HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-98 City of Lakeville
• PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 25, 1998
The June 25, 1998 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice Chair
Miller at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Roll call of members was taken:
Present: Miller, Kot, Wanner, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff.
Absent• Rieb.
Also present: Robert Erickson, City Administrator; Michael Sobota, Community and
Economic Development Director; Daryl Morey, City Planner; Frank Dempsey, Associate
Planner; Ron Mullenbach, Planning Assistant; Tim Hanson, Assistant City Engineer; Roger
Knutson, City Attorney; and Donna Quintus,. Recording Secretary.
Commissioner Wanner requested that the June 4, 1998 Planning Commission minutes be
amended on Page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 1 by replacing "Chair Rieb" with
"Commissioner Wanner" to reflect that Commissioner Wanner requested information
regarding the parking lot at the Muller Theater. The minutes of the June 4, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting were approved as amended.
ITEM 4: ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community & Economic Development Director Michael Sobota noted that
Commissioner Miller is chairing this meeting in the absence of Chair Rieb.
ITEM 5: CONSENT AGENDA
City Planner Daryl Morey stated that staff is recommending a stipulation be added to the
June 19, 1998 Planning Report to be consistent with the stipulations recommended with
the approved preliminary plat. Stipulation No. 13 reads as follows: "Driveway access
for Lot 4, Block 5 and Lot 4, Block 7 shall be located on the east side of the lot and
driveway access for Lot 5, Block 5 and Lot 5, Block 7 shall be located on the west side of
the lot." The Commission concurred.
98.101 MonoN by Cecchini, Second by Wulff to recommend to City Council approval of the
June 25, 1998 Planning Commission Consent Agenda as follows:
5a. Approve the application of Green Ridge Associates, L.L.P. for the final plat of 66
single family residential lots to be known as GREENRIDGE on property located west of
Flagstaff Avenue and south of 175th Street subject to the 12 stipulations listed in the
June 19, 1998 Planning Report with the addition of Stipulation No. 13 as
recommended.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
i Ayes: Kot, Wanner, Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff.
Nays: 0.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
}une 25, 1998
Page 2
• ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: A. Maas Construction Easement Vacation
Vice Chair Miller opened. the public hearing for consideration of the application of A.
Maas Construction, Inc. for the vacation of a drainage and utility easement located within
Lake Villa Golf Estates 7th Addition. City Attorney Roger Knutson attested that the legal
notice had been published as required by state statute.
City Planner Daryl Morey presented an overview of the request from A. Maas
Construction for the vacation of an existing ten-foot wide drainage and utility easement
located along the common property line of Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, Lake Villa Golf
Estates 7th Addition, generally located on the south side of 179th Trail and east of
Kingsway Path. This easement vacation is being proposed in conjunction with a request
for an Administrative Subdivision/Combination of Lot 11, Block 3 from the owners of
Lots 10 and 12, Block 3. The Administrative Subdivision/Combination request proposes
a split of Lot 11 into two lots and then combining the adjacent portions of the subdivided
Lot 11 to Lots 10 and 12. Anew ten-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be
established along the new shared property line of Lots 10/11 and 11/12.
Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson has reviewed the easement proposed to be vacated
and has indicated that existing drainage patterns will not be impacted with the vacation
of this easement. Also, private electric, natural gas, telephone, and cable TV utility
companies have been contacted and they have responded that they have no facilities
located within the drainage and utility easement proposed to be vacated.
City. Planner Morey noted that an existing drainage and utility easement located along the
existing common boundary line between Lots 10 and 11, Block 3, Lake Villa Golf Estates
7th Addition cannot be vacated with the proposed subdivision/combination due to an
existing storm sewer pipe located within this 20-foot wide side lot Line easement. The
storm sewer pipe connects an existing pond located at the rear of Lot 10 with storm
sewer facilities located within 179th Trail. No permanent structures will be permitted
within this 20-foot wide easement.
AI Maas of A. Maas Construction was in attendance to answer questions and provide
clarification of this request.
There were no comments from the public.
98.102 MonoN by Drotning, Second by Kot to close the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Wanner, Miller,. Drotning,. Cecchini, Wulff, Kot.
Nays: 0.
98.103 MOTION by Wulff, Second by Drotning to recommend to City Council approval of the
application of A. Maas Construction for the vacation of a drainage and utility easement
located along the shared side property Fine of Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, Lake Villa Golf
Estates 7th Addition subject to the two stipulations as Fisted in the June 19, 1998 Planning
Report.
RoIF call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot, Wanner.
Nays: 0.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 3
ITEM 7A: PUBLIC HEARING (continued from June 4, 1998 regular Planning Commission Meeting):
fowler, Bollinger,. Helkenn, City of Lakeville: Rezoning
ITEM 7B: PUBLIC HEARING: Street Right-of-Way Vacation
At their )une 4, 1998 meeting, the Planning Commission agreed to continue a public
hearing to the )une 25, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to consider the application
of Fowler, Bollinger, Helkenn, and the City of Lakeville for the rezoning of four parcels
located in the Argonne Farms area. Action on the request for the rezoning was tabled
until the )une 25, 1998 meeting at which time a proposed vacation of a portion of )unelle
Path, which is associated. with the subject properties, could be considered.
Vice Chair Miller reconvened the public hearing for consideration of applications for a
rezoning of four parcels from B-4, General Business District to R-2, Single Family
Residential District for property located south of 175th, approximately 3/4 of a mile east
of the County Road 50/175th Street intersection.
Concurrently, Vice Chair Miller opened the public hearing for consideration of the
application. of the City of Lakeville for the vacation of a portion of a 33-foot wide street
right-ofway of Batten Boulevard (now known as )unelle Path) located along the northerly
line of Lot 35, Argonne Farms. City Attorney Roger Knutson attested that the legal
notices for both public hearings had been duly mailed and published as required by state
statute.
• REZONING:
Planning Assistant Ron Mullenbach presented an overview of the applications of Colin
and Kimberlie Fowler, Donald and Maxine Bollinger, and Morel Helkenn requesting the
rezoning of their respective properties from B-4, General Business District to R-2, Single-
Family Residential District. As directed by the Planning Commission at their May 21,
1998 meeting, the City of Lakeville, acting as the applicant, included the Fay property to
the north in the rezoning request. The four subject parcels are contiguous and the
proposed rezoning from B-4 to R-2 is in conformance with adjoining property uses and is
consistent with the current residential use of the properties and the current
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The property owners are not proposing a change in
the current single family use of their properties.
Planning Assistant Mullenbach indicated that the four subject parcels are guided for low
density residential uses in the 1988 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A strip of land just to
the west of the four subject parcels is guided for medium/high density residential uses
and was intended as a transition to commercial uses along County Road 50. These
current land use determinations were a recommendation of a detailed study undertaken
at the time of the 1988 Comprehensive Plan Update. The results of this study served as a
basis for the I-35/County Road 50 Concept Plan. The I-35/County Road 50 Concept Plan
shows a transition from commercial to residential land uses occurring roughly at )unelle
• Path, a substantial distance west of the subject parcels. Planner Mullenbach noted that
this concept plan and the city-wide land use plan indicate that the subject parcels,
including the Fay property, were intended for low density residential uses.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 4
• .Planner Mullenbach noted that once the City's comprehensive plan update which is
currently underway is complete, the City will be required to amend its zoning map to be
consistent with the adopted land use plan. Most likely, a transition similar to that
identified in the 1988 plan will continue to be recommended in this area.
At the request of Commissioner Wulff, Planning Assistant Mullenbach discussed issues
related to the I-35/County Road 50 Traffic Study which is currently underway. A map
showing a concept of a proposed street alignment .included in the study was presented.
City staff feels that the proposed future alignment would not affect this rezoning request.
)unelle Path and the proposed realignment of 175th/176th Street would continue to
provide a natural transition from commercial to medium/high density residential. land
uses. In addition, the transition will occur far enough west to allow a layer of
medium high density development next to the area currently guided for low density
residential uses.
VACATION:
The City is also requesting the vacation of a portion of the )unelle Path right-of:
way
which currently bisects the Helkenn property. This portion of right-ofway is.
unimproved,. has not been maintained by the City Street Department over the last 25
years, and comes to adead-end at a City-owned outlot at the east end of the Helkenn
property. A drainage and utility easement would be retained over the vacated portion of
the right-of-way for access to the City-owned outlot.
Plannin Assistant Mullenbach noted that the inclusion of their ro ert in the r z nin
g P p Y e o g
request is opposed by Richard and Joyce Fay, 10530 175th Street, and noted that they
are not able to be in attendance at this public hearing. However, Planner Mullenbach
directed the Commissioners' attention to a letter received by City staff and forwarded to
the Planning Commission on )une 23, 1998 from the Fays expressing opposition to the
rezoning of their property.
Mr. Mullenbach also noted a letter dated )une 23, 1998 received and copied for the
Planning Commission from Mr. Ron Gerk, adjoining property owner, expressing
opposition to the inclusion of the Fay property in the rezoning proposal as well as
opposition to the proposed street right-of--way vacation.
Staff was also in receipt of correspondence from Bob Metzger and Christine Markham,
17761 )avefin Court, expressing their support of the rezoning of the properties from B-4
to R-2 as proposed.
Planner Mullenbach highlighted some of the issues that have been raised related to the
inclusion of the Fay property and responded as follows:
1. Will the Fay's property be worth less zoned. for residential uses
Today, a proposal for commercial development of the Fay property could be
i denied by the City Council as it would not be consistent with the current land use
plan. The zoning alone does not ensure that commercial development will be
allowed, and subsequently does not ensure a higher return on the property.
Commercially zoned and guided property closer to County Road 50 is currently
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 5
not fully developed which logically would be of higher value in the market than
property further from County Road 50.
2. What impact will a rezoning have on the Fay's current operation of an existing
non-conforming day care out of their single family home in the B-4, General
Business Zoning District?
The day care .for ?ess than 12 children is not a permitted use in the 8-4 District;
however, the current operation is an existing non-conforming use. A day care for
fewer than 12 children would be a permitted use in the R-2, Single Family
Residential District. A day care for more than 12 children would be permitted via
a Conditional Use Permit in the R-2 or 8-4 Districts. It was not known at the time
of this meeting the number of children currently being served by the day care.
Assuming the day care serves fewer than 12 children, the rezoning would bring
the day care use into conform+ty
3. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires that the City's zoning map be
consistent with the updated land use plan. Therefore, the property may need to
be rezoned upon adoption of the updated land use plan in approximately 6 to 8
months if it is not rezoned to R-2 at this time.
The Planning Commission acknowledged and accepted written correspondence received
from Richard and Joyce Fay, Ron Gerk, and Bob Metzger & Christine Markham and
directed that these letters become a part of the permanent record for this public hearing.
The Fowlers and Bollingers were present to address any questions that the Planning
Commission may have.
Discussion by the Planning Commission included the following:
> Would the City be interested in rezoning the property to R-A, Single Family
Agricultural as suggested in Mr. Ron Gerk's letter?
The R A District has a minimum lot size often acres. None of the four subject
parcels meets the minimum ] 0-acre lot size.
> Should the property immediately to the west of these four parcels be included in the
rezoning request?
Most of these properties are guided for medium/high density land use in the current
comprehensive plan and are intended as a transition area between commercial and
residential development. The City will consider the rezoning of these properties after
adoption of the updated comprehensive plan,
> Why retain a drainage and utility easement over the vacated portion of the right-of-
way?
Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson stated that this easement provides a second
• means of access to the City-owned drainage outlot in Oak Ridge Heights Addition
which is recommended for future maintenance.
> Commissioner Wulff requested details regarding alternatives for the realignment of
County Road 50 and how they impact the subject properties.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
)une 25, 1998
Page 6
The alignment shown by Planner Mullenbach was the only concept for the area south
of 175th Street in the 1-35/County Road 50 Traffic Study. However, other concepts
could be brought forward at the time of development.
> Commissioner Cecchini requested clarification of the future extension of 176th Street
and the 176th Street/County Road 50 intersection alignment.
A railroad crossing at 176th Street and the CP Rail line will allow for connection of
176th Street to the frontage road which currently dead-ends just north of 185th
Street, but is planned to connect to the 185th Street interchange. A concept in the 1-
35/County Road 50 Traffic Study would connect the frontage road to Junelle Path at
176th Street, then north across 175th Street..
> Commissioners Cecchini and Drotning questioned the reason for including the Fay
property at this time and whether their property could be reviewed for future
rezoning after the comprehensive guide plan has been updated and adopted by the
City.
Planning Assistant Mullenbach responded that the existing single family use of the
Fay property is in conflict with the 8-4 zoning. The Fay property and other properties
throughout the City where existing zoning and an approved updated land use plan
(scheduled for completion and adoption in December, 1998) are in conflict and will
be the subject of a rezoning in 6 to 8 months. The City maybe seeking the same
action to rezone the Fay property by the end of 1998. Staff felt that this was an
opportunity to combine the efforts of these adjacent land owners and make zoning
consistent with existing single family uses.
> Commissioner Drotning referenced Mr. Ron Gerk's written correspondence and
requested clarification as to whether Mr. Gerk's access to his property is impacted by
the vacation as proposed this evening.
Staff responded that Mr. Gerk's property does not have legal access to Junelle Path
via any of the four subject parcels.
Ms, Sandy Goetz, 1952.5 Jasper Terrace, indicated that she has an interest in two parcels
located west of the subject property and indicated her interest in the property was
acquired based on the current zoning for commercial use. Ms. Goetz expressed her
belief .that to rezone the subject properties to R-2, Single Family Residential as requested
would be problematic when future commercial development is proposed for her
property.
Upon further review by staff as to the specific property referenced by Ms. Goetz, it was
determined that the parcels for which Ms. Goetz stated an .interest was guided for
medivm/high density residential use. Community and Economic Development Director
Sobota indicated that this property is an example of where zoning is in conflict with the
comprehensive land use plan designation.. When the Comprehensive Plan Update is
completed, the zoning of properties such as this will be brought into compliance with the
adopted comprehensive land use designations as required by state statute.
City Administrator Robert Erickson highlighted the history of this area and the potential
for commercial development in this area. City Administrator Erickson indicated that
potential developers have consistently determined that this area is not feasible without
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 7
• tax increment financing or other City assistance for commercial development because of
challenges related to the property as it exists (grade, slopes, soils, vegetation, etc.). Also,
commercial development is impacted by Dakota County Access Spacing Guidelines on
County Road 50.
Community and Economic Development Director Michael Sobota reiterated the
development challenges that currently exist for this property noting that utility locations,
access issues, wetland concerns, and conservation constraints negatively impact the
development potential of this property for commercial development.
Loren Hoppe, 17886 Kenwood Trail, indicated his ownership of Lots 34 and 37,
Argonne Farms which is adjacent and to the west of Mr. Helkenn's property. Mr. Hoppe
expressed concern that the proposed rezoning to R-2 will allow further subdivision of
existing parcels and how that will impact and change current residential development in
this area. Mr. Hoppe stated his. appreciation of the existing natural setting of the wooded
area with its natural grade and existing vegetation and expressed his concern that this
may change with the proposed rezoning.
Kim Fowler, 17700 Junelle Path, indicated she initiated the request for a rezoning of her
property to R-2, Single Family Residential. Ms. Fowler noted that the request to rezone at
this time is based on requirements of her lending institution and her ability to equitably
refinance her home. The existing commercial zoning is problematic in her securing a
home loan. Ms. Fowler indicated her intention to continue to live on and use her
property as a residence and reiterated that her request for a rezoning is consistent with
the land use designation of the comprehensive plan.
There were no further comments from the audience.
98.104 M07iow by Kot, Second by Wanner to close the public hearings for the rezoning and
easement vacation at 7:10 p.m.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot, Wanner, Miller.
Nays: 0.
Commissioner Drotning expressed his belief that existing conditions of the subject
property would be a challenge to develop based on existing topography. However,
Commissioner Drotning indicated that since the Fays are opposed to the rezoning at this
time he would prefer to withdraw the request for rezoning of the Fay property and
address their specific concerns regarding their property when the Comprehensive Plan
Update is adopted. The Commissioners concurred.
98.105 MorioN by Wulff, Second by Cecchini to withdraw the City of Lakeville application for a
rezoning of the Fay property.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Cecchini, Wulff, Kot, Wanner, Miller, Drotning.
Nays: 0.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 8
• Commissioner Drotning recommended that Community and Economic Development
staff write a letter to the Fays explaining the affect the Comprehensive Land Use Plan may
have on their property. The Fays, as property owners, should become involved in the
process by informing City staff of their wishes for their property.
98.106 MOTION by Drotning, Second by Wulff to recommend to City Council approval of the
application of Colin and Kimberlie Fowler, Donald and Maxine Bollinger, and Morel
Helkenn to rezone property from B-4, General Business District to R-2, Single Family
Residential District consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the current use
of the properties and approval of the Findings of Fact dated June 25, 1998.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Kot, Wanner, Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff.
Nays: 0.
98.107 MOTION by Drotning, Second by Kot to recommend to City Council approval of the
application of the City of Lakeville for the vacation of an existing portion of )unelle Path
as platted in Argonne Farms, subject to the Gity retaining a drainage and utility easement
over the vacated portion of the right-of--way.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Wanner, Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot.
Nays: 0.
•
ITEM 8: PUBLICHEARFNG: Top Value Homes: Conditional Use Permit
Vice Chair Miller opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Top
Value Homes, Inc. for a conditional usepermit to allow a second driveway curb-cut
access in the R-2, Single Family Residential District. City Attorney Roger Knutson
attested that the legal notice had been duly mailed and published as required by state
statute.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented an overview of the application of Top Value
Homes, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow two curb cut accesses with the
construction of a new single family home on Lot 12, Block 1, Paradise Hills, generally
located in the southwest corner of Ireland Place and Ireland Way. Both driveways, one
accessing from Ireland Way and one accessing from Ireland Place, meet or exceed the
setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson indicated he has reviewed the proposed site plan for
Lot 12, Block 1, Paradise Hills which identifies two driveway accesses. The proposed.
location of both driveways, the main access on Ireland Way and a second auxiliary
driveway accessing from Ireland Place meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements
and will not impact traffic visibility and safety.
Ted McWilliams, representative of Top Value Homes, Inc., indicated his agreement to
the stipulations for approval as recommended by staff and listed in the )une 19, 1998
Planning Report. However, Mr. McWilliams indicated that the property owner has.
requested a modification to the proposed home which would relocate the access to the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25,.1998
Page 9
• auxiliary garage from the side rather than the rear as currently shown on the site plan.
Mr. McWilliams indicated that the access locations to the two streets would remain as
shown on the site plan and he requested staff and Planning Commission consideration of
the proposed building modification.
There were no comments from the public.
98.108 MOTION by Kot, Second by Drotning to close the public hearing at7:40 p.m.
Rolf call vote. was called on the motion.
Ayes: Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot Wanner.
Nays: 0.
Following input from the Planning Commission, it was determined that a relocation of
the garage entrance was a preferred design because it reduced visual impact to abutting
lots. Commissioners Wulff and Kot indicated their preference for additional landscaping
to further reduce visual impact of the garage door and second driveway from the right-of-
way along a proposed retaining wall along the proposed driveway.
The Commission agreed to add the following stipulation for approval of the conditional
use permit: "'Landscaping shall be installed on the retaining wall located along the north
side of the auxiliary driveway on the east side of the proposed home."
98.109 MorioN by Kot, Second by Wanner to recommend to City Council approval of the
application of Top Value Homes, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a second
driveway curb-cut access on Lot 12, Block 1, Paradise Hills subject to the three
stipulations as listed in the June 19, 1998 Planning Report and including Stipulation No.
4 as listed above and that Top Value Homes,. Inc. submit a revised site plan showing
access to the auxiliary garage from the side rather than the rear prior to City Council
review and to approve the Findings of fact dated June 75, 1998.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot, Wanner, Miller.
Nays: 0.
ITEM 9: PUBLIC HEARING: Camas Minnesota, Incorporated: Planned Unit Development/
Conditional Use Permit Amendment
Vice Chair Miller opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of
Camas Minnesota, Incorporated for an amendment to the Nordic Square Planned Unit
Development/Conditional Use Permit and Mining and Excavation Permit. City Attorney
Roger Knutson attested that the legal notice had been published and mailed as required
by state statute.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented an overview of the application from Camas
Minnesota, Incorporated for an amendment to the Nordic Square Planned Unit
Development/Conditional Use Permit and Excavation Permit approved by the City
Council on May 5, 1994. Camas operates gravel pits at 5000 West 160th Street,
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 10
generally located north and south of 160th Street West and east of Pilot Knob Road in
Lakeville and Apple Valley.
Camas has determined that additional hours of operation are needed to accommodate
demand. for the aggregate product. Associate Planner Dempsey 'rndicated that the 1994
permit allows the plant to operate on occasional Saturdays between 5:00 a.m. and 1:00
a.m. Camas is requesting that the sand and gravel plant be allowed to operate on
Saturdays between March and December from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Community and Economic Development Director Michael Sobota indicated that the
request is consistent with the City's goals to complete mining of this property by 2010 as
mandated in the current Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit and
Excavation Permit.
Bob Bieraugel, Environmental Affairs Manager for Camas Minnesota, Inc., was present
and answered questions and provided clari#ication regarding the current Camas
operations. Mr. Bieraugel indicated that Camas holds annual neighborhood meetings
with. area property. owners each year to address any concerns or issues related to the
mining operation. Three property owners attended the 1998 Neighborhood Meeting.
Also, Mr. Bieraugel indicated that he had returned calls to two residents and provided
them with information regarding the proposed amendment.
.There were no comments from the public.
98.110 MoTiorv by Kot, Second. by Wanner to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Cecchini, Wulff, Kot, Wanner, Miller, Drotning.
Nays: 0.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission agreed to modify the staff recommended
stipulations for approval of the conditional use permit by amending Stipulation No. 4 to
read as follows: "The aggregate processing plant shall use existing stock piles of
aggregate, sand and gravel or conveyed aggregate from another location during Saturday
hours of operation." The Commissioners also agreed to add Stipulation No. 5 to read as
follows: "Mining shalt not occur in the City of Lakeville on Saturdays."
98.111 MoTiorv by Wanner, Second by Drotning to recommend to City Council approval of the
application of Camas Minnesota, Incorporated for an amendment to the Nordic Square
Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit and Mining and Excavation Permit to
allow the aggregate processing plant to operate on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
on their property located north and south of 160th Street West and east of Pilot Knob
Road in Lakeville and Apple Valley subject to the four stipulations as listed in the )une
15, 1998 Planner's Report with the amendment to Stipulation No. 4 and the addition of
Stipulation No. 5 as discussed above and approval of the Findings of Fact dated )une 25,
1998.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Wulff, Kot, Wanner, Miller, Drotning, Cecchini.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 11
Nays: 0.
ITEM 10: PUBLIC HEARING: Tom & Ann Hoffman: Conditional Use Permit
Vice Chair Miller opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Tom
and Ann Hoffman to allow the construction of an attached garage for a total accessory
building area greater than 13,068 square feet in the R-A, Single Family Agricultural
Residential District. City Attorney Roger Knutson attested that-the legal notices had been
duly mailed and published as required by state statute.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented an overview of the application from Tom
and Ann Hoffman for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-02 to allow the
construction of a 984 square foot attached garage/master bedroom addition onto their
existing. single family home located at 8315 - 190th Street West. The 9.5-acre parcel is
located on the north side of 190th between Dodd Boulevard and Highview Avenue. In
1994 the Hoffman's were granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow: 1) an existing
single family house to be moved onto the property; 2} a combination of accessory
building area greater than 13,068 square feet in the R A District; and 3} a commercial
riding. stable.
Planner Dempsey noted that the garage addition will raise the total accessory building
area to 18,652 square feet. Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman have indicated the proposed attached
garage will allow personal vehicles to be stored inside.
Communi and Economic Develo ment staff recommends a r v I f h H '
ty p pp o a o t e offman s
request for a conditional use permit because the attached garage/master bedroom
addition improves the livability of the house and the request is consistent with the City's
comprehensive plan.
Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman were present in the audience and indicated their agreement to the
conditions for approval recommended by staff.
There were no comments from the public.
98.112 MOTION by Wulff, Second by Kot to close the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Kot, Wanner, Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff.
Nays: 0.
98.113 MOTION by Kot, Second by Drotning to recommend to City Council approval of the
request of Tom and Ann Hoffman for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory
building area in excess of 13,068 square feet in the R-A, Single Family Agricultural
Residential District on their property located at 8315 - 190th Street West subject to the
seven stipulations as listed in the dune 19, 1998 Planning Report and approval of the
Findings of Fact dated )une 25, 1998.
Roll calf vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Wanner, Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot.
Nays: 0.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 13
• ITEM 11: PUBLIC HEARING: Bart Winkler: Conditional Use Permit
Vice Chair Miller opened the public hearing for consideration of the application of Bart
Winkler for a conditional use permit to allow the placement of fill within the flood plain
of Lake Marion. City Attorney Roger Knutson attested that the legal notices had been
duly mailed and published as required by state statute.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented an overview of the application of Bart
Winkler for a conditional use permit to allow the placement of fill withirithe flood plain
of Lake Marion to accommodate the redevelopment of a single family home site on
property located at 19099 Orchard Trail, generally located on the southwest side of
Orchard Trail south of 188th Street. The Zoning Ordinance allows the placement of fill
within the flood plain subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Associate Planner Dempsey indicated that the property as it exists today consists of the
following legal non-conformities; 1) minimum lot width; 2} driveway setback of five feet
to the west property line; 3) an encroachment of the driveway for the property to the
east over the northeast corner of the subject property; 4) an existing shed does not meet
the 75-foot required setback from the OHWL of the lake; and 5) the existing house does
not meet the minimum lowest floor elevation of 986.1 feet. With the exception of the
minimum lot width staff is recommending that all other existing legal non-conformities
be removed,
• Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson noted that the City is aware of the potential for
flooding in this area and in his review of the proposed development plan particular
attention was given to the grading plan, proposed fill, final house elevation, current and
proposed drainage patterns,. and potential impacts on other properties in the
neighborhood. Details of his findings and recommendations for approval are outlined in
his Engineering Report dated )une 19, .1998.
Mr. Bart Winkler, purchaser of the property, and Mr. Joel Cooper, James R. Hill &
Associates, were in attendance to answer questions and provide details regarding the
request for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Winkler indicated his agreement to the
stipulations for approval as recommended by staff.
Ms. Barbara Hill, 19123 Orchard Trail, stated she had no opposition to the :proposed
redevelopment of the property as proposed and indicated she felt the proposal
represented an improvement to the property. However, Ms. HiI) expressed concern
regarding the potential for flooding of this area and especially of Orchard Trail.
Assistant City Engineer Hanson indicated that the fill proposed to be added to this site
will only impact the subject lot and will not impact the existing drainage of adjacent lots.
98.114 MOTION by Drotning, Second by Wulff to close the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Miller, Drotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot, Wanner.
Nays: 0.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 25, 1998
Page 14
• The .Planning Commission agreed that it would not be appropriate to require that the
existing small encroaching driveway Hess than one foot} be removed. from the northeast
corner of the sub}ect parcel because it does not belong to the property owner. Staff
recommended that Stipulation f) be modified to read as follows: "The property owner
shall provide the City with a copy of a "letter of Understanding" signed by both property
owners that acknowledges the existing driveway encroachment and an agreement that
the property to the east has legal access to their property via the existing driveway."
98.115 MOTION by Wulff, Second by Drotning to recommend to City Council approval of the
request of Mr. Bart Winkler for a Cond'+tiona{ Use Permit to allow the placement of fi11
within the flood plain of lake Marion to accommodate the redevelopment of a single
family home site on property located at 19099 Orchard Trail. subject to Stipulations a)
through I) as listed in the )une 19, 1998 Planning Report with the modification to
Stipulation f} as listed above and approval of the Findings of Fact dated )une 25, 1998.
Roll call vote was called on the motion.
Ayes: Qrotning, Cecchini, Wulff, Kot, Wanner, Miller.
Nays: 0.
The next Planning Commission. Meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, )uly 16,
1998.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
onna Quintus, Recor mg Secretary
ATTEST:
Dennis Miller, Vice Chair
•
Good Evening,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity, our first in this rezoning request, to
address you, the Planning Commission, at this rescheduled Public Hearing on June
25, at 6:00 p.m. regarding the "east 350 feet of Lot 24, subject to an easement over
the North 16.5 feet, Argonne Fauns".
Our plan was to attend this Public Hearing previously scheduled for June 4.
When this Public Hearing was rescheduled to June 25, I informed Mr. Mullenbach
on June 1, we could not be in attendance as we would be attending our son's
wedding in Florida and requested a new date, but. was told this was not an option.
I was told to write a letter which would represent us. This requested letter is
attached and should be read to speak for. us at this time, 3une 25, 1998.
You will note there are 3 property owner applicants and the City of Lakeville
requesting the rezoning of four parcels from B4 to R2. We are NOT one of the
applicants requesting the rezoning, but somehow our property is one of the four
parcels in the rezoning request! Currently, we do NOT desire to have he zoning of
ow' property changed!
Richard and Joyce Fay ~2~222324~,~~
JUN 1998
CITY OF r
LAKEVILLE ~
~wti
~O`6 8 L9~
i The Transition o events eading u~tQ This Fublic Hgarin~.• -1-
Friday, May 1, 1998, 9:15 a.m. to 9:40 a.m., Ms Fowler contacted me via
phone to inform me that she was "rezoning from commercial to residential."
She stated. she had spoken with Bollingers and Helkenns; and they, too, were
"going,.~,go along with" her to request rezoning for their property. She
questioned me as to whether we would be interested in doing the same. I stated I
did not have the time to even consider such a request and did not understand how
her request related to our property;and that I currently have a home group child care
business, a mobile food vending business, 2 children graduating and 1 marrying
within the next 2 months, as well as serious medical situations with several of my
family members, and I was pretty well "timed out" for anything as serious as her
proposal, and we were not interested in any such proposal. Fowler proceeded to
state, "I cannot mee my mortgage ~,.~yment now and cannot ge~good rate
because of the commercial zoning, reSidentiA~ tioning~iv' get mp ~ hover
Interest rate. you ru
obably do not have A m rtgage any more, if your house
burned down you could not rebuild becauce 3~ are commerciah you could not
do your day care business, Sn into your ~ro~e~r
y will be multi housing
anyv~v. Bollingers and Helken~s ar~gQ~gg~gpg~ith me, I did alt the work
already and all you have to do is go along with ~c• n yvg'll go ahead without
. ou•
I listened to her and indicated repeatedly we were not interested and -2-
responded to her statements; yes, we have a mortgage unti12007 at 9% when my
spouse will be 83, this is .our 8~' mortgage on this property, the last mortgage
because we, too, could not meet our monthly payments because my spouse had lost
his job of 30+ years in 1992, had never been questioned on a mortgage application
as to the zoning of our property or asked to pay a greater percentage rate because
of the commercial zoning, yes, my spouse was working but at only 1/3 of the
previous salary and I would inform him of her call, and yes, I could empathize with
her and wish her well, but was not interested; .reiterating, I have too much to handle
now with the medical situations, the graduations, the wedding, working long hours
into the night to run 2 businesses, and family involvement.
Subsequently, on that date, ,May 1, I phoned Ron Mullenbach, at the City
Planning office and received the information that "the boning re t e ~ was
initialed by
Fowler. no ~p.4~.Q.~il~g~it~! be.~o~~1ga ~ni~lg~,c~be
consistent. there is the possibility Qf Helkenn requesting the zoning. 3/4 of the
Planning Commit ion ma, wept *hp ~hangg. uni' ely
you could be rezoned
v~ithout your request". Mr. Mullenbach was very knowledgeable, helpful, and
courteous tome; and I, thankfully, put the matter aside, assured that we would
remain zoned as we had been for decades and no further thought to the Fowler
conversation need be taken..
• However, on Friday, May 22, Mr. Mullenbach phoned me to state, -3-
"Planning Commissio,~ la t night recommended that the City be an a~licant
to rezone your lz~l~~ alc~ to R2 from B4,~akes more cetlce thAt the whole
Fowler block of p,
r~Qerty go to r~~ideutial, you w~u~d be surrounded on 3
sides by residential if you were not • nn your ~r pg~y will bet a buffer.
follows the comprehensive plan. c~~rrpnt ~~ce of the p,~~.~ would not be
affected, return on land will not a aff ~g~y rezoning, Public Hearing. will
be Jude 4."
(At this point in time, at the Planning Commission meeting, apparently on
May 21, the City has joined. in the rezoning request of 3 property owners and also
included our property in the request; but we are still not officially informed nor in
attendance at any Planning Commission meeting involving our property! If Fowler
had not made the initial call on May 1, and I had not subsequently contacted the City
on that date, we would be totally unaware!)
Saturday, May 23, a letter from the City was received stating a Public Hearing
was scheduled for June 4 for the request. of 3 property owners and the City to rezone
the 4 properties listed, one of which is ours.
Saturday, May 30, a packet from the City arrived in the mail with a letter
informing us the scheduled Public Hearing for June 4 was rescheduled to Thursday,
June 25.
Monday, June 1, Mr. Mullenbach phoned to ascertain our receipt of the =4-
letter from the City regarding the rescheduling of the Public Hearing from -June 4 to
Thursday, June 25. I informed Mr Mullenbach the change of date indicated we
could not. even be present at the Public Hearing to rezone our property!
How could another meeting, now a Public Hearing, beheld without an affected
property owner present? How was it possible knowledge of our inability to attend a
rescheduled Public Hearing was known? How was it possible we were put into this
situation without ever being informed of a Planning Commission meeting to discuss
it? Mr. Mullenbach was, again, very kind and polite to me, but I fear I did tend to
raise his ire a bit with my questions of the increasingly weirdness of this rezoning
request.. I requested that the Public Hearing date be rescheduled, but,. was told there
is a time line and if not dealt with within that time line, the request is automatically
approved! I was told to write a letter to submit on June 25, the date of the
rescheduled Public Hearing.
Friday, June 6, I phoned Mr. Mullenbach to clarify the reason .for writing the
letter; as I didn't feel I had totally absorbed the impact of the situation and was
unsure of what exactly was expected in the content of the letter. I was informed the
letter should be submitted. as soon as possible and well before the June 25~'
Public Hearing, so the Planning Commission could review it!
• ~ Our Opinions on the Rezdning Request: -5-
We and our S children have been residents of Lakeville since June 28, 1966,
32 years. We have enjoyed being part of the community, voted, and paid our taxes
on 8 additional schools and numerous other improvements since our move here. At
this tune, we have no desire to rezone our property, and we are not part of this
request to rezone our property. Currently, we desire to continue to be zoned as we
.have. been for the past 3+ decades and to continue to provide the child care services
to the families of the community and to continue to enjoy the Argonne Farms area.
However, we also desire to remain consistent with the zoning of the property to the
west of our property, on 175` Street, a collector street; e.g., if this property remains
commercial, we desire to remain the same. If this property is rezoned to high density '
housing, we desire to have the identical rezoning. As would any property owner, .but
probably especially elderly owners, we desire the most value possible for our
property. If we fmd it prudent to request a rezoning, we will make our own request.
We are unable to attend the Public Hearing rescheduled .from June 4 to -6-
June 25.We request that we receive a video and/or audio recording and minutes of the
June 25 Public Hearing and all other pertinent information resulting from that
Hearing. I resent the fact we are involved in this seemingly frivolous request taking
away our time and energies from our own hectic lives as well as being excluded
from all the public and private meetings in the past 3+ months (I believe) about us
and about our property. It is difficult to .understand how all these events transpired,
and not one. individual questioned our being excluded or our being informed.
• ~ Fowler's letter was dated April 1. It indicates to me she had taken action -7-
with the City with her .property rezoning request prior to the date of the letter.
Where. were we when this action was taking place? Did anyone ever suggest that we
should be included in these many meetings? In that Fowler stated to me on May 1,
.she, "had done ail the work already", it seems to me we should have been
informed immediately if someone was taking action to rezone our property and not
learn of it over 1 month later via a phone call, from an individual never met,
attempting to sell an idea to another elderly property owner. Actually, the City
officially informed us of this action approximately 2 months later on May 23 with
their Public Hearing notice of June 4, .giving us less than 2 weeks time to deal with
the matter. This does not seem to be the correct way to treat any citizen of
Lakeville. I don't believe you normally would treat a citizen of Lakeville in this
manner. I interpret this to mean that any citizen can make a request of the City
regarding an adjacent property owner, and it is all "cut and dried" without any input
from the affected property owner until necessary. What exactly is the reason the
City and 3 property owners have for the rezoningrequest? Is it as simple as stated,
residential zoning will get me a loyver interest rate"; and, how could this simple
request possibly involve our property?
• ~ This would appear to be "spot zoning" to me. A citizen makes a request to -8-
rezone, talks 2 out of 3 elderly adjacent property owners into joining that request,
which ultimately, supposedly will result in a lower mortgage rate for that property;
and, somehow a 4~' property is included in that request? Am I missing something
here? I cannot understand how our property could even be considered a part of this
request. Our property is located on a major collector street with commercial
development only 3 properties (I believe) distant. The Fowler property is on a dead
end dirt road with no direct access to the major collector street. It seems to me that
we are not part of the "Fowler block of ~ro~erty"". Fowler property adjoins ours to
the south, Fowler property adjoins Lundquist to the south, and Fowler property
adjoins Senske to the west, I believe. These properties are not involved in the
rezoning; why ours? If the affected property owner initiating this request simply
needs a lower interest rate, any lending institution could be contacted to obtain a
mortgage without a distinction between residential and commercial zoning; or, is it
the City's business to make certain its citizens obtain favorable mortgage rates at
whatever cost it might .involve to another property owner?
This is the first opportunity we've been given to communicate officially; and
this requested communication is in lieuof our attendance at the rescheduled Public
Hearing on June 25.
A number of misleadi.~g/inaccurate/confusing statgment were made:, -9-
1. "return on end will not be affected by rezonine"
(See responses to Q #3 on a following page)
2 " an't get~g~~.
atc bc~auce ~f eommerc~Al zoning.:
.residential rate will,get a 1Qwer interest ,~,~t~"
(See responses to Q # 1 on a following page)
3. "The proposed rezoning v~ould enhance her ability to
obtain a conventional ~ort~s~¢e__
(See responses. to Q # 1 on a following page}
4. " ite Ana v.~is - T e la a lot area a tree cover, and
environmentally sensitive .and natural topographic
• features of the four parcels p ovi citable setting
fir the c rent g~~gd loy~de~sity residential uces
The large lot areas, tree cover, and environmentally
sensitive sites certainly. did not impede other
commercial. development in Lakeville. One
only needs to look @ Southfork and the entire
3S/50 conunercially developed area.' At onetime
this area, too, as well as others met the above
criteria. Where are the natural topographic
features today for this area and others like it? And,
environment sensitivity is an excellent concept; but
where was the human sensitive factor included?
5. "Fay proneriv will essentially~g,~~ounded on 3 sides b,Y >22
Apparently this is not true with the multi-family
housing planned for parcels to our west?
w
6._`2. Land use transitions are more easi~y facilitated along a -10-
~#~ig~ tine, rather than a s~~ggered boun~,y "
Fowler property does not align straight with only
our property; I believe it is a staggered boundary.
7. "A transition used from existing single familX
~g~borhood was p,~Qpose to a established with a
layer of medium/htQ~density residential land Lcec hetwppn
#ow density resi~g~ land usec and commercial uses along
C.S.A.H. 50....."
This point seemingly contradicts #5 listed previously.
8. "The zoning or~,pance requires that the Plante ~ o 'c ion
consider the six possible adverse affects of the pr4posed_
rezon~g~listed in Title ~,1-3~~A5) of the zoning
ordinance"
Exactly what are these 6 possible adverse affects;
are these kept in the "Title" and known only to a few?
. Would these adverse affects be important to us?
9. "4.~The
proposed use will not tend to or act al y de reciate
the area in which it is p~~osed."
(See responses to Q #3 on following page)
I ending institut,~nnS and ReA~t~r~ Were cQ~tacted to obtain -11-
professional opinions reg~ding
the rezoning of our oro e~rt,~
The following 3 ques 'Qns were asked of each:
1. Is there a different mortgage rate for a home on property zoned
commercial rather than residential?
2. Is there a price per parcel difference between commercially zoned
versus. residentially zoned property?
3. Would having property rezoned from commercial to residential
decrease the value of the property?
The responses were:
1. "Doesn't matter what your property is zoned as .long as it's used as
residential property"
"Selling residential, asking fair market value, would have to pay no
.greater percentage rate than one zoned commercial"
2. "Much"
• "Selling commercially would certainly get you more"
. "Commercially, you probably have a very valuable piece of property"
"Staying commercial would benefit you in the long run"
"Multi-housing property is even morevaluable"
"Residential property is on the low end; value increases with multi-
family, commercial, industrial as most valuable"
"With your frontage, if you were to sell residential, your 3 % acres is
.worth less than Fowler because of feeder street"
"Commercial worth more than residential property because of 175`h
Street frontage"
"Fowler property is a piece'of land-locked property; if Fowler wanted
to sell commercial, there is no frontage, so no value as
commercial"
3. "Would lessen the eventual value"
"Residential value would be less than it would be on a quiet street"
"To sell as residential, there would not be the return on it as selling
commercial"
"It is not in your best interest to be rezoned"
u ~z~ `~f~-e ~7~c-.,.~,.z, ,~~~w .
G _
J~
Gj
~ ,,%~.,,~c,~ 7- fig ~iCr ,e-t-
r ~ ~
~ ~
}~Z~C~X ~ 1C2a-/ ~t.~.~c~ G~~ 24 GC~t 5?<<' ~'4° Gil ~`~•t~e~
l
J
T"~ vW ~ ' " i
/~k~~
~1 ~~s- ~ ~
~
~ d
A r
~~D~ / ~ ~
~(J"w7 J~~~~e'V1C..~ZLJt~ ~.~l;j' ~`-'va'+c-~ ~.L
J
c
LC` UZL ~ tt ~.%/~-L'~C~ ~~"7~t-•C C'-'Z,•G-C`-r'L~ i ~ / (O ~ ~ ~p
~ ~
~1.c4 ~ Grp-i-~--s' GcJ i U~~ ~ ,
i
,lE"~-t ~~-J ~ !kE . ~~LtE.-~ ~ ' ~ / .-t-c'v u-~~ ,~E'~t,c.~-~ /~7cr~.
~ ~
• ~ ~
-~C..~.~ ~ ,zoo' ~ ~u-~~..~.~ ~ •C'~
GL GC~-~e
emu, ~
`7v
C~ ~ l ~
n ,
~~1~