and had. also been identified in the City's 1988 Transportation Plan. The
realignment will result in better sight lines and safer turning movements onto County Road
46. The Dakota County Highway Department has indicated that a traffic signal at the
Highview Avenue/Garden View Drive/C.S.A.H. 46 intersection will be .needed and
supported immediately as stated in a letter dated December 3, 1998 from Dakota County
Traffic Engineer Peter Sorenson. Mr. Sorenson further states that the existing County
Road 46/Highview Avenue intersection warrants a traffic signal, but the installation of a
traffic signal at this intersection would increase traffic safety hazards. He also states that
a traffic. signal at the existing "T" intersection of County Road 46/Garden View Drive
intersection is not warranted.
Mr. Morey noted that Hawthorn Path will extend north from the realigned Highview Avenue.
and will access County Road 46 at the existing Highview Avenue intersection. The
median at the existing Highview Avenue/County Road 46 intersection will be closed by the
• Dakota County Highway Department. The median will limit turning movements at this
intersection to right-in/right-out.
Acting Community and Economic Development Director Morey presented the following
details as outlined in the Planning Report:
density = 1.23 lots/acre
lot and street configuration including driveway access recommendations for proposed
Lot 1, Block 6 and Lot 3, Block 8;
outlots;
wetlands;
grading and storm water holding ponds;
trail/sidewalk locations;
berming/landscaping; and
recommendations from the Dakota County Soil and. Water Conservation District,
Environmental Affairs and Parks and Recreation Advisory Committees.
The developer hosted two neighborhood meetings for the proposed Vermillion Springs
development. The first meeting was held on April 25t" in Apple Valley. All Apple Valley
property owners located within 500 feet of the proposed plat and all Apple Valley property
owners abutting GardenView Drive between County Road 46 and County Road. 42 were.
mailed notices and invited to the meeting by the developer. Approximately 120 Apple
• Valley residents expressed their concerns regarding the realignment of Highview Avenue
with. Garden View Drive. The Apple Valley Mayor, Council Members, and staff and
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000.
Page 9
Lakeville staff also attended this meeting. The second neighborhood meeting was held on
April 2Zt" in Lakeville and all Lakeville property owners within 500 feet of the proposed plat
were invited. Fourteen residents attended.
Chair Drotning indicated that the Planning .Commission members had also been provided
with a video. tape copy of the April 13, 2000 Apple Valley City Council Meeting and the
discussion with their residents of the concerns regarding existing and potential traffic
safety issues on Garden View Drive in Apple Valley. He assured the audience members
who were in aftendance to speak on this matter that the Planning Commission is aware. of
their concerns.
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley City Administrator, introduced Apple Valley Chief of Police
.Bruce Erickson and Public Works Director Neal Heuer indicating they would be available
to respond to any questions regarding existing traffic concerns on Garden View Drive. Mr.
Lawell stated that Apple Valley residents' main concern regarding. the proposed Vermillion
Springs development is the aspect for realignment of Highview Avenue with Garden View
Drive in Apple Valley and noted that the residents are adamantly opposed to the
realignment proposal Mr. Lawell summarized a letter to Mayor Zaun from the Apple
Valley Mayor and Council Members indicating their opposition to the alignment of these
two roadways.
Mr. Lawell stated that Garden View Drive is a unique two-lane roadway with many direct
driveway connections and three public schools along its length. Traffic volumes and
speeds along this roadway are already creating significant problems for the residents in
the area and any additional traffic contributed by the proposed Highview Avenue
realignment will make matters worse. He stated that traffic issues were not addressed to
the satisfaction of the Apple Valley residents at the April 25t" neighborhood meeting. Mr.
Lawell also stated thaf Apple Valley staff and its residents believe that the current traffic
counts and anticipated trips per day that were cited at the neighborhood meeting by
Dennis Eyler of SRF, the City of Lakeville traffic consultant, cannot be accommodated on
Garden View Drive.
Mr. Lawell .requested that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Vermillion
Springs preliminary plat due to the realignment of Highview Avenue. He requested that
Lakeville city staff work with Apple Valley and Dakota County staff to study the proposed
road realignment issue and consider alternative Highview Avenue alignments that do not
align with Garden View Drive.
Bruce Erickson, Apple Valley Police Chief, stated he has worked for 30 years as a police
officer in Apple Valley and stated his opinion that the alignment of Highview Avenue with
Garden View Drive will be detrimental to the Apple Valley community. He noted that Apple
Valley police staff have spent many hours on the existing traffic issues on Garden View
Drive and it is his opinion that the alignment of these two roadways will intensify the
already existing traffic problems.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 10
Denise Louis, Apple Valley resident at 15754 Hayes Trail, reiterated statements in her
letter dated January 21, 2000 to Mayor Zaun and Council Members and City of Lakeville
staff.regarding current and projected traffic counts for 160th Street and Garden View Drive,
a license plate study conducted by Apple Valley's traffic consultant, SEH, indicating how
many non-Apple Valley residents use Garden View Drive, the pedestrian traffic generated
by the schools located on Garden View Drive which results safety issues, the difference
between the speed limits of Highview Avenue and Garden View Drive, and the proposed
four-lane gateway design roadway for Highview Avenue as opposed to the two-lane
Garden View Drive residential roadway. Ms. Louis stated it was -her belief that many
Lakeville residents are already using Garden View Drive rather than Cedar Avenue to
access downtown Apple Valley businesses and the proposed realignment will encourage
more through traffic from Lakeville and will increase safety issues for the Garden View
Drive residents and children who attend the schools located along this corridor.
There were no further comments from the audience.
00.47 MorioN by Kot, Second by Wulff to close the. public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Ayes: Drotning, Rieb, Comer, Wulff, Bellows, Kot.
Nays: 0.
Chair Drotning noted a letter dated December 3, 1998 from Pete Sorenson, Dakota
County. Traffic Engineer, to Keith Nelson, Lakeville City Engineer, which were copied to
.the Lakeville and Apple Valley City Administrators, the Apple Valley Public. Works Director,
Dakota County Commissioner Branning and Krause, and other Dakota County officials
stating the results of a study of County Road 46 at Garden View Drive and at Highview
Avenue.. In his letter, Mr. Sorenson states that the traffic at Highview Avenue needs a
traffic signal,. but it is a poor location and that traffic on Garden View Drive will not benefit
from a signal and it is a good location for a traffic signal. Mr. Sorenson further states that
the existing traffic volume traveling back and forth on Garden View Drive to Highview
Avenue is low and does not contribute significantly to the volume of traffic on Garden View
Drive.
Chair Drotning indicated that the safety issues for the Highview Avenue/County Road 46
were identified in 1998. Mr. Drotning pointed out that since 1988 the City of Lakeville
Transportation Plan has shown the Highview Avenue realignment as proposed in the
Vermillion Springs preliminary plat. Mr. Drotning stated his. belief that the City of Apple
Valley has not come forward with a solution that would address its residents' current safety
issues on Garden View Drive nor have they offered any viable alternative(s) that would
address Lakeville's safety issues.
Dennis Eyler, City of Lakeville traffic consultant for SRF Consulting Group, Inc., discussed
the details of the SRF traffic study of the County Road 46/Garden View Drive/Highview
Avenue intersection alignment and proposed alternatives. He stated that other locations
• for the Highview Avenue/County Road 46 intersection have been suggested. One of
those was to push the access to the east to the top of the hill .However, that location is
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 11
not within the proposed plat and the owners of that property have not indicated their
agreement to allowing the access at that point. That location also lines up with Harwell
Avenue in Apple Valley which would result in th8 same issues being identified with. the
Garden View Drive alignment proposal. Another alternative was to push the access to the
east of the proposed alignment; however, the opportunity to move it there is Limited .and
that location is only 100 feet east of Garden View Drive. In 1999, SRF was asked. to look
at alternatives that would preclude movement of traffic across County Road 46 to Garden
View Drive. It was determined that the alternatives identified and studied would
encourage traffic to perform illegal maneuvers.
Mr. Eyler reiterated the Dakota County Traffic Engineer's statement that a traffic signal at
the existing Highview Avenue/County Road 46 access point is warranted. However, the.
downhill grade on County Road 46 west of Highview Avenue and the crest of the hill east.
of Highview Avenue seriously complicates the existing intersection of Highview Avenue at
County Road 46. The installation of a traffic signal at this intersection will increase the
safety hazards and is not recommended.. Dakota County would support the installation of
a traffic signal at the proposed realignment at Garden View Drive and the City of Lakeville
needs signalization for the safety of its residents. Mr. Eyler stated his belief that the
proposed location is the best location for the intersection. He stated that Garden View
Drive is classified as a collector street. in the Apple Valley Transportation Plan. If Lakeville
does not relocate Highview Avenue at Garden View Drive as proposed, it doesn't change
Apple Valley's current traffic problems on Garden View Drive.
Chair Drotning called for aten-minute break. The May 4, 2000 Planning Commission
meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
Chair. Drotning asked Tom Lawell, Apple Valley City Administrator, if he was aware that
page 87 of the draft Apple Valley 1998 Comprehensive Guide Plan identifies the potential
for connection of Highview Avenue in Lakeville with Garden View Drive in Apple Valley.
This reference would indicate that Apple Valley acknowledged the possibility of this.
realignment.
Chair Drotning stated that the City of Lakeville recently provided significant funding to
construct the new County Road 46/1-35 interchange and the City has a responsibility to
their residents to allow them to turn left on County Road 46 to use this interchange.
Mr. Lawell indicated that the City of Apple Valley is aware that issues identified along
Garden View Avenue are not restricted to the County Road 46 access point. He noted
that it is a .mature development that was built in the 1960s and the roadway does not meet
the current definition of collector streets. The design of Garden View Avenue is one step
above a residential street. Mr. Lawell requested that the Planning Commission delay
recommendation. on the Vermillion Springs plat to allow the two cities and Dakota County
an opportunity to work together to find a solution that would be equally acceptable to both
. cities and Dakota County.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 12
• Commissioner Bellows stated that if the Planning Commission were to go forward with
their recommendation on the Vermillion Springs preliminary plat this evening, that would
not preclude Apple Valley from studying traffic channeling designs at the Garden View
Drive/County Road 46 intersection on the Apple Valley side.
Commissioner Wulff questioned why the initial design of the realigned Highview Avenue
was reduced from the."parkway" to a three-lane design?
City Administrator Robert Erickson stated that the City offered this modification in
response to a recommendation by Pete Sorenson to align the intersection for signals. He
went on to say this was deemed as a way to discourage traffic from Lakeville through
Apple Valley via Garden View Drive. Mr. Erickson indicated that he has since been
informed that Lakeville residents are not in favor of removing the "parkway" design. City
staff received an a-mail Tom Minneman, 16181 Hudson Avenue in Lakeville, expressing
his support for the Vermillion Springs proposed development and indicating his
disappointment thatthe "parkway" design may be abandoned.
Commissioner Wulff stated her opinion that a transition from afour-lane parkway design to
a narrower two-lane residential street would not encourage through traffic noting that it
would have the opposite affect for her. Ms. Wulff also indicated that if a developer is
willing to construct and fund a parkway consistent with the City's Gateway and Corridor
• Study, it would not be fiscally responsible forthe City to modify the roadway design.
City Administrator Erickson noted that Garden View Drive in Apple. Valley has an 80-foot
right-of--way that could be utilized. by the City of Apple Valley to make this roadway safer
for pedestrian traffic. He also pointed out that both Foliage Avenue and Flagstaff Avenue
in Lakeville are connected to County Road. 46 across from Apple Valley. When these
roadways: are constructed in Apple Valley from County Road 42 to County Road 46 they
will align as a full intersection with Apple Valley traffic accessing 30-year-old Lakeville
residential neighborhoods with two-lane residential streets. The same issues that Apple
Valley is citing for their residents will be true for Lakeville at the time these roadway
connections are constructed.
Mr. Lawell indicated his wish to go on record as being .opposed to the proposed
realignment of Highview Avenue in Lakeville to Garden View Drive in Apple Valley for a full
intersection at County Road 46. He stated the current proposed roadway design is
unacceptable due to its projected negative impacts on Apple Valley residents and he
urged the City of Lakeville to consider alternative. Highview Avenue alignments which do
not align with. Garden View Drive.
Commissioner Wulff requested that the existing Highview Avenue (proposed Hawthorne
Avenue) have a bike path/sidewalk separated by green space on one side.
Staff recommended an amendment to Stipulation No. 11 to read as follows: "An off-street
trail shall be constructed on one side. of Hawthorn Path."
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 13
~.48 MoTioN by Rieb, Second by Wulff to recommend to City Council approval of the
application of RHB Enterprises, Inc. for the preliminary plat of Vermillion Springs subject to
the 15 stipulations as listed in the April 28, 2000 Planning Report with a modification to
Stipulation No. 11 as discussed above.
Ayes: Rieb, .Comer, Wulff, Bellows, Kot, Drotning.
Nays: 0.
Break at 9:40 p.m. -reconvene at 9:50 p.m. h'.gs~.R~~,b~
a~oo ~ 6'
ITEM 10. Public Hearing: Lakeway Park Preliminary Plat/Easement Vacation/ ~
Rezoning/Conditional Use Permit
Chair Drotning opened. the public hearing for consideration of the applications of Fortune
Realty, Inc. and The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints for the following: 1) Lakeway Park preliminary plat; 2) easement vacation; 3)
rezoning from PUD to R-2, R-7 and B-C; and 4) a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
church in the R-2, Single Family Residential District. Assistant City Attorney Poehler
attested that the legal notice had been mailed and published in accordance with state
statutes.
Mr. Byron Watschke, Fortune Realty, Inc. and representative for Lakeville 385,. the
property owners, presented the applications for. the preliminary plat of Lakeway Park,
easement vacation and rezoning. Mr. Watschke stated that the property is located in .the
northwest corner of 185t" Street (County Road 60) and Kenwood Trail (County Road 50).
The subject. property consists of a metes and bounds description parcel that is located on
both sides of the CP Rail tracks. The developer is proposing to administratively subdivide
the parcel to separate the .land .into two parcels. The one located east of the railroad
tracks is being referred tows the "East Campus" and is proposed to be platted as Lakeway
Park. The parcel to the west of the railroad tracks will be reserved for future platting and
development.
Mr. Watschke indicated that the developer is proposing to develop the "east campus"
50.86-acre parcel into two lots and two outlots. The uses proposed for this site include a
church, future office/business campus, future multiple family residential and a parka
Mr. Watschke introduced Tom McMahon, project engineer from COST Inc., Becky Larson
from Edina Realty, and Jeff Walz, architect representing the church, who were in
attendance to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Watschke indicated that the
developer is in agreement with stipulations for approval of the Lakeway Park development.
Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey .presented the
Planning Report. The preliminary plat of Lakeway Park: consists of two lots and two
outlots on 50.86 acres of land located in the northwest corner of Kenwood Trail (County
. Road 50) and 185t" Street (County Road 60).
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 14
• 'Mr. Morey indicated that the developer is requesting the vacation of an existing drainage
and utility easement located within the preliminary plat boundaries consistent with City
policy. The easement covers an existing wetland and. is located within proposed Outlot B
of the Lakeway Park preliminary plat. The developer will deed Outlot B to the City with the
Lakeway Park final plat. The local utility companies have reviewed the request and have
indicated no objections to the requested easement vacation.
.Morey indicated that the subject property is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit
.Development District and R-2, Single Family Residential District. The developer is
proposing to rezone the property as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1 (R-2, Single Family Residential): 5.4-acre lot located north of the
office/business use abutting County .Road 50 and being proposed as a church. site.
Lot 2, Block 1 (B-C, Business Campus): 3.4-acre lot located in thesoutheast corner of
the plat and proposed for future business/office use.
Outlot A (R-7, High Density Residential):, 17.72-acre outlot located in the northerly part
of the development, abutting the existing multi-family development known as Southfork
Village Apartments. Outlot A is proposed for future multiple family residential use.
Outlot B (R-2, Single Family Residential): 18.91-acre outlot located west of the church
and office uses and south. of the future multi-family use. This outlot is proposed to be
deeded to the City for use as a natural park.
• The proposed rezonings are consistent with the 2020 Land Use Plan..
Acting Community and Economic .Development Director Morey stated that if the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Lakeway Park, easement
vacation and rezoning applications, Community and Economic Development staff
recommends that approval be subject to the five stipulations as listed in the April 28, 2000
Planning report.
Jeff Walz, Kodet Architectural Group, presented the details and site plan for the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application. The church is proposed for Lot 1, Block 1, on
the proposed Lakeway Park plat located west of Kenwood Trail (County Road 50) and
north of 185t" Street (County Road 60) and consists of a 24,460 square foot church
building with a 252-space parking lot. Mr. Walz presented drawings and described the
elevations of the proposed church building.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented the Planning Report outlining the details of
the proposed church which will be known as the Lakeville Stake Center Meetinghouse.
The subject property is currently zoned R-2, Single Family Residential District and PUD,
Planned Unit Development District. The Lakeway Park preliminary plat is proposing to
rezone Lot 1, Block 1 entirely to R-2. Churches are allowed by CUP in the R-2 District.:
• Associate Planner Dempsey indicated that the intersection of 185t" Street and Kenwood
Trail is identified as a Gateway intersection and the proposed landscape plan includes the
landscape materials and elements identified in the Corridor and Gateway Design Study.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 15
• The proposed landscape plan meets the landscape design objectives of the study. At the
request of the applicant, Community and Economic Development Department staff is
recommending a modification to the last sentence of staff recommended Stipulation No. 8
for approval of the proposed CUP to read as follows: "A $10,000.00 security shall be
submitted " prior to the
issuance of a building permit to guarantee implementation of the approved landscape
plan." The amendment to this stipulation is recommended because the church may not
begin construction until 2001.
Mr. Dempsey noted that the site will be accessed via the interior public street cul-de-sac
off 185t" Street. A second access to the site via (Kenwood Trail) County Road 50 had
been considered by the church; however, the Dakota County Plat Commission
recommended denia(of the proposed access. Associate Planner Tim Hanson. presented
a brief overview of the concepts that the City has been discussing with Dakota County
regarding access to County Road 50. Traffic safety and access spacing were identified by
the Plat Commission regarding the proposed second access.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey stated that if the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Community and Economic Development staff
recommends that approval be subject to the eight stipulations, as amended, as listed in
the April 28, 2000 Planning report.
Peter Falanga, 18385 Java Trail, indicated. he lives directly across Kenwood Trail to the
east in the Raven Lake development. Mr. Falanga expressed the following concerns
regarding the proposed Lakeway Park plat and the church CUP:
additional traffic that. will be generated with the development of this site;
existing tree stands and wetland areas that may be negatively impacted by the
development and .the preservation of natural property amenities;
the displacement of wildlife that currently inhabits this site;
noise levels generated will impact his back yard;
potential for future commuter rail along the railroad corridor;
lighting and glare from the church onto residential neighborhoods; and
,buffering between high and low density residential districts.
Tom McMahon, project engineer,. responded to concerns regarding existing natural
amenities of the site. He noted that Outlot B encompasses high quality wetlands and
ponding areas, a large wooded area with oak tree stands, rolling hills and steep slopes
that will be kept intact and utilized for natural passive park purposes. The developer is
proposing to deed the 18.91-acre Outlot B to the City to meet the park land dedication for
the property being platted as Lakeway Park. The proposed park dedication will satisfy the
dedication requirements of the subject property owned by the developer..
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 16
Mr. McMahon noted there are existing trails .located along Kenwood Trail and 185t" Street
adjacent to the Lakeway Park preliminary plat. The developer will bench cut for a future
trail within Outlot B that will extend from the existing trail located on the north side of 185tH
Street, north to the south line of the adjacent 8.7-acre exception parcel. The trail will be
constructed and will follow the alignment of the future loop street when Ou#lot A and the
exception property develop.
Jeff Walz, church architect, noted that a lighting plan has not been completed. However,
he stated that the plan will meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. No glare will
be allowed off-site.
Acting Community and Economic Development Director Morey indicated that when
reviewing other sites for commercial projects or projects such as the proposed church site,
staff has determined that a parking lot that is lit during nighttime hours provides additional
security forthe site. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits site lighting from glaring onto
adjacent properties and rights-of-way.
Mr. Morey also indicated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan establishes roadways
such as Kenwood Trail as being an adequate transition between zoning districts.
Commissioner Wulff indicated that she dives next to Cedar Avenue with a church: use
• directly across from her home on the other side of Cedar Avenue. Ms. Wulff indicated that
she has not experienced any off-site glare from the church parking lot nor is'she aware of
whether the parking lot lights are on all. night.
Commissioner Wulff further indicated that she is impressed with the proposed
development plan and the developer's willingness to preserve a significant portion of the
existing wetlands, wooded areas and slopes located on the site.
Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson indicated that the commuter rail proposal is in its
infancy stage where officials are studying the feasibility of using the existing rail as a
commuter rail.. It will be several years before a decision will be made as to the possibility
of using the existing rail. The use of this rail for commuter purposes is not supported by
the City of Lakeville.
Ex-officio Planning Commission Member Knutson indicated that although he would prefer
two accesses to the church site, he believes that in this instance a median design on
Kenwood Trail would generate too many traffic safety issues. Mr. Knutson indicated his
belief that the second access not be pursued.
00.49 MOTION by Kot, Second by Comer to close the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
Ayes: Comer, Wulff,Bellows, Kot, Drotning, Rieb.
Nays: 0.
• Commissioner Wulff noted that the site plan for the church indicates a 4-foot high cedar
fence as a trash enclosure. Ms. Wulff stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6-foot.
Planning. Commission Meeting
May 4, 2000
Page 17
fence height with a gate. The Commission directed staff to amend the Conditional Use
Permif document to include a requirement fora 6-foot fence with a gate as a trash
enclosure.
00.50 MOTION by Wulff, Second by Kot to recommend to City Council approval of the application
of Fortune Realty, Inc. for the Lakeway Park preliminary plat, easement vacation and
rezoning requests subject to the five stipulations as listed in the April 28, 2000 Planning
Report and the Findings of Fact dated May 4, 2000 for the rezoning and, further,
recommend to City Council approval of the application of The,Corporation of the Presiding
Bishop, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
allow the construction of a church on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Lakeway Park subject to
the eight stipulations as listed in the April 28, 2000 Planning Report with an amendment to
Stipulation No. 8 and the addition of Stipulation No. 9 as discussed above and the
Findings of Fact dated May 4, 2000 for the CUP.
Ayes: Wulff, Bellows, Kot, Drotning, Rieb, Comer.
Nays: 0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Quintus, R cording Secretary
ATTEST:
r
Karl Drotning, Chair