Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-82 y. Lakeville, Minnesota Planning."Commission Meeting January 21, 1982* Planning Commission Chairman, Patrick Harvey, called the meeting to order at 8:03 p.m. in the LakeviT]e City Council Chambers. Roll: call of members was taken.. Present: Geisness, R. P~iller, Harvey, b. Miller. Absent:. Johnson,.Rice, Grohoski. .Also present: Roger .Knutson, City Attorney; Sid Miller,.City.Building Official; Alan Brixius, City Planner. The Chairman requested comments or amendments on the January 7, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. minutes. 82.13 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by R. Pliller, to approve the Planning Commission meeting. minutes of January 7, 1982. RoTI ca]1 was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing on the-application of Ken Zak to rezone a parcel ofproperty from R-1, Low Density Single Family, to P.U.D., Planned Unit Development, near 215th Street west of I-35. t1r. Knutson stated this .was a-duly publicized hearing. - P1r. Harvey asked if Mr. Zak had any information in addition to the packet received to present. Mr. Zak said he did not. P1r. Harvey asked for comments `from the public.. Mr. Fred Lehmann stated he owns .property on Keokuk and 215th Street. t1r. Lehmann asked what the project entailed. P1r. "Zak and Mr. Harvey explained the proposal and t1r. Harvey explained what a PUD entailed. P1r. Lehmann stated that he had no objection to P1r.`Zak''s request. Mr. Geisness asked where Mr. Lehmann's property was located: t1r. Lehmann responded that his land was south of 215th S~Creet,_west of Keokuk. Mr. Harvey stated that Mr. Young has a development request`next to P1r. Lehmann's property.. Mr. Lehmann stated that. he .was informed by a State employee during the State Beautification Project .that the-western boundary of P1r. Young's site is incorrect. The actual boundary is located further east into Young's site. P~Ir. Dennis P1iller asked Mr. Zak if there wou]d be any outside. storage. Mr. Zak responded that no mess or outside storage will occur. Pir. Dennis Puller asked wherethe b proposed parking spaces would be located. Ptr. Zak. stated they would be in .the driveway. Mr: Robert Miller noted that the applicantappeared before the Commission for a rezoning and a conditional use permit in the past and the P.U.D. was never officially requested. Mr. R. Miller asked if Mr. Zak recalled R. Miller's mono of 16 July 1981 which recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the condition that *As corrected by the Planning Commission at their 4 February .1982 meeting. . ~ Lakeville, P1innesota Planning Commission ~1eeting January 21, .1982 the garage not be used fora home occupation or a body shop. Mr. Zak stated that he needed the rezoning to occupy the house. Mr. Geisness stated hat the applicant has not followed the procedure and presentation of his request is in good faith. The applicant was aware-that the realtor sold him industrially zoned property and the conditions that were placed on the house at the time it was con- structed. The conditions required the house to be removed from the site at the time of purchase. Mr. Geisness continued stating that when Pair. Zak requested the re- zoning, the Commission sympathized with the applicant's situation and approved the rezoning to help him at that time. There are three reports that state that no body shop should be permitted and the conditional use was approved with this condition. There is no way that he would permit the body shop. Mr. Harvey stated that he understood Mr. Geisness' position, however,-any landowner can file an application to change the use on his property. P1r. Harvey stated this application has been filed to see if the body shop use is now acceptable. Mr. Geisness stated that the applicant gave no indication-of pursuing a P.U.D. at the time the R-1 zoning and conditional use was approved. Mr. Geisness noted the planner's report of June 25, 1981 that states: "Body Shop Operation. While the staff was under the assumption-that the body shop operation had been dropped from consideration, Mr. Zak indicated he stil-1 wished to pursue this commercial/industrial activity. A body shop operation does not fall within home occupation uses, as it is considered too • intense of an activity to compatibly exist with a residential use. Additionally, based upon plans provided to date, it is highly questionable that the site would be adequate for required parking. Concerna lso exist that outside storage could become a problem:- In this regard, precedent has been established in this area of`the Gity relative to commercial/industrial activities. The concrete step manufacturer now locatedjust,south of the City bprder'was denied permission to build in the City in a rural area due to availability of more appropriate serviced land .existing in the industrial park." Mr. Geisness then noted a letter to P1r. Zak from the City Administrator. dated August 12, 1981.which,stated: "approving this large garage,-the City Council restricted its use to .your. own personal items. There is to be no commercial use of the building and no home occupation type use". Mr. Robert Puller noted the planner's report recommending against the.body shop. Planning District 2 and 13 of the Lakeville Comprehensive Plan recommends rural residential and the proposed request cuts against the Comprehensive Plan direction. Mr. R. Miller .said that the procedure the applicant followed didn't bother him. 2 Lakeville, t4innesota Planning Commission t1eeting January 21, 1982 Mr. Harvey said that the .City was placed in an unhandy. position due to the bankruptcy of Waconia Homes. The house should not have been sold as residential property. Mr. Harvey continued, stating that it was unreasonable to make him take his house down. tVow Mr. Zak is back to request a P.U.D. to change the use of his site. P1r. Knutson stated the request would allow an industrial use on an unsewered lot less than ten acres. P1r. Dennis Pliller asked what would have happened if the property was not rezoned to R-1. P1r. Knutson stated that Mr. Zak previously requested .the rezoning of the land to R-1 to permit him to occupy the. house... The rezoning enables him`to use the property as residential. Mr. Geisness stated that if the operation is sold, the next owner may not keep the area clean. Mr. Harvey concurred with Mr. Geisness, saying that even_if it is made a condition of the conditional use., it would be difficult to enforce.. Mr. .Harvey noted a conditional use permit granted to a gravel mining operation and the trouble the City had with the outside storage of equipment. 82.14 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Dennis t1iller to close the public hearing. Ro71 call was .taken:` Ayes:. Unanimous. Mr. Zak asked what he could do to make. his .request work. t1r. Harvey. said he doubted if the body shop was an acceptable use of this property: Mr. Geisness said clear. direction was given at .the previous rezoning. Mr. Zak said he purchased the land with the intention of having a body shop. 82..15 tlotion was .made. by Geisness, seconded by Dennis Puller to recommend that the application to rezone;t1r. Zak's propertyfrom R- to P.U.D. be denied for the following reasons: 1, The proposal isinconsistent with the City's comprehensive plan which provides that the land should remain rural in character.. 2. The proposed rezoning would negatively affect the residentially zoned property. • to the west and would reduce the value of hat residential property.. 3. The proposal is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance requirement that commercial or industrial uses without public utilities be located on at least 10 acres. 4. The present R-1 zoning affordsa reasonable use of the property and was actually zoned R-1 at the applicant's request less than 6 months ago. 5. `The property is not large enough for adequate off-street parking and a loading berth. 6. The garage is not of type 3 construction (exterior walls finished with brick; stucco or-masonry) required in industrial zones. 7: The buildings da-not. meet the setback`requirementsfor industrial zones. 8. Mixing industrial .and residential uses is not acceptable land use. And the fact that ,the applicant was aware of the memos that noted-the stipulations of the conditional use ,permit and approval of the PUD request may result in a precedent that could be detrimental to the City in the future: Robert Miller noted that the ideaof abody shop was before the. City Council previously and was determined to be a negative condition. RoTI call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous 3 Lakeville, P9innesota Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 1982 Chairman Harvey asked for the report from the Planning Consultant-and City Attorney on the motion 82.09 concerning the 10 acre requirement for minimum lot size for existing commercial-industrial parcels without .sewer, and the development on these parcels if a variance procedure were completed. Mr. Knutson stated that rather than revising the 10 acre provision, the Commission should handle each request individually. A variance can be considered on some parcels.. The City must then determine if the parcel can be reasonably used with- out a variance. Mr. Knutson noted the John .Young request as an example how the variance procedure can be utilized. He stated that it is compelling to allow some reasonable use of the land. Mr. Brixius stated that while State condemnation for tfi e construction of I-35 is a hardship created by public action, the applicant's site design would, however, require three additional setback variances_as the site configuration does presentlimitations to the use of the parcel. Mr. Harvey noted that granting Jack Young a variance from the 10 acre lot size to permit commercial and industrial; development may create a precedent. Dennis Miller stated `Zak would be back. Sid Miller noted the previous garden center application. -Mr. .Knutson stated that the garden center was to come in for a variance. Mr. Knutson stated that sewer extensions in this area are not planned for the near .future. Mr.'Knutson noted that several large proposals recently postponed develo~ ment due to the high cost of sewer extension. Mr. Harvey agreed that the cost of doing business is relatively high.' Mr. .Miller asked how much land is needed for an on-site septic system. Mr. Harvey stated it depends on .the soils ..and the hydrology. Mr. Knutson said that they must allow a reasonable use of the land. Any other. business: Mr. Harvey noted that the no smoking signs have been ordered-for the Council` chambers. Without a designated smoking. area, no smoking is allowed in a public place... Mr. Dennis Miller asked if smoking could be 1 eft to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mr. Harvey asked the Planning Commission members to turn over their comprehensive plans to the planner for updating. Recopying to provide a new document would. .cost. $75 a shot. 4 Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 1982 Future. agenda items: Jack Young variance request Lakeville Center, Inc. -Central Square Townhouse rezoning Fuel storage request in Airlake Park 82.16- Motion was-made by Gesiness to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion... Ayes:. Unanimous The Chairman adjourned the. meeting at 9:30 p.m. Res a fully ,s fitted, c arvin P. Geisness, ecretary ATTEST: - 9 Patrick Harvey, Chairman 5