Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-81 r 'f Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 5 February 1981 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Lakeville City Council Chambers. Roll call of members was taken: Present: Geisness; Antolik; Harvey; Johnson; Miller; Enright; Rice . Absent: None Also present: Duane Zaun, City Councilman; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Jim Robinette, Public Works Director; Jim .Johnson, City Engineer; Frank Kriz, City Engineer; Sid Miller, City Building Official; David Licht, City Planner Comments on the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 22 January 1981 were requested by the Chairman. Mr. Miller stated the time of his arrival as noted on page 1 was incorrectly listed as 8:40 p.m. instead of 7:40 p.m. Mr. Harvey stated the sign referenced in motion 81.21 was incorrect. The sign belonged to Excel Builders. 81..25 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Antolik, to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 22 January 1981. as amended . • Rolf call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Antolik; Harvey; Johnson; Enright; Miller; Geisness. Abstain: Rice The Chairman opened the continued public hearing on the application of Lakeville School District No. 194 for a conditional use permit to construct a new elementary school at the northwest corner of 175th Street and Ipava Avenue. Mr. Don Mc Quire, Superintendent appeared before the Commission and briefly explained the application. A representative of Wehrman Associates, site planners for the project, explained further the proposed plans. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. None were received. 81 .26 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Antolik to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous .Commissioner Johnson questioned sewer, water and natural gas service to the site. Mr. Johnson of the City Engineer's office explained the servicing, plus a special problem with the Ipava road alignment. Mr. Geisness questioned the adequacy of parking. Mr. Licht .stated the number of spaces were in excess of ordinance requirements. Commissioner Johnson questioned the bus unloading and parking facilities. Jim Johnson explained the operation and stated that City staff found the plans acceptable. Mr. Harvey questioned site drainage which Mr. Johnson stated was still being worked on, but would be finalized prior to the matter being considered by the City Council . Commissioner Geisness asked if • lighting plans were completed. The staff indicated this work was being pursued with Dakota Electrical. Lakevi I le, Minnesota . Planning Commission Meeting 5 February i98i 81 .27 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Geisness to recommend to the City Council approval of the application of Lakeville School District No. 194 for a conditional use permit to con- struct a new elementary school at the northwest corner of 175th Street and Ipava Avenue subject to the recommendations and conditions suggested by the City staff in their written reports . Roll call was .taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous The applicant was advised that the matter would be considered by the City Council at their 17 February meeting. Chairman Harvey opened the public hearings on the applications of William O. Cooley and Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of the Twin Cities, Inc. for: a) rezoning part of a parcel of land from R-1, Low Density Residential, to B-4, General Business, located on the west side of I-35, south of 205th Street and north of 210th Street, and b) preliminary plat of an approximate .108 acre parcel of land located as indicated in item 4a. Mr. Knutson advised the Commission as to the validity of the hearing. Mr. Licht further stated that an oversight in the legal publication had occurred and that the request to extend the ICD District across the site in question had not been included. This technicality was being addressed • and the hearing would have to be continued until the next meeting. Mr. Cooley appeared and gave a presentation of the proposed deve opment of the site. He stated that he was in agreement with staff comments and recommendations. The vacation of the existing street would be handled. as part of the final plat. Mr. John Raplinger, resident along 210th Street, appeared and presented a petition for entry into the record. He then briefly summarized the area residents' concerns. Mr. Bob Powe}I, a resident of the area, .commented that the proposed development would destract from the area. Nick Wolff of 210th Street, stated there was no development in the area and that was his basis of moving into the neighborhood. Mr. Leonard Tumont of 210th Street, stated his house over-looked part of the property and ' that the buyers knew what they were purchasing. Mr. Cooley stated the property was purchased in 1972 and the zoning at that time was B-4 for the major portion of the site. Mr. Geisness asked what buffering was being proposed to which Mr. Cooley responded. Commissioner Miller questioned what type of use was being suggested to which Mr. Cooley responded, indicating highway commercial, offices, office warehousing, and light industrial . Mr. Cooley then stated that he was willing to meet with neighbors to further explain the suggested development and work out possible problems. Hubert Johnson, original owner of the site, appeared and stated he wanted homes on the site. - 81 .28 Motion was made by Miller, seconded by Enright to continue the public hearing until 14 February. r _ . , , Roll cal~l_was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. • d 2 Lakevi lie, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 5 February .1981 Mr. Geisness stated that he would not vote for the rezoning unless the residents of the area agreed. Chairman Harvey reopened consideration of the application by Mid-America Festivafs for the Renaissance PUD. He explained that there has been a change in procedure and. that a basic determination on land use compatibility and acceptability was being attempted as a first step. A representative of the Natural Resources Committee stated they had reviewed the application, but were waiting for direction on land use from the. Planning. Commission and City Council before pursuing the matter further. Mr. 'Licht stated the Metropolitan Council had initially reviewed possible metro significance questions and found no problems. However, with the request of Credit River Township for a metro significance review, the matter would be reconsidered . This would occur, however, only after City determinations on basic acceptability. Mr. Licht went on and explained the staff report of 29 January 19$1. which suggested no problems with the Phase I I and II I office and low to mid-density residential development due to compliance with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plana The major issue to be determined therefore: was the compatibility of Phase I development involving the Renaissance Festival. Commissioner Rice stated he was against the Festival. because of too many people and too much traffic. • Mr. Geisness stated while a lot of people were against, those at the public hearing appear to be equally split for and against. Commissioner Miller stated that he had conducted a random telephone survey on 1 February of 100 Lakeville_residerrts. The outcome was 60 percent no opinion; 20 percent pro; and 18 percent against. Mr. Geisness stated that the land will be used, but the issue was who controls. Mr. Antolik stated he felt as Mr. Miller that there were too many questions regarding the Festival operation. Mrs. Enright stated she had studied the matter in detail and was prepared to make a motion. Mr. Johnson indicated he believed the development to the west should stay in residential . Mr. Harvey indicated that Lake Villa had commercial property to the east and that the Festival would be compatible in the area. The Festival was not a very infiense use if properly controlled. Mr. Geisness indicated he felt the Festival would keep the area undeveloped for a longer period. The Festival-would also be a good image for Lakeville. Mr. Harvey stated that an admission tax would possibly add to the City's tax base. Mr. Knutson stated the City would likely have to go to the Legislature for authority to levy. Mr. Geisness stated the issue .was 13 days of operation versus premature development. 81 .29 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey to recommend to the City Council that after .long and careful study, the Planning Commission found the basic land use compatibility of all three phases of the Renaissance PUD acceptable. . Mr. Charles Dayton, Attorney representing Residents Against Renaissance, questioned if he could be heard. Chairman Harvey stated he felt sufficient testimony. had been. received • on the land use question. Mr. Nord, Attorney for""' Mid-America Festiva'I~'-asked for a clarification of the motion to which Mr. Harvey and Mr. Licht responded. 3 A Lakeville, Minnesota • Planning Commission Meeting 5 February 1981 Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Harvey; Enright. Nays: Miller; Rice; Geisness; Antolik; Johnson Motion failed. Mr. Rice complimented the Renaissance representatives on the thoroughness of information supplied and the staff on the evaluation which had been prepared. 81.30 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Johnson, to recommend to the City Council the denial of the Renaissance PUD. Mr. Licht asked for a clarification for future staff direction and whether the motion was opposing Phases II and III of the request which involved the office and residential develop- ment. Mr. Rice stated the Comprehensive Plan uses were acceptable, but that the application at hand was being addressed. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Rice; Geisness; Antolik; Johnson; Miller. Nays: Harvey; Enright. The applicant was advised. the matter would be considered by the City Council at their 17 February meeting. The Chairman called fora 10 minute ressess. The Chairman reconvened the meeting. The Commission discussed continuing sign problems in the community and the agenda for the 19 February meeting. Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Antolik, to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Res ctfully sub fitted, ruin P. Geisness, ecretary ATT E • atr~c arvey, it 4 r er~.~ uclL y 17ts1 E T0: The Village of Lakeville Planning Commission and City Council We, the undersigned, hereby object to'the rezoning o£ the land of William O. Cooley and Naegele outdoor advertising company of Twin Cities Inc. described as Parcel 1, the East 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of Section 26, township 114, range 21, Contained 76.9 acres. Parcel 2, that part of the west 1/2 of S.W. 1/4 of Section 25, township 114, Range 21, lying. westerly of Interstate 35, from R-1 single family district to "B-4" General Business District or "ICD" Interstate Corridor District. We further petition that the above described land remain as "R-1" residential zoningr for the following reasons: 1. Rezoning of the land from "R-1" to either "B-4" or "ICD" would reduce the values of adjoining residential property that is already in residential use. • 2. The adjoining residents to the land to be rezoned, built their homes and have invested large amounts of money in the homes based on the current comprehensive -plan which designates the land as "R-1", To rezone this land defeats the purpose of the comprehensive plan and compromises the property rights of the adjoining land owners, 3. The people seeking the rezoning are not residents of Lakeville and would not be adversely affected by the rezoning whereas current Lakeville. residents would be adversely affected by decreased property values, and negative environmental impact. 4. The. use of the land as "B-4" or "ICD-" wou~.d have adverse environmental impact • on the area for the following reasons: _ A. The land has springs and low lying grass lands creating a problem for sanitary holding or septic tankso P ~ B. County Road 70 - a two lane road could not adequately handle the traffic that would be created by a "B-4" of "ICD" zoning. • C. The noise, air pollution and surface drainage. of a "B-4" or "ICD" usage in an area that directly adjoins a wooded residential area would cause serious adverse environmental impact on the area. We aze therefore requesting an environmental impact study be made on the area proposed for rezoning including, but not limited to, sub-soil stability tests, water table tests, surface drainage analysis, sewage treatment plant impact, . and affect on the surrounding area including Lake Marion.. " 5. The comprehensive zoning plan which was adapted over ten years ago at a great expense to the taxpayers as well as consuming a large amount of time ~ • of both the City Council and Planning Commission is now being challenged. The Comprehensive Zoning Plan was developed to provide consistent zoning patterns to protect residents of the City against patchwork zoning, To ignore this Comprehensive plan is a gross waste of time and money as well as an injustice to the residents of Lakeville. 6. The Planning Commission and Council should be presented with a detailed side plan concerning roadways, drainage, sewage treatment plant capacity, buildings, elevation, soil samples, road accesses and environmental impact. A feasibility study has not been completed on the proposed land to be rezoned. Both a feasibility study and an environmental impact study should be made before any consideration of rezoning. 4 1 4 To rezone the proposed area to "B-4" or "ICD" in the midst of an area presently zoned residential is in conflict with .good planning and land usage. 8. The land .contour and topography compliment residential usage not business or industrial usage. 9. Ample "B-4" and "ICD" zone areas currently exist under the comprehensive plan in Lakeville to service the needs of business and industry without. having to resort to the compromising of the comprehensive plan. • i We, the undersigned, therefore do petition that the afore described land remain as R-]. residential zoning. ~tra~,e ~ddYCSS Tc/e1'4rs4 r~s D _ "/~~~L~tL-'Z- ~ ~-~L Il t!(.i 1 r G~~~~ ~JZL' .-~i~ h~!((J. 7 ~1 y Y 1 ` / J / v _ ~ ~ ~ ~-off G' ' > ~~r C; ~ / 7 ,i ' ~ ~-1 ~ i o ~ s-t L Q,re v ~//e ~ /yl~' ss o y ~a. ~ ia~o ~ ~ ~ , G~~ , t ~m ~ r ~ r j l,b<.•.~ G>"`~, ~ ~ ~.,2`~j0 ~~~G'4 ~ .Lp1~. ~ (Ltd ~1 ~ ~ 6 - ~ ~ ~ / . r 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Y.'~' i We, the undersigned, therefore do petition that the afore. described land remain as R-p residential zoning. I ~-33~ ~a t 0~ ~ ~ by ~~b~~ ~7 3 ~ ~ ~ G~ '._.-j s-`~~ ~ ~1 C(~,'ltS~~u,~~~' 1 ~ ~L i~ ~ ~ C-~`v-.'L ~ Z.~ ~ _JU ~ E- L It ~ I`'L 1 / !f-~C._ E.:~ . C. N ~ r _ 1 , ~ ~--f' ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~z~~~ 1 I • _ • We, the undersigned, therefore do petition that the afore described land remain as R-1 residential zoning. ~Y~ ~ ~1 ~ J'~ sS ~ C le per a h ~ r~ l ~ ~'.?~.S c.7 --~~c.C.flilL~`"Y__, ~ i/\) ..c-Gl - i~_ri.~c-c-~ is ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ i f l - ~~E/ 'ZGt/C'`t~ ~~l~/ ~ d ~ ~ i l~if ~ j' - L ~7 ~ ~ .~c .mss J~ - ~ i / ono _ y- ,yam i i 2 3 9,3 ~o ~ ~s~-w, `/~9 - 2Y`.~8`