Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-81 t Lakeville, Minnesota .City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 1981 Chairman .Harvey 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; Enright; Miller; Rice. Also present: David Licht, City Planner; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Frank Kriz, City Engineer; Sid Miller, City Building Official. Thee Chairman requested a review of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 5 February 1981. Mr. Harvey stated that the spelling of Leonard Tuma's name on page 2 of the minutes was incorrect . $1.31 Motion was .made by Rice, seconded by Antolik to approve the 5 February Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous . Chairman Harvey opened the continued and the new public hearing. on the applica ion of William O. Cooley and Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of the Twin Cities, Inc. for rezoning of a portion of property from R-1, Low Density Residential, to B-4, General Business, and I.C.D., Interstate Corridor District, located west of I-35, south of 205th Street and north of 2lOth Street. Mr. Knutson attested to the validity of the hearing.. Mr. Licht explained that the proposed project now involved possible residential development which, if acceptable, would require yet another public notice. Mr. Raplinger, a resident of the area, stated that he was confused by the Interstate Corridor District and that residents were not notified as required by law when the City enacted this zoning. Mr. Knutson indicated that state Law provides that when a rezoning of an area in excess of 5 or 10 acres is considered, no,mailed notices to property owners is required. As part of the 1980 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Map and text, extensive publication took place in the City's official newspaper and additionally numerous neighborhood meetings were held. To mail notices to each property. owner in the City would have been prohibitive. The City did everything possib(eto let the community know what action was being considered. Mr. Dennis Mass, resident of the area, asked for further clarification of the I .G.D. rezoning process to which Mr. Harvey responded. Mr. Leonard Tuma stated that he wished to challenge the City Attorney's opinion and stated an opinion from the State Attorney General would be pursued. Mr. Knutson indicated only a unit of government could request an opinion from the Attorney General and that the residents recourse was consulting a private attorney. Mr. Knutson stated further that he had thoroughly researched this matter and that the City had operated in good faith. Mr. Knutson requested that the Police Department be contacted and deliver a copy of the statutes to the Council Chambers so that the matter could be clarified . Mr. Harvey stated that he recognized .that no mailed notice was a problem, but thafi while he was not a member of the Planning Commission during all of the Comprehensive Plan, he was aware of the neighborhood meetings. Lakeville, Minnesota City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 1981 Mr. Cooley appeared and stated that he had met personally with the neighbors and respected the agrument for a residential buffer on the west side of the property as valid . Plans had been changed accordingly, as well as providing modifications as suggested by staff. Mr. Tuma reappeared and stated the residents did not object to the 5 or 10 acre development on land presently zoned B-4 and I .C.D. He stated, however, that the proposed outlot should not be developed as the storm water generation would be too great for the area to handle. While the residents know the outlot will some day be zoned to something else other than R-1, the present zoning should be reta.~ed until sewer is available. Mr. Harvey stated that to leave the property as R-1, yet know some other zoning will later be implemented would be a disservice to future property purchases in the area. Mr. Licht explained that without sewer and water no multiple units could be constructed based upon present zoning ordinance require- ments. He further explained that ,it was his opinion that the configuration of the outlot did not lead itself to division into single family or duplex type development.. Clustering of units would be required . Mr. Miller provided Mr. Knutson with the State Statutes which he had requested. Mr. Knutson cited Chapter 462.357.3 which provides that rezonings of 5 acres or less requires mailed notic' in addition to official publication. Rezonings involving Larger areas are exempt from the mailing requirement. The rezoning which took place in 1980 involving .the I .C.D. was part of changes affecting the total 3$ square miles of the City. He then provided Mr. Raplinger with the Statute Book. Mr. Harvey indicated that the residents should be aware of probable development in the area. He cited a letter he had just received from Ungar Realty with regard to a possible mote{ at County Road 20 and 1-35. Mr. Licht stated the ordinance provided an extreme amount of control through conditional use permits required for almost every possible development. Mr. Cooley stated he felt the City had a very good ordinance and that there is thorough control on the part of the City. Mrs. Enright stated she believed it important to now establish a buffer zone and for the Commission to do proper planning and zoning for the future of the area. Mr. Rice stated he felt. the area should stay as it is. Mr. Harvey expressed the opinion that the Commission needed to be fair to the applicant as well as other present and future property owners in the area and provide an indication of what development would occur in the area. Direction on R-6 versus R-1 zoning should be provided. Mr. Tuma questioned who was paying for the evaluation of the request and the various notices. Mr. Licht responded that the applicant is charged for all direct costs. Mr. Licht further explained the I.C.D. District. Mr. Geisness questioned why a planned` unit development district should not be applied to the property in question. Mr. Licht stated that it was his opinion that conventional zoning was more appropriate due to the current stage of site planning and the questionable timing of public service extensions. 2 I . Lakevi I Ie, Minnesota City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 1981 Mr. Antolik questioned the sizing of Outlot A and if it was sufficient for the storm water runoff. Mr. Kriz stated that the area was sized according to the comprehensive storm water. management plan and that the runoff fio be accommodated was in excess of the Cooley/ Naegele land . Commissioner Johnson stated that he sensed agreement between the opp) icant and the neighbors on the Layout and land use. ~ Mr. Tuma responded that the 'R-1 zoning should stay as it is. Mr. Antolik stated he felt~'th~ buffer was a good idea. Mrs. Enright stated the rezoning represenf~d good Long range Manning and that R-1 zoning was not appropriate. Commissioner Willer co`n~urred with Commissioner Enright's comments. Iv1r. Harvey stated the applicant, as well as the residents should'be given an indication. of the Commission's feelings on the development, even though no possible formal action could be taken at this meeting. Mr. Geisness stated he favored a PUD. Commissioner Antolik stated the R-6 buffer was appropriate as proposed. Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Enright and Mr. Miller stated they favored the R-b buffer. Mr. Rice indicated his position was to leave the R-1 zoning as now shown. Mr. Harvey stated the buffer was a good long term use. Mr. Cooley reappeared and stated he believed that the alternative now proposed accommodates°90 percent of the neighbors' concerns and that thorough protection was offered to the community by the Zoning Ordinance provisions.. He further stated that he and Mr. Naegele would be the owner/developer of the property and to check the quality of their past projects. He stated they were interested only in first class development. 81 .32 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Rice to continue the public hearings until a time requested by the applicant. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey questioned Mr. Knutson as to whether the public hearing on the application of Mid-America Festivals Corporation for a conditional use permit to develop property within 1,000 feet of Lake Marion, located west of I-35 arrd north of Minnreg Road had been properly advertised. Mr. Knutson stated mailed notices had not been sent so the hearing should not be opened but readvertised. Mr. Licht stated no action was being requested on this matter at this time, as the environmental assessment worksheet would address the issues involved and that work on the worksheet had been suspended pending direction from the City Council . Mr. Glenn Nord,'attorneyrepresenting this applicant, indicated there was confusion. on the part of the City Council on fhe Commission's 5 February 1981 vote on the Renaissance PUD applica- tion. Mr. Harvey said the matter would be discussed. later in the meeting under other business. 3 Lakeville, Minnesota • City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 1981 The Chairman opened the public hearing-on the proposed amendment to the City's zoning ordinance, Section 6.2, concerning urban development and availability of public services in planned unit developments. Mr. Knutson attested to the validity of the hearing. Mr. Licht explained the background of the request and the staff recommendation. Commissioner Rice stated that he felt the matter should be tabled until the Renaissance issue was resolved, although he was for the proposed change. 81.33 Motion was made by Miller, seconded by Johnson to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous 81.34 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Miller to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Section 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the City Planner in his report dated 23 January 1981 . Roll call was-taken on the motion. Ayes: Enright; Miller, Geisness; Antolik; Harvey; Johnson: N°ays: ~ Rice • The public hearing on the application of Douglas M. Stevens to vacate an easement in the .northeast corner of Section 33, near Todd Chevrolet was opened by Chairman Harvey. Mr. Knutson attested to the validity of the hearing. Mr. Kriz explained the background to the request and responded to questions from the Commission.. 81 .35 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Geisness to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Commissioner Miller questioned who holds the easement in question to which Mr. Knutson responded that it was the City. 81.36 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Johnson to recommend to the City Council approval of the vacation of the easement in the northeast corner of Section 33, near. Todd Chevrolet subject to the report and recommendations of the City. Engineer and City Attorney. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous • 4 Lakevi I le, .Minnesota City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February T981 Under other business, Chairman Harvey stated that the City Council had discussed and tabled action on the Renaissance. PUD application at their meeting on 17 February T98T . The Council had indicated a desire for the Planning Commission to clarify the reasons for their individual votes, as well as providing an, indication as to the acceptability of the office and residential use proposed as Phase III. of the PUD. The Commission discussed the timing of such comment, as well as the most appropriate manner in which to provide the information to the City Council and general public. Mr. 1lilgenberg suggested that such action be delayed until the next meeting.. Mr. Harvey indicated he believed the: comments should be provided for{the City Council's next meeting on 2 March which is prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rice stated his position and reasons were unchanged. The public outcry against the. request demonstrates the Festival's incompatibility. He further opposed rezoning the residential area to commercial which would be done if the Festival were allowed. Mr. Harvey indicated he voted in favor of all three phases and the acceptability of land use based upon his opinion that the area will develop in the near future; if:done correctly, the Renaissance can be compatible with other surrounding developmsrgt and use;-.and while • screening and. traffic questions are not totally resolved, the applicant should not be limited prematurely from attempting to solve these prgblems. A member of the audience questioned if Mr. Harvey's vote would be the same if he lived next to the proposed Renaissance Festival site. Mr. Harvey stated that. was the very issue he considered in drawing his conclusion on the matter . Commissioner Enright stated she .wished to record her concurring with Mr. Harvey's comments. She indicated she believed there was a need to continue to explore the feasibility of the proposed development. Additionally, she stated- her opinion that the environmental protection provided was acceptable.. The Festiva! also has good community service potential and the Festival operation was a good interim use.. She further stated she had thoroughly studied the background material and the Comprehensive Plan and believed that the plan, especially community. goal number 3 on page 29 of the Policy Plan/Development Framework and .natural/environmental policy number. 2 on page 30 of the same report, support the Renaissance request. Commissioner Johnson indicated his feeling that the Renaissance Festival. was a good idea but the City had made a commitment to urban development in the Lake Villa Golf Estates Sub- division to the north and that the Festival operation constituted a change in course from established development policy for the area. • 5 .Lakeville, Minnesota • City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 1981 Mr. Antolik stated his vote against the application was based upon his opinion that the land could be used for a better tax generator for the City than would result from the Festival; that traffic was a major problem and it is questionable if it could ever be resolved; the Festival operation would create access difficulties for properties located north of the site; and the Festival operation offered no benefit to the Lakeville business community. Mr. Geisness stated he voted against the application because of the wording of the motion, plus a concern over control . He stated his belief that theFestival in and of itself was not controllable. He would prefer the site l~e,developed in a•~pmpus.-hype corporate headquarters fashion similar to 3-M, General Mills or Cargill . The Festival would possibly delay such use and is incompatible with current neighbors. Too much activity and traffic would result and strain the neighborhood . Commissioner Miller indicated that the Festival was in his opinion not compatib{e. The City could do much better on taxbase than what the Festival operation would generate . The City should be very choosey on what development it allowed at this location. Development by, local b.vsi,ness people would, bye 8referable, but other good quality development would be • acceptable. The Festival operation would also constitute an invasion of privacy of the current residents, plus the traffic problem was not seen as solvable. Mr. Nord questioned whether the Commission would clarify its position on Phase III of the Mid-America Festival's application. Mr. Licht explained this involved the proposed office and residential development. Mr. Rice stated he opposed rezoning of the property as the office or commercial, as well as the residential use could be accomplished under the zoning currently on the land. He objects to any rezoning west of Interstate 35, as this is not a reservoir for future development in the community.. Commissioner Geisness stated he was favorable to a use other than residential on the western portion of the Renaissance site. This comment did not necessarily mean more intensive activity, however. Mr. Tuma reappeared and stated that the City should listen to and follow the feelings of the residents and not the professional planner wha has developers in his back pocket. Commissioner Miller stated he in no way questioned the integrity of Mr. Licht or the other staff and that they provide va{uable input as do the citizens through the public hearing and public meeting process. He stated he felt the office and- residential use acceptable. Mr. Harvey concurred that Phase III was in his opinion acceptable. Mrs. Enright, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Antolik indicated their agreement with office and residential use. Chairman Harvey reported to the Commission. that he had received a letter from the Ungar Realty Company who owns the Tom Bell site and their interest in investigating possible motel development in the vicinity of County Road 70 and I-35. He referred the letter to staff for response . • 6 a r . r 4 Lakeville, Minnesota City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 1981 Sid Miller informed the Commission that a number of developers had questioned him on the minimum house size allowed by the Lakeville Zoning Ordinance. Due to costs, energy conservation, etc., they believe the standards should be lowered and they may .approach the Commission at a future meeting to make a presentation. Mr. Harvey advised the Commission of a federal report he had received on proposed solar heating code. The`'repbrt is`availa~ble to :dnyone interested. Commissione`t~Geysr~ess~~t4~ted a new `sign''had 'been erected by the Motor Cycle Shop on 175th and questioned if it was conforming. Mr. Miller stated that he had just seen the sign and was uncertain. Commissioner Johnson asked if action had been taken on the truck trailer. sign at the Lumber Jack Shop. Mr. Miiler stated they had been serif a registered letter advising, the operation they had one year to get rid of the sign. Mr. Licht advised the Commission that Mr. Paul Krause had contacted' him.and Mr. Miller • over. the last week .with regard to the Power Center signs. 'Mr. Krause had indicated he had been out of town and this was why Mr. Licht's' I~tter had not been responded to earlier. Mr. Krause indicated a comprehensive sign plan for the Power Center. was being prepared and would be submitted for City review. Mr. Licht further reported that he had observed that al I portable signs had been removed . Mr. Harvey reported he had attended recent meetings of the Natural Resources Committee and the Park and Recreation Committee for the purpose of communication and coordination. He stated the Park and Recreation Committee had requested a joint meeting suggested for 18 March to review mutual concerns. Various Commissioners stated there should be an explicit purpose to the meeting, as well as a list of topics to be covered. A presentation and review of the Park and Open Space Plan was suggested . 81.37 Motion was made by .Enright, seconded by .Johnson to extend the meeting beyond the 10:30 p.m. completion time. .Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Harvey; Johnson; Enright. Nays: Rice; Geisness; Antolik; Miiler 7 o Lakeville, Minnesota City Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 1981 81.38 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Harvey to adjourn the meeting. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, ruin . Geisness, Secretary ATTEST: x P trick Harvey, Chair an • • 8