Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-81 • Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 22 January 1981 Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers . Roil call of members was taken. Present: Geisness; Antolik; Harvey; Johnson; Enright. Absent: Rice; Miller Also Present: Sid Miller, City Building C)fficial; Jim Johnson, City Engineer; Roger Knutson}, City Attorney; David Licht, City Planner The Chairman asked for comments on the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 6 January 1981. $1 .lb Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Johnson to approve the Special Planning Commission meeting minutes of 6 January 1981 . Roll calf was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous A review of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 8 January was requested by • the Chairman. Mr. Johnson suggested a rewording of information on page 3 as follows: "...2) Experience had demonstrated the closing of stable operations near the present Festival site..." 81 .17 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Geisness to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 8 January as amended. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Commissioner Miller arrived at the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The Chairman opened Commission conversation of the application by Mid-America Festivals far the Renaissance PUD. Mr. Licht stated that no staff evaluations were as yet prepared pending the close of the two week period for receiving written comments for the retard . Mr , Licht stated at the meeting that. a letter dated 20 January 1981 and baekground file had .been received from Leon Hammer; a letter dated 22 January 1981 had been received from Mr, and Mrs. Carl Moe; a letter dated 22 January 1981 had been received from Helen Blaylock of the Orchard Rangers; an undated letter was received from Francis Mailery; and a fetter dated 22 January 1981 was received from the Minnesota Renaissance Festival. Mr. Licht indicated that it was his understanding that Mr. McGarvey has received additional written testimony and that the deadline for additional written comments was 5:00 p.m. on 23 January 19$1. Mr. Harvey asked if additional written • Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 22 January 1981 comments were to be received at the meeting, that they be given to Mr. Licht. Mr. Licht expressed the hope that the Planning Commission would provide the staff with directions and indicate significant issues which the members wished' considered and addressed. Additionally, Mr. Licht stated that all involved should take into account that by ordinance, the decision-making process is at the Concept Plan Stage. Before becoming overly concerned with details and highly technical items, consideration should be given to basic land use and transportation matters. Mr. Harvey stated traffic access for Lake Villa was an issue. Mrs. Enright expressed concern on the adequacy of the extra I-35 off ramps and the size of the proposed parking lots. Mr. Antolik questioned how the Queen Ann Mobile Home Park access was affected by the proposed project . Mr . Harvey questioned. the staff on the issue of metropolitan significance as raised by Credit River Township. Mr. Licht stated that the applicant has contacted the Metropolitan Council staff in the early stages of the project and the City has received a carbon copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Council indicating that the metro significance question would not be an issue once the City's Comprehensive Plan was approved. Mr. Johnson questioned what agencies would review the proposed traffic operation. Mr. Licht indicated five levels of government would be involved: 1) the City; 2) Dakota County; 3) the Metropolitan Council and Regional Agencies; 4) MnDOT; and 5) the Federal Highway Administration. Glenn Nord, Attorney for the applicant, questioned if written comments received on the application would be available for review. Mr. Licht indicated this would be arranged • with Mr. McGarvey and fihat the .information would be made available at the City Administrative .Offices. Mr. Geisness stated he was concerned over the traffic and parking plans . Mr . Mi ((er stated that he had. heard sufficient testimony on the matter and was awaiting the technical reports and analysis from staff. Mrs. Moe questioned the time available for residents to organize and respond. She stated her understanding was that the Renaissance had been working with the City for one and one-half year on the project. Mr. Licht explained fihat contact had been made by the Renaissance people on general planning and zoning information as is a typical situation generated by residents and potential property buyers. The City did not become involved in the matter until the application was applied for in October or November of 1980.. Mrs. Moe questioned when the written comments wauld be made available to the public for. review. Mr. Licht stated that extensive material would be organized and should be available in one or .two working days. Mr. Geisness provided Mrs. Moe with the 22 January letter submitted by the Renaissance. Mrs..Hammer asked for comments from the Commissioners who toured the Renaisance and. Mrs, Hammer's site on 17 January. Mr. Geisness stated that the proposed. location was a beautiful site and that Mrs. Hammer lives in a lovely'area. Mr. Miller indicated it was a good tour and productive trip and wauld assist in his decision-making. Mr. Johnson stated the trip was informative and the issue was whether a constant use or ~sporatic use such as the Festival was best for the area. Mrs. Hammer stated she did not believe the festival could locate on its present site under current laws. She stated she felt it was a good trip, but that the existing site reminded her of a ghost town, Mr. Nord stated that a new license was required each year for the Festival operation and that the • 2 Lakevi i (e, Minnesota • Planning Commission Meeting 22 January 19$1 request had never been denied. Mr. Wally Hilgenbergchailenged Mr. Johnson on his evaluation of the impact of the Festival on residents surrounding the existing site. Mr. Johnson stated his comments were directed to the proposed site, not the existing ane. Mr. Hilgenberg apologized, but reiterated he did not want 30,000 people in his neighborhood. Mr. Harvey stated. that any property owner has the right to request con- sideration of development and property utilization. The Commission and other City bodies are charged with a decision on the matter for the good of the community. As yet, he personally has come to no decision. Mr. Lampart stated that the applicant was a profit-making corporation and that activities would likely be expanded. Mr. Harvey and Mr. Knutson stated the PUD provisions would control . Mary Hilgenberg stated the development would hurt the area's sense of community. Mrs. Mallery stated the parking lots would. be 90 and 100 feet from their door and that the Renaissance. had made no contact with them. Mr. Corrigan stated contact had personally been made with the Mallery's in November 1980. Mrs. Hammer stated her final comment was to request the Commission review the correspondence which she had submitted. She continued that noise was a major factor arx! land values in the area are going down. She further explained she was not against the Festival, only that the proposed location was too close. Mr. Miller questioned correspondence which had been received relative to the validity of Mr. McFadzean's i statement at the public hearing. Mr. Harvey stated a letter had been received from Honeywell on this matter. Mrs. Moe stated that the development proposed by Mr. McFadzean was an acceptable situation. 81,18 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Geisness to continue the dicussion of the proposed Renaissance Festival Development at the 5 February Planning Commission meeting. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Mrs. Hammer and Mr. Hilgenberg questioned the review process which was being followed. Mr. Harvey and Mr. Licht explained the three review and decision-making stages in the PUD process. Mrs. Hammer registered a complaint that information was not being made available by the City to the public. Mr. Licht stated he would look into arranging loan copies of documents. Mr. Harvey loaned Mrs. Hammer his copy of the City Zoning Ordinance . The Commission reviewed staff comments on the change in Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan. 81 .19Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Enright to forward the staff reviews on the amended Rosemount Comprehensive Plan to the City Council and recommended that the evaluations be sent to the City of Rosemount and the Metropolitan Council . Roll call was taken on the motion.' Ayes: Unanimous 3 Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting • 22 January 1981 The Commission reviewed staff reports on the Scott County Comprehensive Plan a 81.20 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Antol ik to forward the .staff reviews on the amended Scott County Comprehensive Plan to the City Council and recommend that the evaluations be sent to Scott County and the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Harvey questioned staff on the status of Metropolitan Council's Lakeville Compre- hensive Plan review. Mr. Licht outlined the events and response which had transpired aver the last several months. Mr. Harvey asked Mr. Licht to provide the Commission with copies of his 15 January 1981 memo to the City Council on this matter. Mr. Harvey stated he had observed what appeared to be a new illegal nonconforming sign. by Niakwa Village along Cedar Avenue near 160th Street. 81 .21 Motion was made by Miller, seconded by Harvey to have the City Building C?fficial formally investigate the matter. Rohl call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Harvey stated he had observed a new, tack nonconformin ortable si n adverbs- Y 9P g ing a deli operation at the Power Center. Commissioner Miller questioned if legal action could. be taken fio correct the violations at the Power Center. Mr. Knutson stated such action was possible. Mr. Antolik stated that the Power Center had failed to follow through on the majority of commitments made by Mr. Krause.. Mr. Licht advised the Commission of difficulties being encoun#ered with the zoning ordinance as a result of conditional use permits being required in industrial zones within the City . 81 .22 Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by .Harvey to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment procedure for consideration of removal of conditional use permit requirements for outside storage in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Problems presented by the Planned Unit Development provision of the zoning ordinance requiring public utility services was discussed by Mr. Licht. 4 Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission. Meeting • 22 January 19$1 $1.23 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Johnson to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment procedure for consideration of the Planned Unit Development. requirements of public. utility services (Section 6. 2. 12}. Ralf call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Geisness stated the Skelly Station across from the Power Center appeared to also have sign violations. He stated he was for equal application of ordinance enforcement. Mr. Licht advised the Commission of a required public hearing on a Shoreland Impact Plan for the proposed Renaissance Development. The Commission expressed the opinion that the timing of the hearing should be left to Mr. McGarvey and the staff in view of basic determinations to be made on the acceptability of the project at the Concept Stage. $1.24 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Geisness to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous . The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectf Ily submitted, c arvin P . Geisness, Secretary ATTEST: P trick Harvey, Chairm n 5