Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-81 F City of Lakevi Ile Planniru,~ Commission Minutes May 21, 1481 Chairman Harvey called the Planning Commission meeting to`order at 7:32 p.m. RoII call was taken: Present: Geisness, Antolik, Harvey,"Miller. Absent: Enright, Johnson, Rice. C?thers Present: Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Frank Kriz, City Engineer; Sid Miller, City Building Official; and Alan Brixius, City Planner. Chairman Harvey asked for comments on the minutes of the May 7, 1981 meeting. Mr . Robert Mi I (er stated he had not received his report packet . Mr. Geisness stated that on page 5, paragraph 8 should be revised to read "Professional planners are good mechanics in the formulation of recommendations. The Planning Commission must make the broad policy decisions and they should not blindly take the.. recommendations." Mr. Geisness stated that on page 7, paragraph 13 should be changed to read: "Mr. Geisness asked what the height of the signs downtown may be?" 81.100 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Geisness to approve the May 7, 1981 Planning Commission minutes as amended . Roll ca.l) was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey reopened a continued public hearing on the application of Klotz Con- struction, Inc. for a conditional use permit to build a house wiahin 1,-400 feet of Orchard Lake and for a variance in setbacks from the lake and street at 120-168th Street W. Mr. 13ob Klotz stated that he had not received a letter requesting a shoreland impact plan and building plans until a day before the last Planning Commission. meeting and didn't feel this was fair. Mr. Klotz had Jim. Robinette and Sid Miller on the site to explain his intensions. The garage would be 1 foot above street grade and 3 to 4 feet above high water. No vegetation would be disturbed . Mr. Klotz stated he was in a bind for time and needs the variances . Mr. Harvey asked if the Naturaf'Resources Committee had an opportunity to review this reciuest . • t 1 City of Lakeville Planning Commission. Minutes May 21, 1981 Mr. Brixius stated that the Natural Resources Committee had reviewed the request and had passed a motion concurring .with the May 15, 1981 Planner's report. The Committee also wants: to review the applicant's shoreland impact plan and erosion control plan. Mr. Brxius stated that the applicant's lot is a buildable substandard lot because it was platted prior to thee-effective date of the Ch-dinance and meets 70% of the lot area require- ments. The app('cant is requesting variances for the front yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback and a 20 foot gradinG setback from the lake. Exhibit D of the Planner's report was prepared by the Planner's office and 'illustrates the grading a{teration basted an the garage being one foot above the streef grade and grading specifications on the applicant's building plans. Significant grading is indicated. The applicant has not provided any grading or shoreland impact plans so a more accurate evaluation of the request has not beenpo~sible. Mrs ..Thomas Hudson stated that there may be a property dispute . A survey of her property done by Gene Jacobson indicates that the west side of her lot line extends 10 to 15 feet into the Klotz property as shown on his survey. Mr. Klotz stated that the dispute is with the lot #o the east of Mrs . Hudson and does not affect his property . Mr . Harvey stated that if her lot lines are not certain, the dispute may effect him. Mrs. Hudson stated that Tennyson found on a 1965. survey that he gained land to the west. She is certain that she has 111 feet of s~rreet frontage either way. Mrs. Hudson stated she is opposed to the side yard variance because Nk . K I otz may be bu i (ding on her property . Mr . Knutson said i t • was a legol matter. Mr . Antol i k asked i f the (ot was sold . He stated that he thinks the house is not proper for the lot. Mr. Klotz asked if the City could restrict the housing style. Mr. Knutson responded that the variances can only be granted fora physical hardship. Mr. Geisness stated he would like the lot line issue cleared up and some new housing designs cor~idered prior to taking action on the request. Mr. Klotz said he didn't feel there was a problem with the lot line. Mr. Knutson stated that property line disputes can be costly and time consuming.. Some determination should be made as to whether there is a bona fide dispute one way or the other. Frank Kriz stated that it was a private surveying dispute or error. He would work with Gene Jacobson and check his notes and try to determine if there is a dispute. Mr. Kriz stated the surveyor just uses the irons that he finds, and an error may have occurred . If is a legal matter if a shortage exists. Regarding the building site, Mr. Kriz informed Mr. Klotz that the requested information is necessary for a thorough review. The requested information includes the existing elevations of the site, the proposed elevations, drainage, and erosion control . Mr. Harvey explained that if they don't know what is being proposed, the Commission cannot take action. ,e • 2 City of Lakeville Planning. Commission Minutes i May... ? 1, .1981 Mr. Geisrtess said he can sympathize with the applicant, however, he is concerned with the lot Line . He suggested that the Commission shou{d not vote it down, but have the concerns resolved prior o taking any action. Mr. Harvey concurred saying the lot line concern should be resolved, as it may have: an effect on the variance request. Sid Miller stated that Mr. McGarvey could give,an administrative variance from the garage elevation requirement. Mr. Klotz stated he could have his driveway coming in from the west . Mr. Kra stated that if the. proposed elevations are not provided, staff cannot evaluate the drainage orr the site. Mr. Harvey stated that a grading plan, a shoreland impact plan and .erosion control plan are needed. Mr. Kriz stated the shoreland impact plan should include a grading plan. 81.101 Motion. was made by Geisness, seconded by Antolik to continue the public hearing to allow time o clear up the side lot (irte.issue. RoII call was: taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harve ned discussion on the a Iication of Kenneth G. Zak for a conditional y ~ PP .use permit to build a garage over 1,000 square feet at 21490 Keokuk. Avenue W. Mr. Zak stated he had purchased the Waconia Model Home and checked if 'he could build a garage wi#h Sid Miller. Under the. current zoning he is required to build a masonry building instead of tin and is asking for a'variance from the-rear yard setback. He feels the proposed location is the most. suitable on the site. Mr. Antolik asked what type of building he was requesting. Mr. Zak stated he was proposing a building with wood frame and corrugated steel . Mr. Harvey described the applicant's lot location. Mr. Antolik asked what type of storage is involved. Mr. Zak stated he wanted to have sufficient space for recreational equipment such as his van, lawn equipment and his father-in-law's camper. Mr. Anton Hack wandered if the applicant has proposed starting a business in the building. Mr. Harvey exR;lained, that. usually,.thegarage conditiorx~l use permits are approved contingent won no horns occupation being loeoted in the structure... ~ . ~ . t Mr. Hack stated the house was built as a.mode) home and upon purchase the' hawse was to be relocated. 3 r City of Lakeville Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1.981 . Mr . Knutson asked i f i t was purchased kom a rea I for . Mr . Zak stated he bought the home through Edina Rena I h' . Mr. Knutson stated rezoning is appropriate for the area. Mr. Harvey stated the incident should not have happened. The configuration of the area favors rezoning to make the parcels large enough for development. There may be some problem with land use. Mr. Brixius stated the ICD Qistrict has provisions for buffering and screening. Mr. Antolik staged that he would like to seethe original Planning Commission recomerda- tion in 1973. Mr. Harvey read the City Council motion 73.31 in 1973 which took the r®corrnr+endation,from the Planning Commission. Mr. Geisness stated the purchase is fairly recent and there may be some recourse for the applicant. Mr. Knutson suggested the applicant contact an attorney. Mr. Zak stated he cannot afford the attorney's fees Mr. Harvey asked what action can the Commission take. Mr. Knutson said it could grant the conditional use. Mr. Antolik stated that this would not change the type of building that is required. Mr. Geisness stated that the should review the on final Planni Commission min tee. He • Y 9 n9 u stated that the zonirxt should not be changed from industrial . Industrial development may be the most appropriate. Mr. Brixius responded that the City Comprehensive Plan suggests a rural residential land use in this area. Mr. Miller agreed that the original Planning Commission minutes should be reviewed. Mr. Harvey asked what if the minutes indicated no resale. Mr. Knutson said the City could take recourse against Waconia Homes. Mr. Zak stated that Waconia Homes is bankrupt. Mr. Knutson stated that leaves the City no recourse, however, the applicant may have some recourse kom the realtor,; Mr. Geisness said a building of that size would increase the nonconformity. Mr. Knutson asked if there should be a notice for a public hearing on the rezonirtig. N~-. Antolik stag! a notice should not be published until the original Planning Commission minutes can be reviewed. Mr. Geisness stated the ICD generates mixed uses of development. Rather than changir~ the industrial zonir~ perhaps a variance is a better way to go.~~ ~ P - i Knutson stated that if the use turr~ out to be a legal nonco+iforming use the conditional use can be approved without a rezoning. 4 1 City of Lakeville Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1.981 Mr. Knutson stated that the request would be discussed again at the June'4th meeting. There won't_be any conclusions, however, the Commission should be able to provide some direction. Mr. Harvey suggested that Mr. Zak stop by the City Hall. and ask for a copy of the original Planning Commission minutes. 81.102 Motion was made by Miller, seconded by Antblik to continue the hearing at the June 4th meeting to permit the Commission to review the original 1973 Planning Commission minutes . Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes.: .Unanimous Ctther Business: Mr. Harvey directed. the Commission to the Planner's memo of May 21, 1.981 which noted an oversight in the Subdivision recodification which did not include Section 1, Subd. F.2 dealing with the administrative subdivision process dealing with the division of duplex and quadraminium units. He asked if this amendment required a public hearing.. Mr. Knutson said it didn't. require a hearing. • 81.103 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Harvey to include Section 1, Subd. F.2. in the recodified Subdivision as it reads in the May 21, 1981 Planner's report: Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Harvey referenced some planner's information regarding minimum housing size. Mr. Knutson said the City Council had Borne discussion on the topic and didn't know what to do about it. The City Councif referred it back to the Plonning .Commission far further study. The Commission can decide if another public. hearing is necessary. An alternative to be considered is allowing smaller housing size as a conditional use in an R-3 district. Mr. Geisness said that the same Commission members .will review the tic and will return, with the same conclusion in fihe same circumstances. He said he is convinced that a study group would work and result in a good decision. He suggested that the issue remain dormant for a while. Sid Miller said. the current ordinance doesn't address twostory and a storyand ahalf homes. Mr. Knutson said the City Council passed an ordinance amendment addressing this at their last meeting. Mr. Harvey noted a house-ng conferen+~~•..on June 3rd and asked about the $20 registra#ion fee. Mr. Knutson suggested that Mr. McGarvey be contacted to request the City Council approve funds far the registration fee . ~ \ i _i+ Mr. Robert. Miller statedhe was willing to attend. 5 1 • .4 City of Lakeville Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1981 • Mr. Miller stated that he wanted the Commission to consider amending the sign ordinance to increase the sine of political signs. The 3' x 4' signs are not allowed in the City. The smaller signs cannot be seen from the roads. The larger signs are standard size and should be permitted. Mr. Antolik said the Commission should not be involved in someone's political asperations and deal with the items that deal with the health, safety, and welfare of the City. Mr. Miller said prior to the sign ordinance these signs were acceptable in Lakeville. The issue should be brought to the attention of the City Council . Mr. Geisness asked how many signs Mr. Miller owned . Mr. Miller said 250 signs, but 400 are needed to cover the area. Mr. Geisness said 800 of those signs would be placed in the City and he felt that was too much. 81 ..1.04 Motion was made by Miller to amend C?rdinance 176, Section 5.1.5 to increase the size of political signs from 8 square feet to 12 square feet. Mr. Miller stated that the sign ordinance raises some constitutional question regarding the freedom of speech. Notion failed due to lack of a second. Future Agenda Items: Mr. Antolik asked about thecul-de-s4c along Len Nelson's property. Mr. Kriz said the cul-de-sac was developed as a substandard street. The placement of the cul-de-sac extends to the original street extension. Aful~ cul-de-sac would require a large portion of his property and realignment of his driveway. 81.105 Motion was made by Geisness to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Res tfully submitted, c ATTEST: . . ' ruin P. Geisness, Secretary P uric Harvey, h 'man b