Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-95 s 'j ~ f- • CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 19,1995 The meeting was called to order by Chair Luick at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Roll call was taken. Present: Holberg, Steigerwalt, Luick and Amborn. Absent: Whitehouse, Skipton and Miller. .Also present: Robert Erickson, City Administrator; Michael Sobota, Community & Economic Development Director; Tom Scott, Assistant City Attomey; Tim Hanson, Assistant C ty Engineer; Jim Norton, Consulting Engineer, S.E.H.; Charlene Friedges, ~ty Clerk. MINUTES The minutes of the January 5, 1995, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. ITEM 4 Chair Luick opened the public hearing on the application of Plymouth Land, tnc. for the vacation of an existing conservation easement on land located on the east side of Highview Avenue, north of 168th. Street. The City Attorney attested that legal notices had been duly published and mailed. Mr. Sobota presented the proposed vacation of an existing conservation easement in the Creek View Estates subdivision. He explained that Plymouth Land, Inc. dedicated the conservation easement to the City with the final plat of Creek View Estates, which was designed to protect the wetland adjacent to the rear yards of single family residential lots. He went on to explain that the conservation easement was recorded on Block 1 of the final plat. At the request of Dakota County, the developer switched the block numbers on the final plat mylars that were recorded. Consequently, the. existing conservation easement is recorded on lots in the wrong block, Block 2. Anew conservation easement for Block 2 has been dedicated by the developer, and staff recommends vacation of the original easement. There were no public comments. 95.10 Motion was made by Holberg, seconded by Amborn to close the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 19, .1995 PAGE 2 Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, unanimous. 95.11 Motion was made by Steigerwalt, seconded by Holberg to recommend approval of the vacation of a conservation easement in Creek View Estates. Rolt call wastaken on the motion. Ayes, unanimous. ITEM 5 Chair Luick opened the public hearing on the application of the .City of Lakeville for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a City water tower in an R-2, single family residential district at North Park, located on the east side of ipava Avenue and north of 175th Street. The City Attorney attested that legal notices had been duly published and mailed. Mr. Jim Norton of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc., consulting engineer, provided an overview of his report dated January 13, 1995, which summarizes the citing of an elevated tank to serve the Dakota Heights service area. He explained that the elevated tank is being proposed by the City to prevent water shortages and enhance known pressure deficiencies which exist within the Dakota Heights Service Area. The 1993 Comprehensive Water Plan Update recommended a 1.5 million gallon elevated storage facility; however. staff is .recommending reducing the size to a 1 million gallon tank. Mr. Norton explained that five potential tank locations were considered, they are as follows: Site 1 is on the south end of the Boulder's plat on the hillside, just west of the existing wetland; Site 2 is the triangular grass area in North Park, east of the parking lot, south of the-driveway and-west of the Land of Amazement; Site 3 is-the North °Park parking lot; Site 4 was considered based on comments from the neighborhood meeting, which would place the #ank northeast of the existing park shelter, approximately 270 feet north of Site 3; Site 5 is at the water treatment plant site on Ipava Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 19, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr. Norton explained that citing issues such as ground elevation, soils, environmental sensitivity, access, storm sewer availability and shadow impact were considered for all five sites. Site 3 is the most cost effective. It has the best soil conditions, least amount of shadow impact (only one existing home would be affected by the shadow), has storm sewer available for overflow and also has the best. access of all sites considered. Mr. Norton explained that a hydropillarstyle elevated tower, which is similar in shape and size to the Airlake and McStop towers, was originally proposed. However, to reduce the bulk of the tower and minimize the shadow impact, the style was changed to a pedestal spheroid. He showed computer aided images of how the tower would look at the various sites, as well as drawings showing the shadow impact at each location. Mr. Norton explained that at the request of the City Engineer and in response to citizen comments,. SEH ran simulations to validate the findings of the comprehensive water study. It was found that with the tank at the North Park location, a minimum of 10 additional psi of pressure would be available. Chair Luick opened the meeting to public comments. Arnold Blauert, Jr., 17224 Idlewood Way, stated he felt a water tower at North Park would destroy his view .and the natural beauty that now exists, as well as decrease the value of his property. He also felt that locating the water tower in a park would invite graffiti and pose a danger to children who may attempt to climb the tower. Mr. Norton pointed out that with today's water tower styles, the only way for a child to climb it would be from the inside. Lori Gunderson, 17203 Idlewood Way, stated she was lead to believe by her home builder that the area around North Park was a protected wetland. She felt that the water tower should be placed in an undeveloped area. Mr. Greg :Gunderson, 17203 Idlewood Way, :was concerned with the damage to property values this tower would cause, and the risk of injury to children during construction. Mr. Norton stated the area would be completely fenced off during construction. However, no permanent fencing is proposed. S Teresa Jaramil Lo-Bray, 17240 Idlewood Way, stated she felt the opportunity for vandalism is eminent if the tower is located in a park. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 19, 1995 PAGE 4 • Dale Mateffy, 16776 Ides Circle,. representing the Walnut Ridge development, stated he chose to live in this neighborhood because there was no water tower there. Ron Blair, 17236 Idlewood Way, asked about the cost #actor as it relates to the $2,000 connection.fees. - He also asked if a site with less impac# on existing residences could be pursued. Mark Buckman, 17233 Idlewood Way, stated he felt the City has not worked hard enough to find a site that has less impact on existing residences. Tom Deneui, 16828 Ivywood Court, asked if the existing reservoirs could be expanded as an alternative to building another tower. Mr. Norton stated the simulations showed that ground storage would not provide the needed wafer pressure. Dave Simonpietri, 16851 Ironwood Circle, was concerned with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Chris Jones, 16714 Innsbrook Drive, was concerned with the negative impact a water tower would have on golfers using Crystal Lake Golf Course. Sherry O'Brien, 17258 Idlewood Way, stated she wanted to see the natural area preserved. She pointed out the existing problem with teenagers in the park. Mark Landberg, 16648 Interlachen Boulevard, stated he felt more emphasis should be placed on Site #5. Denny Bernhardt, 16715 Insbrook Drive, was opposed to the tower being placed in North Park. Steve Smith, 6802 Ironwood Circle, asked about water pressure. Mr. Nortonprovided an explanation of psi in relation to pressure and fire flows. Fred Hermanson, 16737 Insbrook Drive, stated he realizes that Site #5 is not considered the best site, but questioned whether it would be adequate. • Mr. Norton explained that the pressure would be considerably less if a tank were placed at Site #5. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19, 1995 PAGE 5 • Maitland Edwards, 166851nsbrook Drive, was opposed to the tower being placed in North Park. Gary Carlson, 16702 Insbrook Drive,. was opposed to the North Park site because of the potential decrease in the value of his home. He asked about the legal ramifications of a child being injured while the water tower is being constructed. The City Attorney responded. Laurie Giesenhagen, 17252 Idlewood Way, stated she has read the City's Comprehensive Water Plan Update, which she stated identifies several alternatives for elevated water storage. She stated she feels other areas could be considered. .John Thoraldson, 9510-170th Street West, asked if the tank could be placed at Site #5 with the assistance of a booster pumping station, with a backup generator to increase pressure in the North Park area. • Mr. Norton indicated that would not be an adequate solution to supplying increased .pressures within the Dakota Heights service area. A large pressure tank and reservoir would be required to supplement peak usage, and wells would be needed to re-supply the reservoir. David Bertsch, 16831 Ironwood Circle, stated he would like the City to consider .alternate locations beyond the five sites that were considered. Paul Macura, 16817 Ivywood Court, stated he would be willing to pay more money to locate the tower somewhere else, such as the Ryan property. David Worneldorf, 16659 Interlachen Blvd., asked if North Park is the only site that will work. Mr. Norton stated, all things taken into consideration, the North Park site best meets the water. pressure and fire flow requirements. He pointed out that the tank must be at a location within the Dakota Heights service area 95.12 Motion was made by Steigerwalt, seconded by Holberg to close the public hearing. Ayes, unanimous. • City Administrator Robert Erickson explained that ground water contamination is a major concern, and the City is attempting to guard against it by placing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 19, 1995 PAGE 6 • wells in residential areas, away from commercial development. He explained that the only place far a water tower is on a piece of ground that has the proper elevation, appropriate soil conditions and has the least shadow impact on in- place residences. The Boulder's lot, Site #1, has poor soil conditions and would pose a high impact of shadows on existing homes to the east of Ipava Avenue. Mr. Erickson pointed out the projected traffic:patterns on Ipava Avenue, which is proposed as a four-lane parkway in the City's transportation plan. He stated there has been, for some time, the possibility of a community center, as well as other recreational facilities, being located in North Park. Mr. Erickson referenced an appraisal prepared by Mark S. Parranto, MAI, of Parranto & Associates, which was prepared for the City of Woodbury. There was nothing, in Mr. Parranto's opinion, to indicate a diminution of property values due to the existence of a water tower. He further explained that according to Westlaw, there is no legal decision in the United States which would indicate that the values of residential areas are adversely impacted by the construction of a water tower, except for a shadow impact. He invited the residents in attendance to research these sources. • Mr. Erickson clarified that the water treatment plant site (Site #5) will not work for the water tower, based on two studies. The Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee recommended Site #3 as the best location. Chair Luick recessed the meeting at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p. m. Mr. Sobota presented the application of the City of Lakeville for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a water tower at North Park. Section 26.4 of the City's zoning ordinance allows. governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community, subject to a conditional use permit. Staff recommends approval of a-conditional use permit to allow the construction of a water owecon Site #3. Mr. Sobota reviewed.the individual factors that were _considered in preparing the findings of fact. He indicated that a total of 11 telephone messages were taken from residents who called City Hall in opposition to the water tower being constructed at North Park. Commissioner Steigerwalt asked about funding for the construction of the water tower. Mr. Erickson stated the money would come out of the City's water trunk fund: • , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 19, 1995 PAGE 7 • Commissioner Amborn asked if the City were to consider purchasing Mr. Ryan's property for the water tower, at an estimated cost of $500,000 to $600,000, could the cost be assessed to those property owners who live near North Park. Mr. Erickson-.explained that State law.does not give he City the authority to create a special ;taxing {service) :district #or this purpose. He tated he believes it would be difficult to prove=benefit to these properties for the expenditure of additional funds based on aesthetics. Commissioner Amborn asked if the City could require the planting of tall trees (greater than 5 to 6 feet in height) to buffer the base of the water tower.. Mr. Erickson stated the Planning Commission could make that recommendation. The Commission received a letter from Dan and Linda Anderson, 16797 Ivywood Court, dated January 17, 1995. Commissioner Holberg stated she felt there would be significant opposition from the taxpayers of Lakeville if the City considered spending half a million dollars for land on which to construct a water tower. She asked what would. . happen if the City did not build the water tower. Mr. Erickson explained that the City is responsible for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Lakeville. With growth, he explained, comes the necessity for additional infrastructure, which most citizens, at one time or another, will be impacted by. Commissioner Steigerwalt recommended that landscaping/screening for the adjacent residential property south of .North Park be included as a requirement of the conditional use permit. Staff agreed to notify adjacent property owners for their preference in landscape screening. 95.13 Motion was made by Holberg, seconded by Amborn to adopt Findings of Fact and Decision and recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a City water tower in an R-2, Single Family Residential District, at North Park, :.Site #3, ubject to the planning report dated January 11, .1995, :and-amend the conditional use permit to include the landscaping/screening for the rear yards of the residents abutting the south: boundary of North Park. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes,. unanimous. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • ~ t' ~4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 19, 1995 PAGE. 8 Commissioner Holberg expressed concern regarding the limited area for building structure and side yard setbacks in the Boulder Village at Crystal Lake project. Commissioners and City staff discussed the Boulder Village at Crystal Lake project. _Mr. Sobota stated the developer is working on the architectural design of the=buildings within he PUD,-and staff has not yet received these drawings. The developer has requested the public hearing be continued until design details are available. NEW BUSINESS The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Charlene Friedges, Ci Clerk David Luick, Chair