The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-07-82 t _ Lakeville, Pli nnesota _ Planning Commission Meeting 7 January 1982 Patrick Harvey, Chairman, called the meeting to order at .7:35 p.m. in the Lakeville Gity Council Chambers. Roll call of members was taken. Present: ?tiller, Geisness, Ha?^vey, Johnson, Grohoski. Absent; Rice Also present: Council Person Enright; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Sid Miller, City Building Official; David Licht, City Planner. The Chairman opened consideration of election of Commission Officers for 1982. 82.01 (lotion was made by Johnson, seconded by Grohoski, to nominate Patrick Harvey as Chairman. 82.02 Motion was made by Grohoski, seconded by Johnson, to close nominations. Roll call vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Miller, Geisness, Johnson, Grohoski. Abstain: Harvey. 82.03 Plotion was made by Harvey, seconded by Grohoski to nominate Charles. Johnson as Vice Chairman of the Commission. 82.04 Motion was made by Pliller, seconded by Harvey to close nominations. Roll call vote was taken on the motion. Ayes; Geisness, Harvey, Grohoski, Pliller. Abstain: Johnson. 82.05: Motion was made by Pliller, seconded by Johnson, to nominate Marvin Geisness as Secretary of the Commission. 82.06 Motion was made by Pliller, seconded by Harvey, to close nominations. Roll call vote was taken on-the motion. Ayes.: Harvey, Johnson, G~hoski, Miller. Abstain:. Geisness. The Chairman called fora review of the 3 December 1981 and 17 December 1981 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 82.07 Plotion was made by Grohoski, seconded by Johnson, to approve the 3 December Planning Commission meeting minutes. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Johnson, Grohoski, Geisness, Harvey. Abstain: Miller. In reference to the 17 December minutes, P1r. Grohoski noted the misspelling of the word "duely" on page 1. Additionally, the .last sentence on page 4 under the discussion of the'Linder project, P1r. Grohoski stated that this should read: "Mr. Grohoski asked what kind of financing of public improvements was being considered. Mr. Gair stated some kind of City assistance was being sought." S Iwo Lakeville, Minnesota - Planning Commission Fleeting 7 January 1982 82.08 Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Grohoski, to approve the 17 December 1981 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Grohoski, Fuller, Harvey, Johnson. Abstain: Geisness. Chairman Harvey opened the discussion on the zoning ordinance requirements for 10 acre minimum lots on existing platted commercial or industrial property where there is no city sewer available. It was noted that this issue was being raised by the City Administrator based upon a number of recent requests and contacts which his office had received. F1ra~ Licht noted. that. this matter had an extensive history of discussion and evaluation. He further emphasized the importance of this issue in City policy through the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. F1r. Harvey stated the City had recently updated the ....zoning ordinance where this matter had been considered and questioned if it was now the City's or individual owner's responsibility to bring the matter back far reconsideration. P1r. Jack .Young, owner of a l.h acre industrial zoned parse l west of I-35 and south of 70th, indicated he had purchased his property in approximately 1976 and had made ,three proposals to City staff on its development. His proposals, however, were never followed through on by staff. He also questioned why the Zak Property to .the north of his land .was zoned residential.. Mr. Harvey explained the background on the Zak property and asked if Mr. Young had received notice of the public hearing on the matter. Mr. Young stated he had received notice, but paid no attention. Mr. Harvey advised Mr. Young to contact F1r. F1cGarvey if he wished a specific proposal to be considered and to complete a formal application. Fir. Young indicated he would make contact with Mr. ~•1cGarvey within a week and file the necessary applications. The Commissioners discussed who should be responsible for he costs involved in processing reconsideration of the 10 acre requirement. 82.09 Motion was made by Miller, seconded by Geisness, for the Planning Commission to initiate consideration of a zoning ordinance text amendment for Section 11.12 and all. other applicable sections, plus possible comprehensive plan. amendments. Roll cail•was taken on the motion. Ayes: .Miller,. Geisness, Johnson, Grohoski. Nays:' Har~rey. - The Chairman opened the discussion and review of the concept plan for Niakwa Village Phase Three located east of Foliage Avenue and north of Florida 4Jay. William Johnson, developer of the project, appeared before the Commission and explained the revised plans. He further stated the major reason for the change in the project was marketability of the units. The Commission discussed various aspects of the development and questioned what processing would be necessary. Mr. Knutson and Mr. Licht explained that a change in the planned unit development conditional use permit and agreement would need to be considered.. This would 2 -•c Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Fleeting 7 January 1982 require a new application, public hearing and notice to neighbors. On an individual basis, Commissioner Pliller indicated he was favorable to the change, but did have some questions on detail. f~1r. Geisness stated he was oven minded to the change and looked forward to public input. F1r. Johnson stated he was favorable to the PUD modification. Plr. Grohoski indicated his agreement. Fir. Harvey stated he did not have too much of a problem with the concept, but did have some reservations pertaining to development details. Chairman Harvey reopened the continued public hearing on an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow children's day care centers within commercial and industrial zoning districts. The Commission re Viewed and discussed the Planner's draft of the proposed amendment dated°22 December 1981. Plr.'Lictrt stated tha t based upon subsequent staff discussions, a provision to Section'? was being suggested.- This clause would assure the day care facility was responsible for its own protection and would not be the responsibility of neighboring property owners. The clause suggested as Section 7. D. would read as follows:`- "Internal and external site land use compatibility and sufficient peripheral-area protections shall be the responsibility of the day care facility." Mr. Gary Tholkes of the Minasha Corporation stated he agreed with the Planner's report and suggestion. 82.10 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Johnson, to close the public hearing. Rohl. call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous 82.11 C~ioton was made by Geisness, seconded by Miller, to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow children's day care centers within commercial and industrial zoning districts as contained in the Planner's draft dated 22 December 1981 and with the. adoption of Section 7. D, as recoiflmended by the'Plann~r.' Roll caul was taken on the motion. Ayes: Harvey, Johnson, Pliller, Geisness. Nays: Grohoski. Mr. Grohoski stated that the reason for his vote was that he had not seen nor heard any pervasive evidence that placement {~f.day care facilities within an industrial area would. be a positive factor in the overall health, safety and welfare of the majority of the citizens of Lakeville or the City as a who1 e. Under other business, Flr. Grohoski stated that the City~Council~had discussed the excessive use of the consulting~~staff notably the City Planner and that he had been asked to bring this. matter to the Commission.: P1r. Harvey stated he felt strongly on the matter and that staff work was appreciated and saved the City from major expenditures in the long run. Mr. Grohoski stated he generally agreed: Mr. Geisness indicated he felt the City must have planning and was the basic question one of confidence in the present planner or one of ability to pay. He stated he would like to know fees and costs. Mr. Pliller stated that . there were possible times when professional advise was not necessary. 3 1 r Lakeville, P9innesota Planning Commission Pleeting 7 January 1982 Mr. Harvey reported that he had toured the City with Mr. Robinette to view examples of good and bad screening and fencing. He asked if other members were interested in a similar tour. A generally favorable response was received and it was suggested multiple family housing. be included and also that other committees be asked along. P1r. Knutson stated that if such a tour was arranged, public notice would be required. Staff was directed to inform P1r. Robinette. Per. Harvey noted that a PUD rezoning request had been filed by P1r. Ken Zak apparently to allow an auto body shop on his property:. P1r. Harvey further stated that past staff reports, plus Commission and City Council actions on previous requests would have appeared to provide P1r. Zak with an indication of the City's position. P1r. Geisness concurred, indicating very specific direction was given. Mr. Grohoski indicated he would not be at the 21 January meeting. 82.12 Motion was made by Grohoski, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4 r P ruin Geisness, Secretary ATTEST: P ric a ve Cha rman 4