Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-02-86 f { ~ / CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 2, 1986 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sizer at 7:00 p.m. Roll call: Present: Walters, Whittingham, Miller, Sizer, Langhorst, MacGibbon, Cammack. Also present: Roger Knutson, Jim Robinette, David Licht. The chairman called for the election of officers for 1986. The name of Dennis Miller for Chairman was placed in nomination by Mr. Sizer. Mr. Langhorst moved that nominations be closed and Mr. Miller was appointed Chairman by acclamation. Diane MacGibbon was appointed Vice Chairperson by acclamation. Steve Sizer was appointed Secretary by acclamation. 8b.01 A motion was. made by Sizer, seconded by Walters, to approve the minutes of the meeting. of December 5, 1985. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Cammack, MacGibbon, Miller, Sizer, Walters, Whittingham. Abstain: Langhorst Mr. Miller opened the public hearing to consider the application of Independent School District ~~'194 for a planned unit develop- ment conditional use .permit to allow construction of a new school district office building at 8670 210th Street West. Mr. Robinette attested to the properly mailed and published notice. Planner Dave Licht reviewed his report dated December 19, 1985,. in detail. He concluded by recommending approval subject to .the following conditions: 1. A loading berth be designated on the site plan. 2. More screening along the east side of the property. 3. An easement be granted by agreement to allow diversion of the creek. 4. The school district should consider combining the .four lots into a single parcel. Mr. Branscom, architect for the school district, questioned the need for a loading berth for an office, since the maintenance building to the southeast is used for that purpose. The planner indicated that this could be accomplished by marking off a parking space in the lot. Mr. Branscom indicated he had no problem with that. The planner indicated to Mr. Branscom that the additional screening to the east could be immature stock that would grow into a more dense screening. In general discussion, the commission indicated they thought a joint building was more ° PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 2, 1986 • economical and in the best interest of the taxpayers of the city. Mr. Robinette indicated that the proposal should be considered on its own and not held hostage for the other site. He indi- cated that there had been staff, school board and council dis- cussions and that the architect would be doing a site plan for the other site as indicated in the memo from the administrator to the commission dated December. 23, 1985. Mr. Miller indicated that he felt completing a new building. on the current site would be increasing an already non-conforming use. There were no citizens present in the. audience desiring to comment on the proposal. 86.02 A motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Cammack to close. the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 86.03 A motion was made by Sizer, seconded by MacGibbon to recommend denial of the application of School District #194 for a Planned Unit Development conditional use permit to build a school dis- trict office at 8670 - 210th Street West, because it is not in- the .best interest of the city, it is a duplication of buildings, and adversely affects the taxpayers of the school district. and. city. Voting for the motion to recommend denial were Sizer, Whitting- ham, Langhorstand MacGibbon. Voting against the motion to recommend denial were Walters, Cammack and Miller. Mr. Walters indicated he had no problem with the proposal as presented. Ms. Whittingham indicated that she. had no problem as indicated by Mr. Walters. Mr. Miller also has no problem. All three indicated that although they had no problem with this- application, they felt a joint use facility with the city would be superior. The Chairman opened the public hearing to consider the applica- tion of Independent School District 4194 for a variance to allow construction of a Lakeville High School identification sign to be 6'8" x 24' on the Lakeville High School property. The planner reviewed his report dated December.. 18, 1985 in detail. The ordinance .allows a sign containing 32 square feet. The proposal is for a sign containing 158 square feet. Thee 2 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 2, 1986 planner. considers that since no hardship had been demonstrated a variance should not be granted. Mr. Dan Mehleis, $usiness Manager of the School District, indicated that because of the size of the site and the distance to the road, the smaller sign -could not be easily read and that the School District was trying to improve the image of their property. The planner indicated that if the commission desired to accommodate a request the ordinance could be amended, instead of granting a variance. Mr. Branscom, the architect for. School District 4194, indicated that 32 square feet, from as far as the highway, was certainly inadequate to identify a public building. There were no citizens present in the audience desiring to comment on the proposal.. 86.04 Motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Langhorst, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 86.05 Motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Langhorst, to recommend disapproval of the request for a variance in the size of an identification sign for the high school, because of the damage in setting a precedent to be considered in other cases and the reasons stated in the planner's report dated December 18, 1985. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous The chairman indicated that review and discussion of the planner's report on accessory apartments was not a public hearing and was being. held only to review the situation and make a recommendation on whether any further action should be desirable at this time. The planner went over his report in .detail. He strongly recommended that the ordinance not be changed, as he considered accessory apartments completely inappropriate for a community such as Lakeville. Attorney Knutson commented that there are. cases when someone with an aging parent or in-law would want to take them into their home, with separate facilities. The planner commented that .there were provisions now in the ordinance for family members to live in the house, but that was afar cry from creating rental property apartments in single family homes, in .single family ,zoned areas.. In general discussion, the commission strongly could see no justification for changing the ordinance at this time. Mr. Sizer indicated for the. record that he had personal experience with areas where accessory apartments were allowed, with effects .getting worse as years went by, and that the consequences were so bad that he would consider moving from Lakeville if they were allowed. If there were a demonstrated need for special changes to accommodate family - mother-in-law type situations - they could be addressed when the need was demonstrated. Mr. Walters indicated he was satisfied with multiple zoning as it now exists. in the city. Mr. Millen, Mr. Langhorst and Mr. Cammack indi- Gated they could see no need for change at this time. 3 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 2, 1986 86.06 Motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Miller, to recommend to the city council that under no circumstances should they change the ordinances concerning accessory apartments at this time, because the commission feels there is no need. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Doug Malam of Registered Properties gave a presentation on their request for approval of a house plan change in Rolling Oaks South. He indicated that because of market conditions and a builder's desire, they wanted to change the patio homes on 55' lots to single family homes. The planner indicated the densities would meet the P.U.D. requirements and his major concern was open, usable space at the side yards. He felt there would be enough and recommended approval. A change to the development agreement is necessary. Mr. Malam indicated the exteriors would be different, with different models in close proximity to each other. 86.07 Motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Walters, to recommend approval of the change in house plan for Rolling Oaks South, with size requirements and fencing to be taken care of in a development agreement. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous The staff briefed the commission on the proposal of Mr. Baard Lovaas, Projects Manager at Brackett's Crossing, who was proceeding to purchase the Sea Girt Inn, with a view of operat- ing it for private parties, wedding receptions, etc. He would not desire a liquor license, but would be requesting a cabaret license so that parties could bring their own. Mr. Lovaas had indicated that there was a need for smaller facilities than those at Brackett's Crossing. Mr. Lovaas had indicated to the staff that there would be no major changes to the building, but some interior decorating. The feeling of the commission was that the condition of requiring the parking lot to be paved if the need was seen by the city should be continued. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Steven C. Sizer, ecret ATTEST: C' 1 Dennis Miller, Chairman 4