The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-16-81 i l.alceville, Minnesota_ Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 1981 Chmir+n Harvey called the meeting to order at;7:32 p.m. in the-Lakeville City Ca~rnc i I CMs Roll calf csf ~ wens taken: Present: Antolik, Harvey, Miller, Enri~t. Ab~rnt• Ge+ianaess, Johreon, Rice Ala~o nt: R r Kr~rts®n, City Attarttey; Sid Miller, City Building Official;.. Alan Brixius, City Planraerr. The Chairreaa7 r~uested a review of the 2 July 1981. Planning. Commission meeting mi rnatea . Mr. Harvey that on 4, ph t, approximately 20 lines down the ~ntence recsds: "Mr. miller stinted he felt lot size was up the applicant." The sentence shcearld reel: "Mr. Miller stated he felt lot size was up to the applicant." 81.124 twAotion w+ by Enright, seconded by Antolik to approve the 2-Ju y 1981 Planrairg Commission mirwtes as amended . Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey moved on to then conditional use permit for Ken Zak to build a garage over 1,41 ware feet at 21490 Keokuk Avenue W . and to rezone the property from (-1 and ICd to R-1. He stataad that. the Commission closed the public hearing at their lit neretirtg. NoAr. Za#c s t}xat he was carrrently just interested in receiving the rezoning and the carrditiorrr~l use permit.:. tie may pamue a PUD in the future. . hAlier Mr, to clarify,ttre request. Mr. Harvey stated the applicant is tira~ that his pr ty be rezarred from 1-1 and ICDtoR-i artid theco~itional use permit wou Id allow the cctr~ tiewr •f a an?er 1, 0~ aware fleet . The P { anni rrg Cor?itaoiatsion's s practise in tirtig a coraditicarrtal uee perrr?it far o gar of that siae is vvitfi the condition # ~ erccrrtion is rat+~ in the buildi~. Mr. Harvey went cet b say C issiarr td consider rez€~tirrg th+e remainder ~ ttae t-i zee+fng district west a#' 1-~~ and aaut#+ csf the Zak prreperty tet R-1. idles Enri~?t ~r id that would raga i re a p~lic heeri ng . 11+1r . Anta1 ik acrid that they shovldt not initiate base rezoning . Mrs. Enfiit asked Mr. Knut'aon s'the Zak request required two recomrtaendatioras. 1Vtr. Kmrts+sn replied that two recommendations should be given. 1 Lakevi I I e, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 1981 81.13a Matia~ vwas node by Enright, seconded by Miller to recommend approval 'of the rezoning of Mr. Zak's property -from l-1 and ICD to R-1. Rc>!I call was taken cm the motion: Ayes: Unanimous 81.131 Motion wc~s made by Miller, seccmded by Enright to recommend approval of the can- ditional use permit to allow the construction of a garage that is-over l,t)OO square feet at 21490 Keaku~C Avenue. W. with the following conditions: No home occupation will bs c:perarted out of garage .and na body shop wi I 1 be operated .out of .the garage . Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing 'on the application of Donald'Scheidler to build a garage addition requiring a side yard variance in the setback at 6$46 167th ..Street West. Mr. Scheidler stated that the planner's report told him what healre~yknew But building the garage in back of his home would trness up his yard . He stated that he can extend his garage 5 feet Legally, but would I ike more to use for the storage of his mobile home . 'The garage would protect his home and property. ~ , Mr. Harvey e~lained that a variance is allowed only for a physical hardship unique to the property. The setbacks are l0 feet to permit fire protection. Mr. Knutson added that the established'setb~ack is a prc?tectian of air, Tight and fihe utility easements. Granting a vairiance for reascx~s other than'the established criteria would establish a precedent because the City m~est treat evergone equally. Mr. Scheidler stated that placement of the garage behind his house would take a large portion of his yard. He stated that l~e'krtovws of variances for 8 foot fences that are not justified, l+Ar. Knutson stated the present Planning Commission has taken a hard stand on varigr?ces . ' if variances. far fences do exist he was not aware of them, however, they mtiy have been a mistake Mrs. Enright asked `if the request was` fc~r a 3 foot encroachment. Mr: Knutson responded that. the structure would be 3 feet from the property I ins . 81.132 Moti°on v~rs made by E'nrig~i~tt, sesconded by Antolik to class the public hearing. Roll. call was taken on the,. motion: Ayes: Unanimous 3 i Lakeville, Minnesota ~fannir~ Commission Meeting 16 Jviy 198i 51.133 _ iesn a by Antali#, sec by Enright to recommend that the request far ' variance be denied as stated in ~e 9 July 1481 pla~mer's r~pcrt. Rcrtl ccsll, taken or+ n~rtian: Ayes U~nimous C1~air~an Harvey ones! the public. hearing on the application of William Trailer to build a sun room edition requiring a side yard setback variarxre at 9$45 Oak Share Drive . Mr. Knutsatl stated the hearing was o duly publicized public hearing. Mr. Trailer stated he nte~d the greEn house on tf,e west side of the house to get'the sun. The homes is smaller than the rtieigl°~oring`hcxnes arxi the addition would not create a major visual impact. The tendency in the neighborhood is a shift to the west. t~th neighboring homes shift to the west. There is ample distance between the two homes to maintain the atcrmwat+er merit. Mr. Trdiser stated that a deck would be a permitted encroachment ark felt-the solariuaA was just acovered-deck. He said the structure could also be canti lea~red frr~m the hcwse . Mr. Kr?srtsan saki the solarium should be`'considered a structuree, not a dect~c Qnd is • nab a permitted ~ncraachment. Mr. Harvey said that under the ofd Ordinance a deck wouf~trt't be permitted if the railing is dove the first floor. Mr . A~tcal ik msk~d haw merry feet was between the Bonner's home and the applicant's . AAr. Trailer said there was 23 feet between the Bonner's home and"their property line. Mr. Trailer said that visual impact shovtd be one of the criteria far a variance . 81.134 a~ v+ms by Miller, by Enright to close the public hearing. ftall ill n ~ t~ mcstiaan: Ayes: Unanimous hAr. Nar~? if the r t wars fora 4 foot encroachment or 4 feet from the property lilts. Mr. Krxrtscm relied that the request is fora 6 footencroachment. Mr. Harvey n the is could legally request tobuild'within 10 fs3et of their pro~cty'1 i r~ 81.135 A~lotion wtss made by Harvey, ~conded by Enright. to-recomrnerxl that the request for the side yard variance at 4845 Oak Shore Drive be denied.. Mr. Miller stated that he wi~?ed-there was more flexibility in cases such as these variance requests . • ;3 i Lakeville, Minnesota Planni~ Commission. Meeti~ 16 July 1981 . Roll call was. taken on the motion: Ayes: Miller, Enright, Harvey.. Abstain: Antolik Chairman Harvey c~ened the public hearing on he application of the City of Lakeville to amend the Zoning C3rdinance No. 167, Section. 28, by providing as q conditional use in an R-3 zone, single family house size minimum square footage of less than current minimums . Mr . Knutson stated the hearing was du I y pub I i c i zed . Mr. Ken Carlson stated th~+t they intended to have Gary 5olomsan give a presentation, hover, he was detained due to a family crisis. He stated that there is a need for. sn+aller affordable housing in Lakeville. .The reduction within the R-3 zoning district would not effect the Foxbsx®ugh development, however, some steps mustbe takentoreduce housing sizes. - Mr. Harvey gvoted from the 6 Juiy 1911 Economic unit of U.S. News and World Repot in'their annual midyear size "The primary lending rate has fallen 5 to 6 percent kcrn a 20% level. NAort rates will ease slightly by year's end." Mr. Anteslik asked where will the R-3 L}istrict go. He is not keen on lowering the • housing size standards. He feels that they should receive some input from the Po{ice t3epartr~nt crud other City staff . Mr. Miller asked what percent of the people can afford a home? Mr. Carlson stated 5°!0. Mr. Antolik stated that this will open up the City to the developer is only looking for a buck, and will result in poor quality housing. Mr. Car{son stated that these would be $60,000 homes. Mr. Antolik said the City`wovld also get cheaper modular horr~s. Mr. Antolik said that a reduction below 4t50 square feet would not be ber~ficia) . Mrs. Enright stilted she sees a need for smaller housing since people aren't getting married as ycxng and there are smaller households. Mr. Carlson said the market will decide what will be built. Many other cities don't have any, housing size r~uirements. Mr. Antolik said he wasn't far the reduction., The smaller housing will result in row housing with no design. Mr. K~wtson stated that crieptive subdivision design must be promoted by the City staff, Planni ~ Commission and Counc i I . • 4 ! Lakevili'e, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 1981 Mr. Miller stated that he has listened to both Mr. Harvey's and Mr. Antolik's nts and while many points are valid,: he disagrees with Mr Harvey that the cor~ern is not totally an economic question. He feels that everyone is living more coruervatively and using I~ss. He also disagreed with Mr. Antolik, he does not see why smaller housing cannot be creative. Mr. Antolik stated this issue should be decided on a vote of the full Commission. Mrs. Enright said`fhe Commission has been discussing this issue much too long, some action should be taken. .81.13E Motion wa: made by Enright, seconded by Miller to close the public hearing. Roll call"~arxs -taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Harvey concurred with Mrs. Enright that the issue should be resolved and a recom- mendation should be given:. Mr. Antolik disagreed, askir~ for a vote of the entire Commission • Mrs. E~i~ht scald she was sorry that eveyone was not there, however, everyone knows when the meetings are scheduled and should be here. Mr. Antolik noted the two-story requirement said 720 square feet first floor above grade is smaller tin the Council Chtambers. He is concerned that the developers are only loo{cing for a buck and have little regard for the City. We must protect the development that already exists in the City. Mr. Miller said that the City can control this development. Mr. Knutson added that it is unlikely thaf someone wil") purchase a $40,000 lot and build a $50,000 home. 8T .137 Motion was a by Enright, seconded by Miller to amend Ordinance 167, Section 28 with the amendment suggested in-the.3 June 1981 Planner's report. Mr. Hervey read the provisions. of the .amendment: a. Reductions can occur only in a subdivision containing pt minimum fifty (50} to#s (the subdivision does not necessarily have to have the same zoning classification thr cwt) . b. The number of r~uced structures steal( not exceed twenty-five.. (25} percent of 'the units within the. s~division. i 5 i lakevi I le, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 1981 c . fifty (50} percent,. of the seduced structures. must be within the first ldition or phase of the subdivision. d. Sifts plan must show area for future expansion of the dwelling unit within the required yard setbacks. e. Garaugas must be p?ra,ric#sd with structures constructed at a reduced floor area r~Ulr~"meat : f. A di~arsity of architectural hc3usir+g styles must be provided. in a subdivision that permits dwelling units with a reduced floor area requirement. Mr. Carlson askead for a ciarifiication c?n the definition of split entry -whether it was a 1 1/2 story ar a split ie~rel . Mr. Llrixius scald that ~ 1 1/2 story was 'intended to include split entry. Mrs. Enright amended her rr~tion to hawe the amendment read,ths 1 and 1/2 story and split entry units 850 square feet first floor above grade. • Mrs. Enright called the question. -Roll call was aken on the motion:.. Ayes: ~nright, Harvey, Miller. Nayes: Antolik Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing-on the application of the City of >Lakeville to amend, the Zoning Ordinance No. 1b7, Section 10.4 (g) for sign general provisions as they p+srtain to home ~cupatior~. Mr;, Knutson said the ing was stuly publicized. Mr. Knutson s#ate~l that a few months ago 4 home occupation r t was befcxe-the Council and the applicant requested a sign tra advertisYe his bbsiness. Thy C~wrncil thvvght there was a treed to consider amending the ordinanat. AAr. Knutson said the origi+~l proposed refererscard rural character which is ham! t4 define end would bs difficul t to enforce . Mr: Nc?rvsy s ted tha# rural chesrsrct~r would be no dwsllirg within 1~ feet of the home occupaticm. Sid Miller scab tl~# every h rccupatiort should be allowed one sign. Mr Antolik agreed wi #h Sid Miller and w ted 4 s ize of 16 x 24 inches . . 6 t Lakeville, Minnesota. Planning Camrrlission Meeting 16 July 1981 11.135 l1A~ivn was a by Enright, seconded by Harvey to close the-public hearing. Rdi call wa~a taken on the maticm: Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Harvey su led a 4 s~r~e foo# sign anywhere in the City. 81.139 Itic~ way a by t~arnay seconded by Enright to amend C>rdirx~nce 176, Section 8.6 to ca ft~l lc?ws: C~flifi~NC€ NO. CITY Of t.AKEVILLE DAKOTA CCtUNTY, Ib11NNESOTA AN C?RD1NA1~1CE NI~1MG CfRDINANCE NO. 176, SING THE I.AtCEVILLE SIGN ORDINANCE ~3~: `-The City Gates i ( a~f tf~ City crf l~cevi l to ordai ~ as furl l ernes: • Sectitx+ l . Chdinarece IVrs. 176 is amended by addirx~ thereto Section 13.6 to read as follows: Hone Csccupation Suns. Home occupation signs are prohibited, except far identi rcation. Such signs are subject to the following: 1. A sign application shell be processed in conjunction with a special hone occupation permit and shall be subject to review by the Planning Commissisxt`and review and approval by the City Council 2. ldo mare tftan ogre sign rimy. be dispiayed perproperty. The sign may not exceed fog (4) re feet and eight feet in height end may only be di~lcryed c~+ the property licensed for the he occupation. Sectic~ 2. Thia C#rdi a stall kre effective immediately upon..its and pal icatit~. Ad Ilia ~da'1':e?f ~ 191 7 i Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting lb July 1981 Mr. Harvey asked if the 8 foot maximum height was alright. Sid Miller said the height was necessary far Iota below street grime. Mr. Antolik said the signs are likely to be put at a height that can be seen from a car. Nk. Miller said he wouldn4 want on $ foot sign next to his borne . Mr:. ~ixius suggested they make the height so many feet above street grade. 'Mr. Antolik su ted 5 feet in height. Mr. Hovey amended his motion tt~ change the maximum height to g feet above stmt grade, seconded by .Enright . Roll call was takeen on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Chairman f~la welt moved on to amend Ordinance 167 , Mr. Miller asked if the amendment addressed the. big sign on the side of barrn. Mr. Krnrtsc~n said that it strictly applies to home occupations. 81.140 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Miller to recommend approval of the arnerdment to Ordinance 1b7, Section 10.4 (i) (g}, , • Roll call wqs taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Other i~si Hess Mr. Brixius explained that the Planning Commission should schedule a public hearing on August 6, 1981 to review the 701 Plan. 81.141 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Miller to schedule a public hearing to review the 701 Study on August 6, 1481. Roll call w~ taken on the matic+n: Ayes: Unanimous Mr, ~nrey ed what is beit~ d~'te witfi 'the backhoes on (-35. Their conditior~l use permit forbade storir~ equipment in pul7lie view, That equipment is suppose to be in the gravel pit. Th±er~ are currently two machines on display for sale along 1-35. Ha suggested that Sid Miller investigate. Mr . Antolik noted the number of building permits was up over last year . 8 N . a Labceville, hAirrnesota ~I~^rrtir~ Commission. Meseting • li J~riy 1~1 futwe its T st~ciy 81.142 ...ion ~nt~ ik to o~~ rn t#~ m~eti r~ . Voice n c~ tP~e ice,: Ayers: thtanimca~s Tie Chc~irrs~t cs~~o~n~d the meting at 9:36 p.m. R ctfvlly st~mitted, N€~ncy Enrig t , ~+cting cre ary ATTEST: • tstr~c . Hervey, rrrn 9