Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-99 City of Lakeville. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 3, 1999 The June 3, 1999 Planning. Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Drotning at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Roll call of members was taken: Present: Kot, Moates, Drotning, Comer, Wulff, Ex-Officio Knutson. Absent: Bellows, Rieb. Staff Present:. Robert Erickson, City Administrator; Michael Sobota, Community and Economic Development Director; Daryl Morey, City Planner; Frank Dempsey, Associate Planner; Ron Mullenbach, Associate Planner; Tim Hanson, Assistant City Engineer; Rita Erpelding, Economic Development Specialist; Joel Jamnik, Assistant City Attorney; and .Donna Quintus, Recording Secretary. Chair Drotning requested the May 20, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting minutes reflect that written comments regarding the Cherry Highlands final plat were received from Commissioner Wulff who was absent from that meeting. Staff noted that Ms. Wulff's concerns were addressed in the stipulations for approval of the Cherry Highlands. final plat. The minutes of the May 20, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting were S approved as modified. Item 4: ANNOUNCEMENTS: Community and Economic Development Director Michael Sobota requested the addition of Agenda Item No. 8.c. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC AREAS AND/OR PROPERTIES FOR REZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE. The Commission agreed to amend the June 3, 1999 agenda as requested. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Shirley Hagen, 17401 Kodiak Avenue Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Shirley Hagen for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an addition to anon-conforming single family home located at 17401 Kodiak Avenue. Assistant City Attorney Jamnik attested that the legal notice had been duly published and mailed in accordance with state statutes. Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach presented an overview of the application of Ms. Shirley Hagen, 17401 Kodiak Avenue, for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 17' x 16' addition onto the rear (Orchard Lake side) of the existing house located in an R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential District and Shoreland Overlay District. Upon review of the survey identifying existing site conditions, staff identified the following four (4) non-conformities of the subject property: 1) The existing house is set back 9.48 feet from the northerly side yard property line rather than the 10- foot ordinance requirement; 2) an existing 8' x 14' accessory building does not meet the 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Orchard Lake or the 5-foot setback from the northerly side property line; 3) the existing driveway does not meet the ..Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 2 5-foot setback from the northerly property line; and 4) an existing 13' x 20' detached deck is located within the shore impact zone (50% of the 75' structure setback). Associate Planner :Mullenbach indicated that Ms. Hagen's proposal includes the removal of the existing non-conforming detached deck to be replaced with a 32 square foot landing area and retaining wall in conformance with the Shoreland Ordinance. The proposal also includes the relocation of the existing accessory building to meet the setbacks from the OHWL of Orchard Lake, side yard property line, and setback from the existing house. Five feet of bituminous driveway has already been removed to meet the side yard five-foot property line setback. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that the proposed addition will meet all setback requirements for the zoning district and, therefore, will not increase the non-conformity. Mr. Mullenbach indicated that Mr. Pat Lynch, of the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and supports the request provided the accessory building is brought into conformance for the Shoreland District and the proposed landing area is constructed no more than 36" above grade. Ms. Hagen was present and indicated her agreement to the seven stipulations as recommended by staff as outlined in the May 27, 1999 Planning Report. Ms. Hagen's building contractor was also present to respond to questions regarding this proposal. Commissioner Wulff requested clarification regarding the materials and design of the landing proposed to replace the existing deck. Ms. Hagen indicated that the landing area will be poured concrete... There were no comments from the audience. 99.60 MOTION by Kot, Second by Wulff to close the public hearing at 6:10 p.m. Roll call vote was called on the motion Ayes: Kot, Moates, Drotning, Comer, Wulff. Nays: 0. 99.61 .MOTION by Wulff, Second by Kot to recommend to City Council approval of the application of Ms. Shirley Hagen for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an addition to anon-conforming single family home in the R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential District and Shoreland Overlay District located at 17401 Kodiak Avenue, Lot 8, Block 1, Ken Con Estates First Addition, subject to the seven (7) stipulations as outlined in the May 27, 1999 Planning Report and approval of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation dated June 3, 1999. Roll call vote was called on the. motion. Ayes: Moates, brotning, Comer, Wulff, Kot. Nays: 0. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 3 !ITEM 6: CORRIDOR AND GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES -REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION Community and Economic Development Director Michael Sobota noted that as part of the Economic Development Commission's (EDC) Strategic Plan and at the direction of the EDC, the City of Lakeville authorized Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to conduct a study of the major transportation corridors and gateway points into and throughout the City. This study was initiated to develop a vision for major transportation corridors and gateways into the City to promote the community's identity, maintain a positive aesthetic image, and distinguish. Lakeville from other communities in aIF seasons. The resulting design guidelines will serve as a reference for future development along the 13 corridors. and 20 gateways identified by the study. Sobota indicated that the study involved the establishment of a vision and theme for the City as it relates to the enhancement of the designated corridors and gateways. This function involved public participation with the citizens of Lakeville, EDC, and city staff in an ideation workshop which guided the development of design criteria for the corridors and gateways. Sobota indicated that after establishing the design guidelines and developing a funding and implementation strategy, a document was prepared compiling the findings for distribution to the Planning Commission and other advisory committees to review the design guidelines and recommend that the City Council receive and approve the document. • Mr. Sobota introduced Mr. Joel McElhany, Barton-Aschman Associates, who presented an overview of the proposed design guidelines for the Corridor and Gateway Design Study. Mr. McElhany noted that the City of Lakeville Corridor & Gateway Design. Study is comprised of three major parts: 1) an outline of Design Influences; 2) the Corridor and Gateway Design Concepts; and 3) Funding and Implementation Strategies. Mr. McElhany discussed the details of the document including the project area inventory, project area analysis, design process, and design influences. Specific design criteria were presented for each of the roadway classifications as defined in the 1994 City of Lakeville Transportation Plan, including prototypical intersection gateway treatments and interchange gateways. Mr. McElhany included in his presentation the details and elements of the style and construction materials for walls and fences, landscape hedges, proposed planting materials, cloister motif scheme, historic plaque design, boulder retaining walls, and water features. Commissioner Wulff expressed her hope that architectural designs for monuments and signs as guided in the Corridor & Gateway Design Study should. be considered. by commercial and industrial developers for incorporation into their site design and proposed identification signage in the future development or redevelopment of their properties. Sobota stated that the intent is for the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions to include corridor and gateway requirements based on the study for all private developments along corridors and at gateways. • Commissioner Wulff indicated she would like to see Plate 1 include a design standard for fences. Ms. Wulff stated that including fence criteria on Plate 1 would not necessarily Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 4 i require fencing; however, it would provide a consistent design for a fence should fencing be considered as part of a design along specific urban roadways. Chair Drotning stated his major concern is for maintenance of all the proposed design standards. The Commission concurred that long term maintenance be a consideration for landscaping tree and plant materials, berms, and. building materials for the proposed decorative elements including fencing, walls,, retaining walls, signs and architectural monuments/structures. Sobota indicated that when specific projects are proposed, soil conditions are a critical issue in determining the hardiness of specific plant materials. Sobota suggested that "Soil Conditions" be added as part of the design criteria for determining plant material selections. Mr. McElhany indicated that soil types and ph levels can be added to the existing plant matrix in Appendix B. Members of the Planning Commission stated support for this effort citing long term benefits to the community. 99.62 MOTION by Wulff, Second by Kot to recommend to City Council receipt and approval of the City of Lakeville Corridor & Gateway Design Study as presented and modified in accordance with the modifications proposed by the Planning Commission as discussed above. Roll call vote was called on the motion. Ayes: Drotning, Comer, Wulff, Kot, Moates. Nays: 0. ITEM 7A: TIM SAAP, 1.0419 163RD STREET WEST: INFORMAL DISCUSSION FOR A VARIANCE Mrs. Janet Sapp (wife) was present to answer questions and make statements on behalf of Mr. Timothy Sapp. Associate Planner Frank Dempsey indicated that he has had several discussions with Mr. Sapp, 10419 163rd Street West, regarding his proposal for a variance to allow him to keep anon-conforming shed in its present location on his property. In the summer of 1998, a City Building Inspector noticed the existing shed under construction and contacted the property owner that a building permit must be received and the shed would have to comply with zoning requirements. Mr. Sapp claimed that the previous shed was damaged in a storm in 1998. Planner Dempsey noted that the subject property is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential District and accessory structures are required to be a minimum of 10 feet from all other structures. An on-site inspection by City staff determined that the existing shed was 3 feet from the west wall of the house and that the shed could be moved into a location that would meet the minimum zoning ordinance requirements. Community and Economic Development Department staff had previously indicated to Mr. Sapp that staff could not support his request for a variance as long as other options to bring the shed • into compliance are available. Mr. Sapp requested informal discussion and preliminary comments from the Planning Commission prior to their submittal of an application for a variance. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 5 Mrs. Janet Sapp was in attendance representing her husband's proposal to allow the non-conforming shed to remain in its present location on their property located at 10419 163~d Street West. Mrs. Sapp indicated that they had purchased the home in 1993 and constructed a shed in approximately the same location as the new existing shed. The shed that was built in 1993 was destroyed in one of last summer's severe storms and, therefore, the Sapps proceeded to reconstruct the new shed in the same location. Mrs. Sapp indicated that alternative locations for placement of the shed would impact a significant tree or ponding area in their rear yard. Mrs. Sapp also noted that she had contacted her neighbors and they had indicated their preference for the current location of the shed. In addition, Mrs. Sapp stated that their property abuts County Road 46 and when the expansion of the roadway was occurring the County acquired a temporary easement on their property which would have precluded the construction of the shed to conforming setback in the rear yard. Planner Dempsey noted that construction of the shed in both 1993 and 1998 were completed without a building permit. Therefore, there was no opportunity for staff to inform the property owners of ordinance requirements for placement of the shed. An initial letter, dated September 1, 1998, was sent to the property owners noting that the accessory building was being constructed without a permit and indicating that accessory buildings must receive site plan approval prior to construction on the property. Subsequent notices were sent on September 21, 1998, December 15, 1998, January. 7, 1999 and May 4, 1999 outlining the options for bringing the detached shed into conformance with the minimum setback requirements. A June 1,.1999 deadline was set for the property owner to comply with ordinance requirements or submit a request for a variance. Associate Planner Dempsey provided a 1992 site survey of the subject property delineating the area of the rear yard that could accommodate the shed and meet the setback requirements. Commissioner Wulff requested clarification of the location of the existing tree and ponding area in the rear yard. Staff responded. Chair Drotning stated that the current Zoning Ordinance governing the placement of sheds has been in effect and consistently enforced since 1980.. He noted that staff and the Commission have been consistent in their efforts to bring current non-conforming properties into compliance with the current zoning and building requirements. For the most part enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance has been successful with the cooperation of the property owners, Because it has been determined that the shed can be accommodated on the property in an area that will comply with current ordinance requirements and no significant hardship of the property has been identified, Chair Drotning indicated he would not be inclined to recommend a variance to the City Council. Commissioner Wulff indicated that she is proud of how the City of Lakeville is able to work with property owners to achieve overall consistency with the Zoning Ordinance. Variances are granted- only under very rare conditions where hardships are unique to the • property and no viable alternatives can be pursued. The Planning Commission indicated their agreement with Chair Drotning and Commissioner Wulff. Staff informed Mrs. Sapp that since they had been given a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 6 deadline of June 1, 1999, a decision whether to apply for a building. permit indicating when the relocation of the shed will be accomplished or to pursue a variance should be made within the week to avoid any further enforcement action. ITEM 8A & B: DISCUSSION: DRAFT FORMAT FOR DEVELOPER PRESENTATIONS OPTIONAL CLOSING STATEMENTS FOR STAFF PRESENTATIONS City Planner Daryl Morey reviewed a proposed draft "checklist" for types of verbal information a developer should provide in his/her introduction of a project to the Planning Commission. The developer guidelines were prepared upon direction from the Planning Commission at the May 20th meeting. The Planning Commission had discussed amending the public hearing format to address concerns that there is a perception that staff "recommendations" to the Planning Commission at public hearings appear as though the City is acting as an advocate for projects under review. Ghair Drotning acknowledged an email from Commissioner Comer suggesting a draft format for a typical developer presentation incorporating the items as outlined in the May 28, 1999 Planning Report. The Planning Commission agreed that Commissioner Comer's proposed sample presentation was an excellent example of a format to be followed by developers. Mr. Morey also presented four options for "closing statements" for staff presentations on development proposals/applications. Commissioner Wulff expressed her desire that the developer present a brief history of his/her proposal stating what was originally proposed and what modifications were made to meet City ordinances and/or what, if any, concessions or compromises were made by the developer in addressing staff issues and concerns regarding the original proposal. City Administrator Robert Erickson expressed his support for this suggestion noting that this would provide information to the public and those attending the public hearing regarding the process that each potential development must undergo prior to the project ever being brought before the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Commission agreed that Item 1.f. be amended to include the presentation of a synopsis of the "original proposal" in relationship to the proposed project that is the subject of the public hearing. After discussing the four options for "closing statements", the Planning Commission agreed that Item 2.b. more appropriately addressed their concern that a staff recommendation at a public hearing not give the impression that the project is a "Done Deal." The intent is for the written planning reports to retain their current format which states a specific staff recommendation; however, the verbal recommendation would be revised. The Planning Commission opted to not send a letter to individuals who address the • Commission during public hearings thanking them for their input. The Commission concurred that they would prefer not to initiate this practice at this time due to the fact Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 7 that many attendees of public hearings do not speak and the timeliness of the response relative to scheduled action by the City Council 99.63 .MOTION by Wulff, Second by Kot to recommend Planning Commission Meeting operating procedures include developer presentations to the Planning Commission in the formaf outlined as Items 1.a. through 1.i. in the "CHECKLIST", with an amendment to Item 1.f., as discussed, and Item 2.b. "CLOSING STATEMENT" as presented in the May 28, 1999 Planning Report . Roll call vote was called on the motion. Ayes: Comer, Wulff, Kot, Moates, Drotning. Nays: 0. ITEM B.C. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC AREAS AND/OR PROPERTIES FOR REZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Community and Economic Development Director Sobota requested input from the Commission in identifying specific properties with the potential to have conflict in the. process of rezoning for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff will pursue additional research of these properties to address any issues prior to rezoning actions. Commissioner Wulff identified the property located at Dodd Boulevard and Glacier Way currently zoned Planned Unit Development. Ms. Wulff also indicated that the property at 167th Street West and Kenrick Avenue be researched for zoning options other-than B-4 General Commercial zoning. Chair Drotning identified the property located north of 175th Street in the Argonne Farms area as an area that has a potentiaF for neighborhood conflict. OTHER BUSINESS: Sobota informed the Planning Commission that a meeting was held with Independent School District. (ISD) 194 representatives, U.S. West and City staff regarding concerns raised by the Planning Commission about the cellular telephone tower east of Kennedy Elementary School. Sobota stated that the developer and ISD 194 agreed to move the tower approximately 200 feet south taking it out of the playground. area and place it next to the ball field and, therefore, eliminating any conflicts with the play area. Planning Commission members agreed that this was an improvement. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Resp ctfully submi e , on a Quintus, Re ording Secretary ATTE T: Karl Drotning, Chair RESOLUTION OF THE LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO THE PROPOSAL FOR MODIFICATION NO. 5 OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN AND MODIFICATION NO. 5 OF THE HOUSING TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 "SOUTHFORK I APARTMENTS"FINANCING PLAN WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the. City of Lakeville (the "Authority") has proposed Modification No. 5 of the Housing Development Project Plan and Modification No. 5 of the Housing Tax Increment District No. 8 "Southfork 1 Apartments" Financing Plan. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 and. 469.047, inclusive, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469,.179,. inclusive; and WHEREAS, the Project Plan and Financing Plan have been submitted to the Lakeville Planning. Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.027 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3(3); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Project Plan: and Financing Plan to determine the consistency of the Plans to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lakeville Planning Commission that`the Project Plan and Financing Plan are consistent with the Lakeville Comprehensive Plan and. the Commission recommends forwarding of the findings to the Lakeville City Council. Adopted: , 1999 Chairman ATTEST: •