Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-82 Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 18 February 1982 Patrick Harvey, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, in the Lakeville City Council Chambers. Roll call of members was taken. Present: R. Miller, Harvey, Johnson,` Grohoski, Rice. Absent: Geisness, D. Miller Also present; Nancy Enright, Councilperson; Sid Miller, City Building Official; Frank Kriz, City Engineer; Tom Scott, City Attorney; David Licht, City Planner. The Chairman requested a review. of the minutes from the 4 February 1482 meeting. Mr. Grohoski stated that in the 4th paragraph on page b it should read, after the comma, the haste instead of speed of the recommendation.. Mr. Johnson added his objection to the 3rd paragraph on page 6, stating his objection was that no play area was being provided within the development and that the only access to the area park is across Flagstaff, which is a major arterial way. Mr. R. Miller referred to the 4th paragraph on,page 2 and said he questioned whether Mr. Klotz said that the primary interest was housing for the elderly, but rather-that he said original interest. Mr. Miller also said that on page 3, paragraph S, the word hoping was incorrect and should have read he was under the. impression an ,elderly housing complex would be constructed. ' 82.31 Motion was made by Grohoski, seconded by Rice, to approve the 4 February 1982 • Planning.Commission meeting minutes as amended.. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the application of John Young for a variance to build in an unsewered area of less than 10 acres, and a P.U.D. conditional use permit for more than one principal use of a structure on a - parcel of property located at 2I5th Street and Keokuk Avenue. rir. John Young passed out new drawings on his proposed development. Mr. Harvey questioned the date of the drawings as being today.. Mr. Harvey observed that he removed the office building and made all the buildings a little bit smaller. Actually, one is larger and one is smaller. Mr. Harvey asked if Mr. Young had. :anything: to say and he replied that he Baas open to questions. Mr. Harvey said'the staff first saw this drawing yesterday, I7th of February, 19$2. Mr. Young's engineers met yesterday to make the revisions. Mr. Harvey mentioned that the public hear- ing was closed Last time and questions are officially closed, but said that we would be willing to entertain any questions from the audience regarding Mr, Young's plan. Mr. Harvey asked Mr. Rice if he had any questions. Mr. Rice asked about the setbacks behind the .buildings. Mr. Young said it was 5 ft. from the property line, b ft. from the fence. Mr. .Rice asked if it was advisable for a driveway coming into the property, would it be infringing, but. Mr. Lehmann said it was within the limits, there is right-of-way there. Mr. Rice likes this plan much .better than the .previous plan. Mr. Grohoski said there is-much improvement over the last plan but still. wonders about a semi turning around and having a problem, but perhaps a good truck driver would have no problem. He thought the two-lane road might pose a problem, in case of a stalled vehicle. He also thought the. buildings should be still smaller. Mr. Young feels "that semis would not be allowed past acertain point. Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 18 February 1982 Mr. Grohoski said they are concerned about the use of • the property if Mr. Young should perhaps some time sell the property. Mr. Young said he couldn't guarantee anything, but that he bought the property because it was .zoned industrial and as far as trucks coming in, should not be a concern and they make drops at practically any site and probably never do too much turning around. Mr. Young did not want the trucking problems em- phasized. rir. Harvey mentioned that the intent of the praperty can be changed and the land could be over-used. Mr. Johnson had no further questions at this moment. Mr. R. Miller asked Dave Licht if he had any comments regarding the revisions. Mr. Licht. said it hadn't changed his basic opinion, that the site there is inadequate for this plan. Secondly, the access to the site is inadequate and certainly in terms of industrial development. He pointed out the-Concrete Steps Company which was proposed for the same area, where there was a major question. It was suggested that the road had to be improved to accommodate heavy trucks in that area. He .thinks there was a mistake made, in the 60's when the. property was divided,. at that time. There-is a major slope which exists on the highway side-that certainly does make it questionable as far as building on that site. He mentioned that to the north of this property a model home was built and. never to be lived in, but that has all. changed now. He brought out, also, that the next owner then .can do whatever they want, namely driving semis down this road, that 3s what it .was intended to be used for. Mr. Kriz stated. that we have a 2-1 slope and said we would like to see the full setback. Mr. Kriz has determined the-building, as per the plan., would be approximately S-6' into the property from the top of the slope. Mr. R. riiller asked the attorney, Mr. Tom Scott, about prohibiting trucks from coming down the road 10 years from now. Mr. Scott said you can attach condi - tions but would have to look at all the .circumstances surrounding this property. Mr. Young made a statement regarding trucks (everywhere} being a problem, as far as parking and where they drive. He mentioned that trucking south of the scale is bananas! He feels. it is his constitutional right to build en this property. Mr. Lehmann mentioned. the corridor zoning, and Mr. Young brought up the fact that the property lays at the end of the runway. He mentioned that no residen- tial areas are to be closer than 2-3 miles of a runway. He is 30 ft. from Mr. Lehmann's ptv~tperty and now they say it is too close to freeway fence . He does .not feel there is that much of a problem and that drainage is adequate. The City will want an easement for storm sewers. Mr. Grohoski brought up whether or not there were other easements. Mr. Young said no, they have gotten rid of all of them. Mr. Harvey asked what the setback was from the corner of the building, and Mr. Young said it was. 30 ft. rir. Lehmann brought Mr. Harvey another drawing, better showing the right-of-way, a design of the Interstate. Mr. Johnson asked what his original purpose was for buying. this property. Mr. Young said his original idea .was to nut three buildings in there, solarizing them and making them nice looking. He had hoped to signify the heating problem- that exists in downtown Lakeville. A study was made showing that the northwest part of Scott County and the southwest part of Dakota County were without power. There is a strip where there is no power and through solarizing and pumping they provided everything on this site as needed. They got into this, made the draw- ings, and were going to donate. it to interested parties, maybe Vo-Tech Schools, etc. One building was to be an acme and could be-used for anything. They had the southern exposure and 100 ft. apron, practical use for conserving energy. -2- Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 18 February 1982 Mr. Grohoski mentioned Mr. Licht's report of 28 January I9$2 and the questions on Page 3, paragraph 2 - stating we .are looking at a variance to a 10_acre minimum lot size and asked if Frank Kriz had looked into this. Mr. Kriz said he wouldn't look. into storm drainage until it had been decided what would be .built an the site. He mentioned there could be a problem in the lowland, as far as drainage, small buildings, etc. A particular site plan must be decided upon first. Mr. Kriz said aloe depends on the soil conditions being in favor of putting in aseptic tank and. drainfield. Mr. Kriz stated the rate of runoff after it is developed cannot exceed the natural runoff prior to development. Mr. Young said he had soil borings but neithex Mr. Kriz nor Mr. Zcht has seen the results. Mr. Grohoski said we needed to decide what we are going to do on the l0 acre problem.. Mr. Rice stated that without the staff. having the draw- ings previously they would not be able to make any recommendations at this time. Mr. Harvey'said we had two choices. We can continue this to the nex meeting so that the staff can review them and report on their opinions and facts.. If it is too intense we probably wouldn't need to incur the cost to the applicant. Mr. Young said they could not 3ust build one building and meet the cost of the assessments that would be coming. Mr. Licht said this was not a buildable lot without a variance when he bought 'the Land and he did not buy a building permit with it. Mr. Harvey said that Mr. Young has apiece of property that is unbuildable until utilities are in there. Mr. Young said that is discrimination. Mr. Lehmann brought up the 1Q • acre factor, that it has not been the mayor issue on this question. The ques- tion has been the .adequacy of the site for this development plan of Mr. Young's. Asphalt covers more than half the sate and governs the runoff in the future. 82.32 Motion was made by,Grohoski, seconded by Harvey,. to recommend denial of variance request to build in an unsetvered area of less than l0 acres and to recommend denial of the P.U.D. conditional use permit for more than one principal use for the following reasons: 1. On this particular parcel industrial use is too intensive a land use and that any. such industrial Bevel©pment on this parcel wQUld infringe on the property rights of the land owners to the west and north. 2. The site has inadequate access. 3. The development of this parcel is deemed to be premature based on the unavailability of sealer and water to the site. 4. The strong possibility .exists for potential storm water drainage problems affecting the south. and southeast p©rtions of the site. Mr. Harvey called for discussion on the motion. Mr. R. Miller mentioned the slope information was not available and also men- tioned the drainage matter being unresolved. Mr. R. Miller said he felt this was a unique layout for this land and that the applicant should not be penalized. Mr. Harvey pointed out that drainage can be a problem, putting this much paving on a parcel of land this size. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Harvey, Johnson, Grohoski, Rice. Nays: R. Miller -3- Lakeville,: Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting l8 February 1982 Mr. Harvey stated. that this would be put on the agenda of the l March 1982 City Council meeting. The recommendation will be made to the City to deny the request for a variance for Mr. John Young. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the application of M. W. Johnson. Const. Inc. for a preliminary plat.. known as Niakwa Village, Phase 3, and a Planned Unit Development conditional use permit far multiple residential units, located on the east side of Foliage Avenue between Florida Way on the south and 162nd St. on the north. Mr. Tom Scott stated that pmper notification had been given. Mr. Gary Tushie, Consultant representing M. W. Johnson Const..Inc., showed the original layout for this site, originally platted for 32 units, with 49X. left for open space. In response from clients they were asked to put up a different type of building to appeal to a different price bracket, and men- tinned a $50,000 top price bracket and the increase in amount of ..open space.. There would be 46-units total, with 60X open space, increased by lI% from original plan. Mr. Grohoski pointed out that this site has already been approved for 8 quad units.. Mr. Johnson is attempting to change the. style of the buildings and increase the number of units in a building. Mr. Dennis Bryant of 16148 Foliage Avenue, resident of Townhouses of Shannon, asked about the time limit prior to a public hearing, since the wrong address had been put on .his notice. This was. going to be checked nut, since noone had a t positive answer. • Mr. Grohosk had been unable to .find any record of the. Townhouses of Shannon, what requirements were, etc. Mr_ Tushie said they have greater setbacks than were approved originally. Mr. Bryant mentioned an easement that the townhouses were to receive for parking.. Mr. Harvey commented that the records regarding this item are hard to come by. Mr. Bryant talked about landscaping and things around the townhouses, an area. north of the townhouses - to an exchange of things to be done. An area that is not sodded nor improved in any way, but agreements were made.. He wanted information as to how far away the new buildings will be fmm his townhouse. It should not be a factor, being the new buildings will be only two stories high and will not have a bearing on the solar effect on his place. Mr. Bryant also wondered if the underground. sprinkling system would. be affected by this new construction. Mr. Bill Johnson, Builder, talked. about the First Phase, Niakwa, and said that the President of the Townhouse Association had contacted him regarding moving the dirt pile and said it would be done next spring. He explained the underground sprinkling system, and the fact. that the well was on his property by 40 ft. He drilled a new well for Shannon townhouses, whose residents paid for 1/4 of the cost of doing it. Mr. Bryant said there was an easement for the well, but was not true.. Agreements were made but not documented, and Lots of errors have been found. Mr. Harvey. pointed out that the City Council makes the final decisions and that the Planning Commission only makes recommendations to the Council. Mr. Sid Miller commented that it is difficult to keep any trash from blowing around with this size operation, but that pi. W. Johnson Const. has been a clean operation. . Mr. Bryant stated that the design of the buildings, is far superior to what his -4- Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 18 February 19$2 3s and also brought up the playground for this area. No playground is being ..considered. Mr, Licht says we will have to study the Developmental Contract .regarding the playground, The subject must`be addressed, according to Mr, Harvey.. Jean Bryant mentioned a 20 ft. piece to be given. to Shannon in return for the dirt. Mr. Johnson said he remembered something about this. Mr. Kriz read that a Quick Claim Deed. did give this 20 ft, of land to the T©wnhouses of Shannon. Mr. Bryant will check and see if this has been done-and. will contact Mr, Bi11.Johnson if it hasn't. 82®33 Mr. Rise made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes; Unanimous. Mr. Harvey called for discussion. and. Mr. Johnson said that Park and Rec had recommended that no land be put into playground, although it was under the Townhouse plan. Mr. Grohoski brought up the fact that two .more units have been included in the latest plan and. wondered if we had a more intense use here.. Berming has been altered by planners at. a staff meeting on Z7 February 1982. Mr. Tushie explained that they are working on changes regarding berming, etc.. Mr. Grohoski brought up the fact that storm sewer drainageis OK.andmost of his questions have been answered. ..There is a 9" main an Foliage Avenue and he is satisfied that the sewer system will be adequate with some changes to be made in landscaping plan, Mr. Grohoski mentioned that there is a Uniform Con- . dominium Act and suggested that we Zook into it for future building of that type in our City. rir. Tushie commented that condos are different because the actual. unit itself is designed after the building is built and definition is described by law. They have lane quite a bit of business with condos. Mr. Grohoski mentioned power poles and 10 ft. utility easement. Mr. Kriz.said .there .was a 10 ft. easement granted in this case. Mr. Tushie said the additional two units were based on the original concept of one stow (4 unit) and ha11 space, Also, amount of units per acre is 12-18 for condo projects, rather than 5.02 on townhouses. Mr. Rice brought up the dedication of value for the i4 units, but found out it had been OK's already. r1r. Harvey broughtup screening to the .south, where the single family dwellings are, and stated that the Natural Re- sources Committee should look onto this. rfr, Tushie said they..hopedfor a recommendation tonight, to go to the City Council meeting on 1 March-1982 and then they planned to attend a Nat.oral Resources committee meeting. Mr. Tushie said they planned to use either earth or plant materials 'for screening... rir, Grohoski suggested they contact someone nn Natural Resources Committee for some input and put a condition on the recommendation to the Johnson people to follow.. up with Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Kriz has. not submitted a report but feels that drainage is good in the area and will be .lowering. the berms. No problem with :.utilities, some have to be moved later, Mr. L-icht stated that landscaping is not submitted, parking is not submitted yet, but that no ma3or problems exist, r1r. Grohoski asked what the setback was on the building in the northwest corner of the building in the northeast corner of the site. Mr. Licht says it is acceptable because of the. 1?.U.D., less than the 30 ft, setback. Pir, Rice asked about parking and Mr. .Licht says they are working on this, that there is a workable solution. _5 _ Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting I8 February 1982 82.34 Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Rice, to approve the preliminary.. plat, subject to the conditions in the IS February 1982 letter from the planner. We are recommending that the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee be contacted relative to screening and plantings. Mr. Licht said they will review it and wil review it with Mr. Robinette and the Chairman. Roli call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. Mr. Harvey stated this would be put on the agenda of the 1 March 1982 City Council meeting. The recommendation to the City Council will be to approve the .application for M, W. Johnson Const. Inc. Mr. Bryant thanked everyone for the information and cooperation shown regard- ing this subject tonight.. Mr. Rice thanked Councilperson Nancy Enright for coming to this meeting. Mr. Grohoski addressed Mr. Sid .Miller regarding looking at the site of Niakwa where he said there were 4 cars that have not been moved for some time, almost completely covered with snow, along with boats. Mr, Miller agreed to do this. .Also, Mr. Grohoski said that at 16134 Foliage Avenue there is a garage that looks Like a body shop and asked Mr. Sid Miller to check on this also. Mr. Miller stated that maybe this was something for the Police Dept, to check out. Mr. Grohoski asks if the City has the means to do something about messes such • as this.. Mr. Harvey mentioned that ordinances are to be enforced or should be taken off the books, or changed so that they will be enforced. Mr. Harvey received a petition on the improvements on Holyoke Avenue from 205th-St. to 2(32nd St. which has been signed by 20 property owners,* Mr. Harvey also received some information from Dakota County regarding Agriculture Preserves, which information will be .given to Mr. acGaruey, City Administrator, with a copy to Mr. Tom Scott, Attorney. 82,35 Mr. Harvey made a motion commending Mr. Zicht on his outstanding job. of taking minutes, etc. in the past, saying he has really done a good job. Seconded by Mr. Rice and. approved by everyone. Mr. Johnson asked about reevaluating the zoning in the sou hwest area of the City. Mr. Licht stated if there is improper development proposed that there is enough in our zoning ordinances to protect the City. We can judge each indiv- idual case as it comes. He was asked if down .zoning would be of any value and rir. Licht said there were all kinds of legal implications here. Mr. Harvey mentioned the Linder Subdivision, that they will be back in about a month for a final on it. Mr. Harvey wanted to .make sure the answers to any questions regarding this project had been. found, so that it will all be ready to recommend at that time. Relative to the Linder application, Mr. Grohoski suggested that the €arm house and exception area be incorporated into the plat, which is now leased on a month to month basis. One possibility is razing the building which is on it. Mr. Grohoski would not recommend P.U.D. without * See attachment.. -6 - • . Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 18 February 1982 .specific recommendations on the existing house in the middle of it. Mr. Johnson agrees with Mr. Grohoski and that there should be some open space also, which would be created if the existing house was taken care of. A future .agenda item. mentioned was the Special Home Occupation permit . applied for, for a Chiropractic Clinic. $2.35 Motion was made. by Rice to ad3ourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous.. The, :chairman adjourned the meeting. at lO:QS p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles Jo nson, A ing Secretary ATTEST; Pa rick G. Harvey, Chai an • A , .Y " ~ 4 1 ~.1 t i. r F E_T I T I O N • ~ W E , the undersigned, are the owners of property abutting on s ~ Holyoke Avenue and by thin Petition are advising- the City of Lakeville that we most strenously object to the proposed work(. for Holyoke Avenue~~rom`:~ 2.05th Street to 202nd Street.: r ~Y;~a~.-?~ 'We agree that some irnproveme~t may be necessary at the inter- sectir~r~ of 202nd, Street and Holyoke Avenue due <to the City Fire Department ~I and increased traffic,, which is, :however, a city traffic problem and in no way can it be considered an improvement to our property.. Sidewalks far us is an added responsibility.. and in no manner will enhance the value of r~ur property. Siclewalks merely give us, the property t~ i owners., the added burden of keeping them. clean and would never be used by us Sidewalks are only for the purpose of people passing our property from. down- town to playgrounds and schools and not for our benefit. We have good water flow and. no problems with drainage. Curbs. for ~f us are of no value. They destroy our landscaping and .general appearance., I~ .creating unnecessary hazards and maintenance problems. 4~ You use up bonding power for unnecessary projects. In these days 4 1 of restricted economy, only abscalutely necessary projects should be considered ~i The extreme cost to be assessed would be unjustified and would create hard"-- it ~ j~ ships for a few unbenefitted people f©r the benefit of ofiher people, including I engineers, attorneys-and fiscal agents. This project would necessitate the taking of part of our lawns, trees, etc. to our damage without en-suing benefits.] s f • Where would .sidewalks go as the walks south of 205th Street are 'i ~ unusable. I~ } Snr4 ~elorked and plane°d for homeµ v`:ithcut debt and this creates a ( I .Lien or mortgage against our homes which in our retirement years is not within { i ~ ~ • ~ our budget. If we sell our homes, the buyers would demand a clear title, 1 'j which means the first monies would go to 'paying off so-called im provement if assessments, j i~ . a. ;j } . We are prepped to take 1ega1 action to fight the proposed improvement . _ j' project on the grQUnds that the so-called im provemenus ~a not improve our' i ,t presperty, We do not want this project even if it costs nothing.. ti We believe it is impractical and of no vaiue to run. curb,; gutters and i sidevva~ks out tG farm lard. it Last summer your irriprovements of water. and sewer installations as'sessed m©st of the prapert~r, and now it is yours intention to tear up our j property. again by the so-coiled improvements of curb,.. ::gutters and sidewalks, } s; and again assessing the property. Perry` s and Steberg's property assessments for iast summer's improvements ~rviii farce them to sell and if additional I I~ assessments are made, they will.. not be able to seil. We further believe it may be illegal, if not immoral, to loan money j to the State of Minnesota with no interest and get.. the money from us charging a a ~ full interest 'r"~ 3 i i ~ ~ i~ S ~ a ~ ~ ; • i ~ ~ , r ~ ~ ~ t ~ ; f~ I _ r i