Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-86 a c Lakeville, Minnesota PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 25, 1986 7:00 p.m. Dennis Miller, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Lakeville City Council Chambers. Roll call of members was taken. Present: Miller, Whittingham, Walters, Langhorst, Sizer, Klamm, MacGibbon. Absent:. None. Also present: Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Jim Robinette, Community Development Director, Dave Licht; City Planner. 86.137 Motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Walters to approve the minutes of the November 6, 1986 Planrfing Commission. Amended minutes to read Sizer and Walters abstained from voting on approving minutes for November 6, 1986. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Miller, Whittingham, Klamm, Walters, Langhorst, Sizer. Abstained: MacGibbon. The public hearing on the request of 50 Med Properties for a 15 foot sideyard setback variance was opened. The City Attorney attested that the published and mailed legal notices were made and it is a legal public hearing. The Planner proceeded with a review of his planning report dated 19 November 1986. He also denied the impacts on sitelines. He indicated it appeared that what happened was a mistake and not a purposef ul attempt on the part of the Developer to get around the. Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Steve Grohoski, an adjacent property owner was the only citizen in the audience. He expressed concern to the Commis- sion, indicating he believed granting a variance would ad- versely impact his property. He felt a proper action would be to deny a variance and make the applicant rebuild in accordance with the ordinance. He indicated he thought two curb cuts on that property were not in accordance with City standards. The Planner explained that two curb cuts were proper. Mr. Grohoski mentioned he felt a previous administrative sub-division in the area was improper. It was explained that although not related to this issue, this was a proper action by the Zoning Adminis- trator. Mr. Grohoski pointed out that the applicant had received only a grading and building permit. The staff pointed out that this work that had been accomplished was proper under the actual permit issued. Mr. Robinette indicated that whether final permits for the rest of the building and mechanical had been issued did not affect the work that had been done under a proper permit. f • The Commission discussed requirements for granting a variance and possibilities of future ramifications. Mr. Lance Norderhaus, representing Med 50 Properties, indicated they could not just chop off the building as the financing arrangements were for the building size under construction and that they could not add on in another direction as the medical and clinic off ices were interrelated by functions. 86.138 Motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Langhorst to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. 86.139 Motion was made to approve the variance by Sizer, seconded by Langhorst. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Sizer, MacGibbon, Whittingham, Walters. Nayes: Langhorst, Klamm, Miller. The members voting against gave the following reasons: Miller: The Highway 35-50 area is the gateway to the City and should be the highest quality. This does not meet that stan- dard. Langhorst: Two wrongs don't make a right. This could continue down the block. Klamm: He concurs with others, that it is a fundamental error that should not be permitted that could result in more re- quests. 86.140 Motion was made by Sizer to adjourn the meeting, seconded by MacGibbon. Roll call was. taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Time: 8:30 p.m. Respectf ully yours, James A.Robinette, Community Development Director ATTEST: r ~ Dennis Mil er, hairman 2