Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29-00 CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 29, 2000 ITEM #1. Call to Order. The June 29, 2000 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Drotning in the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:00 PM. ITEM #2. Roll. Call. Present: D. Bellows, B. Skipton, K. Drotning, C. Moates, W. Wulff and Ex-Officio Commission Member T. Knutson. Absent: S. Kot, L. Rieb and J. Comer Staff Present: Daryl Morey, Acting Community and Economic Development Director; Ron Mullenbach, .Associate Planner; Tim Hanson, Assistant City Engineer, Roger Knutson, City Attorney; David and .Daniel Licht, Northwest Associated Consultants; and Judi Hawkins, Recording Secretary, ITEM #3. Approval of Planning Commission minutes of June 15, 2000. The minutes of the June 45, 2000 Planning Commission meeting were approved as submitted. ITEM #4. .Announcements. Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey indicated that • additional correspondence had been received concerning Agenda Item #8, the Zoning Ordinance update, and had been distributed to Commission members. Chair Drotning stated that it would be formally received when that agenda item is discussed. ITEM #5. Irene Peterson -Findings of Fact. Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach presented the draft Findings of Fact and Recommendation for denial of the application of Ms. Irene Peterson for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 10' X 14' addition to anon-conforming garage, located. at 20854 Holiday Avenue, which does. note meet the minimum 10- foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in the R-2 Single Family Residential District. Mr. Mullenbach stated that at their June 15, 2000 meeting Planning Commission members had voted 6-0 in opposition to approval of the conditional use permit for Ms. Peterson. Commission members felt that several options had been offered to Ms. Peterson that met Zoning Ordinance requirements. At that time, staff was directed to prepare Findings of Fact for their review and recommendation. 00.70 Motion by Wulff, Second by Skipton to approve the Findings of Fact and. recommend that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit request by Ms. Irene Peterson. Ayes: Bellows, Skipton, Drotning, Moates, Wulff Nays: 0 • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2000 Page -2- • ITEM #6. Public. Hearing: Robin Parsons Easement Vacation Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Robin Parsons for a vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easement on property located at 17240 Jade Court, Lot 9, Block 4, Stonebriar 2"d Addition. City Attorney Roger Knutson attested that the legal notice had been mailed and published in accordance with state statutes. Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey stated that the original 35-foot oversized easement dedication was for the conveyance of surface runoff from the rear yards of the lots within Block 4. Because final grading of the area divided. the surface runoff and conveyed it north to 172"d Street, the extra wide drainage and utility easement is no longer needed. The proposed vacation consists of the northerly 25 feet of the easement and is requested to accommodate a swimming pool in the Parsons' yard. A 10-foot wide drainage. and utility easement. will be retained along the south property line. The proposed swimming pool meets setback requirements of at least 10 feet from all buildings and property lines. Fencing requirements for the swimming pool will also be met. Staff has contacted all utility companies who have an interest in the easement and they have stated they have no objection to the vacation of 25 feet of the easement. Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey stated that. staff recommends approval of the drainage and utility easement vacation on the Parsons property (Lot 9, Block 4, Stonebriar 2"d Addition). 00.71 Motion by Skipton, second by Wulff, to close the Public Hearing at 6:1D PM. Ayes: Skipton, Drotning, Moates, Wulff, Bellows Nays: 0 00.72 Motion by Skipton, second by .Moates, to recommend City Council approve the application of Robin Parsons for the vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easement on property located at 17240 Jade Court. Ayes: Drotning, Moates, Wulff, Bellows, Skipton .Nays: 0 ITEM #7. Public Hearing: Paradise Hills 2"d Addition Easement Vacation Chair. Drotning opened the Public Hearing for consideration of the application of the City of Lakeville for the vacation of portions of public roadway, trailway, drainage and utility easements located south of 192"d Street between Kenwood Trail (CSAH 50) and .Dodd Boulevard (CSAH 9) in the City of Lakeville. City Attorney Roger Knutson attested that the legal notice had been mailed and published in accordance with state statutes. Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey stated that staff is requesting the vacation of the existing public roadway, trailway, drainage and utility Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2000. Page -3- • easements which were purchased by the City from Tollefson Development in conjunction .with the Ipava Avenue improvement project. The purchase was made to expedite the roadway project and ensure. completion prior to the start of the school year. The easements are being dedicated as public right-of-way on the Paradise Hills 2"d Addition final plat. City Council approved the. preliminary and final. plat of Paradise Hills 2"d Addition at their June 19t" meeting. Community and Economic Development staff recommend approval of the easement vacation contingent on recording of the final plat of Paradise Hills 2"d Addition. There were no comments from the audience. 00.73 Motion by Bellows, second by Skipton, to close the. public hearing at 6:15 PM. Ayes:.Moates, Wulff, Bellows, Skipton, Drotning Nays: 0 There were no further comments from Commission members. 00.74 Motion by Wulff, second by Moates, to recommend City Council approve the application of the City of Lakeville for an easement vacation in conjunction with the Paradise Hills 2"d Addition subject to the recording of the final plat. Ayes: Wulff, .Bellows, Skipton, Drotning, Moates Nays: 0 ITEM #8. Public Hearing: City Code/Zoning Ordinance Update (Public Hearing continued from April 20, 2000) A. Amendment to the following ordinances: Title 9, Chapter 3 of the Lakeville City Code, the Sign Ordinance 2) Title 10 of the Lakeville City Code, the Subdivision Ordinance 3) Title 11 of the Lakeville City Code, the Zoning Ordinance and the Lakeville Zoning Map Chair Drotning re-opened the public hearing for consideration of the City Code/Zoning Ordinance update, which was- continued from the April 20, 2000 meeting. David Licht, City of Lakeville consultant from Northwest Associated Consultants, stated that since April 20, 2000 there have been two Planning Commission work sessions to discuss various issues associated with the Zoning .Ordinance update. Mr. Licht suggested that staff could respond to individual comments and questions. Some additional written correspondence has also been received including letters from D.R. Horton, Inc., Dakota County Community Development Agency, Fredrikson and Byron, P.A., Attorneys and. Advisors, on behalf of Nordic Square .Limited Partnership, and Rowland & Mertensotto, P.A., Attorneys at Law, on behalf of Dr. J,H. and Suji Lee. ,00.75 Motion by .Bellows, second by Moates, to receive the correspondence regarding the Zoning Ordinance update. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2000 Page -4- • Ayes: Bellows, Skipton, Drotning, Moates, Wulff Nays: 0 Drotning asked audience .members for comments on individual sections of the .proposed Zoning Ordinance update. There were no comments from the audience concerning the Sign Ordinance. There were no comments from the audience concerning the Subdivision Ordinance. The following persons offered comments concerning Title 11, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Lee Johnson, .Orrin Thompson Homes, stated that the RH-1 District boundaries seem to be arbitrary. With respect to a particular piece of property where they had anticipated a mixed use, the ordinance now restricts single family development. Mr. Johnson asked what the process would be to have the exclusion removed - a CUP, rezoning or administrative permit. Acting CED Director Daryl Morey stated .that single family homes are currently not allowed in the R-7 District, the equivalent to the new RH- 1 District, and this is a carry forward of the existing ordinance and not a change, and is consistent with the approved 2020 Land Use Plan. A comprehensive plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment would have to be approved to allow the construction • of single family homes. Mr. Johnson stated that he understood from previous discussions that 12-unit townhouse buildings will be allowed in the RH Districts. Acting Community & Economic Development Director Daryl Morey indicated that the latest draft of -the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 12 unit townhouse buildings (6 unit back to back} in the RH Districts. Mr. Johnson. stated that the proposed ordinance indicates a minimum of 30' to guest parking or right-of-way but does not state "private drive." Mr. Morey stated that the current draft of the Zoning Ordinance update lists a 30-foot setback requirement from private driveways. Wally Potter, St. John's Lutheran Church, stated that he previously sent a letter to the City of Lakeville .requesting O-R District zoning and wants to verify that it is in the record or somehow incorporated into the plan for the St. John's Church. property to be so`designated. Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach stated that the proposed Zoning Map does designate O-R District zoning for the existing St. John's Church in downtown Lakeville. In addition, the text has been revised to allow churches as a conditional use in the O-R District. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of.• June 29, 2000 Page -S- Terry Matula, D.R. Horton., stated that he believes the new Zoning Ordinance should allow variable public street widths to give developers more flexibility in the design of .their multi-family developments. Mr. Matula stated that he agrees that adequate room for the parking of vehicles in townhouse driveways is needed, but feels that if there is an additional decrease in units due to public streets as opposed to a private streets, it will negatively impact the amenities and variety of housing that the developer will be able to offer to potential homebuyers. Chair Drotning stated that Cherry Highlands Third is a good example of the conditions the Planning Commission does not wish to repeat in future townhouse subdivisions. As such, the Planning Commission. is recommending a 30-foot setback from public street rights-of-way and private driveways. Commission Member Wulff feels that the drawings confirm that going to a 50-foot right of way for local streets is a good decision and feels 50 feet is adequate for most .townhouse developments. Don Patton, D.R. Horton, stated that their company is attempting to provide affordable housing and is concerned about the loss of density, which may result from the proposed RM-1 District standards. There would be significant additional losses if the option of private streets is removed and replaced with the requirement for public streets. Mr. Morey stated that affordable housing discussions have been held in .conjunction with the. Zoning Ordinance update, including during the approval process for the Dakota County CDA project, which achieved a density of between five and six units per net acre. Chair Drotning stated that the Planning Commission appreciates the public comments that have been received on the Zoning Ordinance Update. The revised zoning ordinance proposes that all streets within the RM-1 zoning district be public, built to City standards. Commissioner Wulff referred to the two-building limit on private drives and believes that different scenarios of development would create different needs for parking, etc.. A consensus should be reached on the number of housing units, not buildings, which would be allowed on private drives. Chair Drotning stated that there is the potential for confusion by residents with private streets concerning who is responsible for maintenance. It sometimes becomes difficult for residents in developments with both public and private streets, as well. as City maintenance crews, if public and private street maintenance is not done at the same time. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2000 Page -6- Discussions continued on the length of private drives and the number of units. Mr. Patton added that every piece of land is unique and there needs to be some flexibility for the developers so that a variety. of housing can be offered to consumers. David Licht stated that the proposed ordinance attempts to maintain flexibility while setting standards and minimizing ambiguity. Chair Drotning stated that problems encountered with private streets are related to the. long-term responsibility of the homeowners. Eventually, the homeowners may petition the City to take over ownership and maintenance of the private. streets. Kelly Murray, Wensmann Homes asked how guest parking could be ensured within a development if alf streets were public. Acting Community and Economic Development Director Daryl Morey stated that the Zoning Ordinance Update requires that guest parking be provided in an off-street parking lot or private drive. Paul Ramey, 17102 Firtree Place, feels that there could be addi#ional compromise on regulations regarding. amateur ham radio towers. The proposed ordinance establishes a 35-foot maximum height when the antenna is not in use. Mr. Ramey feels that a 70- foot non-retractable antenna height would be appropriate. Chair Drotning stated that there was significant work done on the ordinance to try to accommodate a middle ground and there is the task of determining when the antenna is or is not being used. Commissioner Wulff asked if a 40-foot antenna tower would be allowed. Mr. Morey stated that ifi would be allowed only if it were retractable to 35 #eet. This is also the maximum height of a building in a residential area. Mr. Matula stated that the zoning ordinance should be performance based, with set standards to eliminate gray areas so that developers are clear in all situations. As a developer they try to give their customers as many amenities as possible while providing variety in the levels of housing options. Mr. Licht added that within a PUD not all of the standards in the zoning ordinance will apply, but will be used by developers as a guide. He stated that the Central Area is the only area of the .City where the PUD zoning will be applied, given the unique environmental features in this area and the City's desire to attract a variety of housing styles. Mr. Morey stated that the PUD zoning is not meant for developers to necessarily achieve higher densities but to allow mixed housing types that preserve and enhance a property's natural features and open spaces. Kelly Murray stated that in the RM-1 District, detached townhomes were not included in the fist of allowed structures. Mr. Morey stated that the proposed zoning ordinance allows detached townhomes in the RST-2 District and as a transition in the. RM and RH Districts. Mr. Licht stated that detached townhomes were specifically left out of the RM • and RH Districts due to concern. for the product. There has been a history of negative experiences with similar products and they were initially limited to the RST districts. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2000 Page -7- The product could be expanded to other districts in the future if it .proves to be successful Don Corbett, 17685 Italy Path, asked fora .copy of all the changes in the ordinance. Mr. Morey stated that he has a list of the various areas that were changed .and Mr. .Corbett was welcome to make an appointment to come into the City Hall to review the draft copies of the. Zoning Ordinance Update. (A summary of the changes was provided by Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach later in the. meeting) Carl Swanson, 20516 Jupiter Avenue, feels .there .are problems with City Code section 7-3-7 which prohibits landscaping in the City boulevard: Mr. Swanson stated he has not received a reply to his letter to city staff of May 5, 2000 suggesting changes to the ordinance. He feels that enforcement is discriminatory and that changing the ordinance to landscaping in the boulevard would help to beautify the city. Chair Drotning stated that previous correspondence has been received by the. Planning Commission from Mr. Swanson and discussed at the work session level. The Planning Commission is proposing no change to this aspect of the Zoning Ordinance requirements for landscaping, however, the City Council will make the final decision on the Zoning Ordinance wording. 00..76 Motion by Moates, second by Skipton, to close the public hearing at 8:00 PM. Ayes:. Skipton, Drotning, Moates, Wulff, Bellows Nays: 0 00.77 Motion by Wulff, second by Skipton, to receive the letter from Carl Swanson and the additional information from D.R. Horton. Ayes: Drotning, Moates, Wulff, Bellows, Skipton Nays: 0 Commission members asked how the 60-foot lot size was determined.. .Acting Community & Economic Development Director Daryl Morey stated that this came about through discussions with developers who have done similar projects and a review of the Lake Villa Golf Estates 9th Addition plat. The RST-2 District allows detached townhomes provided a homeowners association is established that would be responsible for maintenance. of the building exteriors and landscaped areas. The five foot side yard setback on one side of the unit will help ensure that structures are truly detached townhomes and not. single. family homes on small lots. Developers should also keep in mind that these are minimum requirements. Mr.~Licht stated that typically smaller buildings are built on smaller lots. The detached townhome concept was limited to the RST-2 District to avoid .the concept community- wide until it has been tested. For this reason it was felt that 60-foot wide lots. in the RST-2 zoning district is reasonable. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2000 Page -8- Commissioner Wulff suggested that the ordinance require groups of utility boxes to be screened if they are facing a public street, as they can look unattractive when clustered at the end of a multifamily building. Chair Drotning noted a correction in the Subdivision Ordinance on page 33. The maximum cul-de-sac length should be changed to 600 feet. The change was noted. Commissioner Bellows asked why the buffer yard requirement does not apply in the RS-CBD District. Mr. Mullenbach stated that the RS-CBD will apply to existing lots downtown only and no new subdivisions will be platted in this district. Therefore the reference is not necessary. A discussion was held regarding the reference to the definition of a significant tree in the Subdivision Ordinance. According to Tim .Brown, Environmental Engineer, .the definition of significant trees .could be amended to exempt poplars, box elders and aspen trees if the Planning Commission felt a change was necessary. Commissioner Wulff stated that some people would also put willows into that category. Commissioner Moates stated that basswoods might also be exempted. Mr. Licht stated that the issue needs a closer look and suggested that the issue be studied further before any changes are made to this definition. Commission members agreed that additional review is needed. Commissioner Skipton stated that the standards of other communities might help to provide some direction. A change from the original ordinance on page 19-4 refers to a parking area which abuts a residential development. The intent of having the side and rear yard setback same as the front yard setback abutting a residential district is to screen the parking area. The wording will be revised to clarify that "commercial and industrial" uses .must increase the side and rear yard setback to meet front yard setback requirements when abutting a residential district. A discussion was .held regarding deferred parking and loading dock .requirements. Chair Drotning stated that in the manufacturing industry as more people are replaced by machines, parking needs will decrease. An issue. that still needs to be resolved is length of a private drive in an RM-1 District. Mr. Morey recommended a maximum of two structures and 6 units on each side of a private drive. The Planning Commission agreed. The antenna issue was also discussed. The maximum now allowed is 35 feet, but this height can. be exceeded by using a retractable antenna. The height needs to be drawn at some specific limit for enforcement purposes. The issue will be reviewed with the City Council .prior to final adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. • Chair Drotning stated that there is an active/passive component of the antenna ordinance which needs to be resolved. The Planning Commission has discussed the Punning Commission Meeting Minutes of ]une 29, 2000. Page -9- possibility of a 70-foot structure. Commissioner Bellows added that the FCC:also .has regulations and retractability is not always the issue. Commissioner Wulff felt it would be good policy to go forward with the current proposal and modify the ordinance later if necessary. Mr. Licht stated that. staff would discuss. those policy issues with the City Council Mr. Morey will work with NAC to incorporate language about screening utility boxes that are grouped and face a public street on multiunit buildings. 00.78 Motion by Wulff, second by Bellows, to recommend to City Council approval of the draft Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map,. Sign Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance updates, subject to the comments of the Planning Commission: Ayes: Moates, Wulff, Bellows, Skipton; Drotning Nays: 0 The document is scheduled to be discussed. by the City Council at their July 10, 2000 work session and at their July 17, 2000 regular meeting. Chair Drotning thanked staff and Planning Commission members for their hard work and dedication in completing the Zoning Ordinance update. ITEM #9. New business. A. Future and Continued Planning Commission Agenda Items. B. Summary of City Council Actions on Planning Commission Agenda Items. C. Commuter Rail Feasibility Study ITEM #10. Staff Notices. A. The City Council meeting at which the above items may be considered will be held on July 5,2000. B. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 20, 2000. ITEM #11. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, J dit R. Hawkins, Recording Secretary ATTEST: • Karl Drotnin ,Chair 9