Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-84 r y Lakeville, Minnesota PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 1984 The meeting was called to order by the chairman at 7:00. p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: Warren Walters,. Judy Heald, Steve Sizer, Dennis Miller, Diane MacGibbon and JoAn Lambert.. Absent: Terry Langhorst. The City Attorney, City Administrator, Community Development Director and Planner were also present. The chairman opened the public hearing for the McStop 1st Addition proposal. The city attorney attested to the legality of the hearing, indicating proper written and mailed notiees were sent and published. Mr. Randy Berg and. Mr. Charles Adams of the McDonald's Corporation made a presentation reviewing their concept of one Planned Unit. _ Development covering all uses and describing these uses in detail as: restaurant, fuel,. convenience facility, motel., car. R.V. and truck wash. During the presentation, they discussed traffic separation of cars and trucks,. landscaping, convenience-gas operations, 85 unit motel, information center ideas, and drainage. They also indicated there would be no truck service performed on the property. Mr. Berg. indicated that a second 85 unit motel could be built in a later phase. They have no plans for the outlots at this time. The complex is totally being designed by one architectural firm, and one large contractor will. build the entire complex. City Administrator, Pat McGarvey, gave a presentation covering utility extension proposals and tax increment financing. The city planner addressed the commission indicating that: 4 1. The proposal was consistent with the city comprehensive plan. 2. The land has been zoned properly for this use for the past 10 years. 3. The plans and submittals of .the. applicant are ..adequate for P.U.D. concept approval, and the platting documents. are adequate for a preliminary approval. The public in attendance were asked if there were comments or questions. A list. of the persons in attendance is attached: Mr. Nikoley of $301 210th Street asked if the complex was to be open 24 hoursa day. Mr. Berg. replied that it would be open 24 hours a day only if business warranted it, and. it was not -anticipated that. it would be initially. Mrs. Newman of 25675 Willow Lane, New Prague, asked when they plan to open.: Mr. Berg indicated :they hoped to open by November 1st, but they could be delayed. if water and. sewer were not available. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Mrs.. Sinner asked about detergent strength, and Mr. Robinette indicated that. the Metro Sewer Commission has a strength charge and deals with industries directly if required. From questions and answers. for the Planning Commission, the following was indicated. Handicapped. parking spaces will be identified during development stage P.U.D. There will be approximately 75 to 100 jobs in the McDonald"s, 50 to 60 in the motel, l0 for the. car-truck wash and 10 for the convenience gas, for a total. of 150 to 200 jobs. Each facility will be individually managed with each manager having at least 15 years of experience in their specialties. The Cooley- Naegele property is already in the urban service area and will not be affected by this proposal. The park and ride lot west of the frontage road will not be eliminated by the proposal. One of the design features of the restaurant may include a sunken atrium with large glass areas. Trash for each facility will be handled by the facility and the whole area kept neat and clean. Trucks will be required. to stay in the rear in designated parking areas. 84.23 Motion to recommend. approval of the concept. stage planned unit development in accordance with the planner's recommendations was made by Heald and seconded by Lambert. Roll call passed unanimously. 84.24 Motion to recommend approval. of the. preliminary plat of McStop 1st • Addition, and a minor comprehensive. plan change,. was made by Heald and seconded by MacGbbon. Roll call passed unanimously. The chairman opened the public hearing .for Dodd Pointe subdivision, planned unit development, conditional. use permit and rezoning. The a attorney attested that proper mailed notice and publication had been accomplished, and that it was alegal public hearing. The city planner gave a report including the requested rezoning. He indicated the configuration of the site made development. difficult. He noted that the R-3 designation was. needed because of lot frontage, but that. it was. acceptable for the district when total lot areas were considered. He felt it was acceptable considering the buffering and. configuration. There was one cul-de-sac that would need to be .enlarged'. The B-3 area will require a conditional use permit before it is to be developed. James R. Hill, the developer's consultant, made a presentation indicating alternatives were limited because of the-shape of the site. The comp plan indicates the area to be single family residen- tial, and that is what is being proposed. He indicated a large. easement was required because of off-site drainage from.Apple-Valley, and that had been provided. They were providing extensive berming and wanted. a nice development. The intersection of Dodd .and County Road 42 makes the eastern. point of the. property appropriate as B-3. The county had reviewed and accepted all road alignments, and • additional easements had. been provided as requested near the inter- 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING section. They will. come back fora conditional use permit on the B-3 • area. The planner commented that it was appropriate to show the zoning now so that. residents would know it was planned for a future commercial use. The developer indicated the following in response to commission questions. The drainage swale would be open with proper rip-rapping.. and a sand cushion subject to approval. of the city engineer. The developer does not feel this. proposed commercial area is too close to the one at Cedar and 46, roughly two miles away. The commercial. development would probably not take place until 1985 or later. All drainage has been calculated for a 100 year storm.' The commercial use would. most likely be a convenience store and/or small office. Sixty-five feet is the absolute minimum proposed. lot size. A second culvert would be provided under Dodd to take care of a 200 or 300 year storm.. Judy Heald indicated she does not like the road align- went. The. developer indicated he had provided easements as desired by the county to provide. for future upgrading of Dodd Boulevard. It was indicated that the. developer was not. proposing any shrubs or trees for the top of the berming mounds. Mr. Sizer indicated that since the area was zoned R-2, he could see no reason to allow lot sizes .below that. He had difficul y with that and. would feel more comfortable if it was an R-2 P.U.D. Mr. Hill .replied that to accommodate the easements, berms and drainage on R-3 P.U.D. was needed... Mr. Miller asked: if all three sides were to be bermed. Mr. Hill indicated they would be bermed but not landscaped.. Mr. Harvey from 20828 Iran Avenue indicated that to drop from 85 foot. requirements to 65 feet was a long way. Mr. Blumberg indicated many communities were going to 55 foot lots. He also indicated these were not to be cheap houses but comparable with the surrounding area. Judy Heald indicated she was concerned with the rezoning and. the necessity for all. the small. lot widths.. Mr. Miller indicated the cul-de-sac needs enlarging, taking land away from building sites on the adjacent lots. He would like to see some modification of the plat to alleviate some problems. Diane MacGibbon indicated she was having trouble justifying the lot. size in that area. She would like some indication of what. kind of house is to be built on lots of .that. size and would like the. developer to come. back with larger lots. JoAn Lambert indicated the lot width was her-major concern. Chairman Sizer indicated that he could see no compelling reason for the R-3 zoning change., since the character of the abutting development is R-2 and there. is significant deviation from minimum front footages allowed in R-3 zoning. He could see that. there was a problem with downsizing lots in that area that would make it incompatible with the surround- ng; area.. 84.25 Motion to close the public hearing made by Heald,seconded by Walters. Roll .call passed unanimously. • 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 84..26 Motion made. by Miller,. seconded by Walters. to table a decision to enable staff and the developer to pursue perhaps changing. some lots to alleviate the need for an R-3 P.U.D. and perhaps make it an R-2 P.U.D. Roll call passed unanimously. Mr. Blumberg, the developer, expressed dismay- and anger, indicating he could not see why the Planning Commission would not go along totally with his proposal as presented. He became abusive to the committee and staff members, using profanity. He indicated he would change nothing and was never coming back. Police were called to remove Mr. Blumberg. Meeting. was recessed by Chairman Sizer due to Mr. Blumberg's continued unruly behavior. The. chairman opened the public hearing for amendment of a conditional use permit for Alice Rohleder to increase horses from 25 to 66. The attorney attested-that proper mailed and published notice had. been given, and that. it was a legal public hearing. The planner reviewed his written reports. Mrs. Sinner indicated that many horses were ridden on Judicial Road. She indicated she did not understand that the commercial boarding was allowed. She indicated she saw-sileage bales and hay bales left frozen in the road that could cause car damage. She also indicated she thought there were to be only 17 horses originally. She indicated she had suffered property damage from pigs and other animals in the past.- Mrs. Rohleder indicated that a stable hand would be .staying in the building for safety of the horses. She indicated there are more than 66 horses across the road. p Staff indicated that the driveway was composed of crushed lime. stone and was in reasonable condition. It was indicated the. original conditional use permit specifically addressed the possibility of increasing the number of horses if a plan was presented for taking care of waste, and that is specifically addressed in this request. Mr. Steve Grohoski spoke and indicated he had been chairman of the commission when.. this originally came up, and that 25 horses was a compromise at that. time. He indicated he did not feel raising the limit to 66 horses would be in order. 84.27 Motion to close the public hearing was made by Heald, seconded by MacGibbon. Roll call passed. unanimously. 84.28 Motion made by Sizer ,seconded.. by Walters to recommend approval of- modification of the conditional use permit to increase from 25 horses to a.tatal of: b6°horses and~or cows. subject.. to addition: of 'the. following conditions in addition to those already stipulated in the original. 4 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: ~~8. That rodents and insects be controlled on the site. • #9. That dust be controlled. ~~10. That fencing be maintained. in a good state of repair.. 411. That the operation not create a public nuisance. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Heald, Sizes, Miller, MacGibbon, Walters.- Abstain, Lambert. The.-community development director briefed the commission on some concerns the city council had with the recommendation for the animal ordinance. Specifically, the intent of the wording. as related to corraling and. the proximity to lot lines. Also perhaps allowing. horses on one acre lots could cause problems in plats such as Woodridge or-Lake Villa. The committee discussed the matter and directed the attorney to rewrite the ordinance permitting horses on a minimum of 2-1/2 acres. without conditional use permit and by conditional use permit only where appropriate on to 2-1/2 acres. He will have a draft for review at the next meeting. 84.29 Motion to adjourn was made by Sizes, seconded by Walters. Roll call passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, i t ~ Dennis Miller, Sec Lary ' ATTEST: Steven Sizes, Cha' an • 5