Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-81 Lakeville, Minnesota Plannirx~ Commission Meeting i 6 August 1981 Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. in the Lakeville City Council chambers . Roll call of the members was taken: Present: Miller, Geisness, Antolik, Harvey, Johnson, Enright, Rice. Also present: Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Frank Kriz, City Engineer; Alan Brixius, City Planner; Sid Miller, City Building Official; and Brad. Nielsen of Northwest Associated Consultants . The Chairman requested a review of the lb July 1981 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Harvey noted the following errors. Page 1, second to last sentence should read: Mrs. Enright asked Mr. Knutson if the Zak request required. two recommendations. .Page 4, paragraph 5, should read: Mr. Harvey quoted from the ~ July 1981 Economic Unit of U.S. News and World Report in their annual mid-year size up. "Interest rates will ease this summer, with the widel watched prime lerxling rate falling b 5 to 6 percent from its current • 2fl percent eve , t e Economic Unit expects. Mortgage rates also will ease slight y• to 14 percent y year-end from 15-16 percent now." Page 4, paragraph 8, should read: Mr. Antolik stated that this will open up the City to the developer who is only lookiru,~ for a buck... Page 6, paragraph 11, last sentence should read: Mr. Knutson said the original pr Deal referenced rural character . Mr. Miller stated to clarify his intentions,. page 5, first paragraph should be changed to read: ...he disagrees with Mr. Harvey's ascertions that the concern was totally an economic question 81.143 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Miller to approve the lb July 1981 Planning Commission minutes as amended . Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Antolik,-Harvey, Enright, Rice. Abstain: Geisness, Johnson, Rice. Chairman Harvey opened discussion on the review of the site plan for the expansion of the Acorn Motel near I-35. Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 6 August 1981 Mr. Leo Coryour, the owner of the Acorn Motel was present to explain his request. He stated that he and his wife purchased the motel in July 1980. They feel that it is too small to be a good cash flow business. They have had. an 86% occupancy between July 1, 1980 to July 1, 1981. The Coryours are proposing to construct 14 regular motel units and 14 units with Kitchenettes for the weeklong visits. Mr. Coryour stated that there may be some confusion in the site review. They are proposing to rebate the office out of the house and into the motel . The addition shall also include a laundry, pool, meeting rooms and game rooms in the lower level . They are hoping to handle week long conferences and seminars. Frank Kriz stated that if the office is located in the motel, he sees no problem with on-site circulation. The access to 173rd Street may create traffic .problems in the area when it developes in the future. He suggested that if the applicant desires two driveways from 173rd, .they should be one-way drives with 24 foot curb cuts. Mr. Coryour stated that the 32 foot curb cut came from the State Highway Department, however, they are willing to go along with the City.. Mr. Kriz stated that if the applicant was willing to go with one access from 173rd, the 32 foot curb cut width wou d be alright. Mr. Coryour asked if the Highway Department deeds the easement land back to the City, would the City deed land along the south lot line to him. • Mr. Coryour stated that the southern access would serve the truck traffic, and he would be happy .with one curb cut. Mr. Corytwr mentioned the four parallel parking spaces noted in the planner's report, stating that he could move them into the bank to the north. Mr. Brixius stated that the planner's recommendation was made: to reduce traffic conflicts with incoming traffic and parking to the south. Mr. Brixius stated the applicant must file for a minor variance due to front yard setback violations that exist on the property. The violation had occurred due to the location of the I-35 easement. Since this is a public. action the minor variance is appropriate. 'The variance application could be reviewed by the Council at the same time as the site plan because it does not require Planning Commission review. Mr. Coryour questioned the need for loading berths because the type of use does not require a great deal of unloading. Mr. &ad Nielsen suggested that the applicant provide an unloading area that does not, conflict with the- required parking. Mr. Knutson agreed with Mr. Nielsen's suggestion sayirx,~ there is some latitude in the ordinance to permit the provision to meet the needs of the use. Mr. Coryour noted comments on basement flooding. Mr. Kriz stated that this is something that must be looked at. The erosion control plan should be reviewed and some on-site supervision should be made by Sid Miller or the City Engineer. 2 i ar . ~ Lakeville, Minr~sota Planning Commission Meeting • 6 ~4ugust 1981 Mr. Ccuyour said he would limit the amount of traffic an driveways near the house by making them one-way drives. Mr. Kriz said i$ the office was moved to the motel this would be alright. Mr, Rice asked if the Caryovrs were going to include a playground area on the site. Mr. Coryaur said they were not in the plans now, but there are areas on the site to accommodate a play area. Mr. Rice stated that a play area should be provided, as there are not any public playgrounds in the immediate area. If the motel is to be family oriented, these facilities should be provided. 81.144 Motion was made by Rice to approve the site plan contingent on the following conditions: 1 . Applicant must fife an application for minor variance. 2. The parallel parking spaces and the one stall in violation of the setback be relocated and subject to staff review. 3. The driveway in the northeast corner of the site should be changed to one-way and left at 15 foot width . Seconded by Geisness. i Roll call was taken on the motions Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Geisness asked if the loafing berth requirement should be inc{uded in the motion. Mr. Knutson recommended the (oadirtg berth. concern be made in a motion. 31 .145 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Antalik to eliminate the loading berth requirement for .the fol I owl ng reasons: 1 . The small amount of equipment Doming into the site. 2. y,Tlte intent, of .the provision is not being served and there is sufficient area on the site for an unloading area. Roll call waa taken on the motion: Ayes:.. Unanimous Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing on the application of the City of Lakeville for an addendum to the Lakeville Comprehensive Plan knczwn.as the Lake Area Redevelopment Plan for some areas adjacent and near Orchard Lake and Lake Marion. Mr. Brad Nielsen of Northwest Associated Cdnsultants made a presentation of the Lake Area Redevelopment Plan. Questions and. comments followed the presentation. Mr. Knutson stated the meeting was duly publicized. 3 P • Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 6 August i 981 • Darlene K{otz of 168th Street West asked why they picked on one location. Mr. Nielsen responded that the City identified areas where the issues of concern exist. Mrs. Klotz stated she thought this meeting was to discuss the conditions of the lake ar~d she felt that the condition of Orchard Lake was a more vi to I concern.. Mr. Harvey stated that a legal notice was published for. the hearing. Mr. Harvey stated that the plan encourages the individual property owners to implement the plan. The plan does not suggest condemnation and encourages little City involvement. Mrs. Klotz asked. why there were singling out Orchard Lake. Mr. Nielsen stated that this area contains small unbuildabl a lots. There .have been instances of couples purchasing lots, assuming they .are buildable only to find out they are not. The lake shire property is the hardest to deal with • because it is so valuable. Mr. Nielsen stated that this public hearing was r~cessary to meet a grant deadline:. Additional public meetings. should be encouraged to contact irxlividual property owners to inform them of what the plan suggests aril to receive public input. Mr. Harvey agreed that citizen participation is needed to permi t d iscussi on . Mrs. Klotz asked if they were making the Sea Girt Inn a park. Mt. Nielsen said no, the plan . suggests high density residential .......Mrs. Klotz asked why that project was going on. Mr. Nielsen said the City has received several complaints regarding the Sea Girt Inn. Brendan. O'Brian, 8715 215th Street, asked if the City has done concept plans for other areas outside the study area. Mr. Nielsen said no, however, these areas must be addressed since they do relate to the study area. Mr. O'Brian asked about the area to the east of Deer Lake Addition. Mr. Nielsen said no that- this area was already being deveaoped in larger lots. Larry Bakken asked if these plans are available tothe public.. Mr. Nielsen said yes and directed him to check with City Hall . Mr. Bakken asked if he combined his lots and resubdivided into buildable lots would he have to pay park arad_recreation fees. Mr. Nielsen said that it would be resubdividing and subject to park fees. Mr. Harvey said we would,be forced into a position where the property owner would not cooperate. Mr. Neilsen said that under current regulations it would be the case, however, we may be able to provide.someytype of incentive, ~/1r..':#iacvey.agreed that some. incentive should be provided. Mr. Geisness asked when the study was begun. Mr. Nielsen stated that the study began in February. Mr. Geisness asked how the study initiated... Mr. Nielsen responded the HRA pursued the 701 grant money, NAC provided a work schedule, Metropolitan Council reviewed and approved the grant request. The intial grant request was for $14,000, however, this amount was later revised to $1 00 with a 1/4 of this to be paid by the City. The City's share was provided through in-kind service 4 1 'Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Cc3mmission Meeting • 6 August 1981 Mr.dalcken asked who was the HRA. Mr. Nielsen said the City Counci) members made up the HRA. Mr. Geisness stated page 83 of the plan encourages citizen participation. This is a goad idea. The City should not try to pusl'0 this through as he sees no immediate need. The City should thoroughly review this study over the course of months or years. Mr. B~ Miller asked about the areas of high density. Mr. Nielsen replied that they would be the Sea Girt Inn area and along Highway 5Q. Mr. B~ Miller asked if this study would enhance. the value of land . Mr. Nielsen responded that by allowing someone to create a buildable lot he does increase the value of the land. The sub- standard lots are not useable. The plan provides guidelines to development and the concept demorutrates that it can work. Mrs. Klotz asked how much did it cost to survey the Sea Girt Inn. Mr. Nielsen explained that the Sea Girt tnn Redevelopment was a different project that was being financed through tax increment financing. • Mr. Bakken asked if C)utlot A of Lakeville Golf Estates should be included in the study area since this area has been proposed for high dereity residential . Mr. Nielsen stated that this area was not included, however, the study._cor?sidered surrounding land uses in its development. Mrs. Enright stag the plan addressed the existing substandard lots and environmental condition. She felt the concept should not be included because it became too detailed in addressing issues. Mr. Harvey concurred with Mrs. Enright. Mrs. Enright stated the plan does not take away any rights of the property owr~r or land buyer and addresses the environmental issues in the area. Mr. Geisr~ss agreed with Mrs. Enright, howevery questioned payir~ X10,000 for conclusion that .ten senible ~ople could formulate in two hours. Mr. Harvey stated that this wasn't realistic. There was~a tot cf`background work necessary to get those conclusion. Mr. Geisness said it is a good thing to show the concept .options that are available. Mrs. Klotz asked if sewer and wafer were shown`in the plan. Mr. Neilsen said--the plan displays existing sewer lines as well as the lines proposed in'the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. , r. Mr. Giesness noted the resolution, whereas,`~thte~ ~'la"fining Corrirttissicin~has dL~termSned'that the Lake Area Redevelopment Plan is reflective of the City policy as established by the Comprehenive Plan and should serve as a guide for developmeit~. He asked how dowe evaluate development in this area. Mr. Rice asked in a development request do we use the Comprehensive Plan or the lake Area Plan. Mr. Nielsen responded that the Lake Area Plan policies should be utilized to achieve the same goals of the concepts. 5 i Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting b August 1981 • Mr. Harvey stated we were not discussing the general philosophy of the plan combining small lots. The concept leads us down a narrow'path that does not reflect the entire plan. Mrs. Enright agreed that the planning policy statements are more vita) . Mr. Geisness noted the policy that stated that homes should be integrated into substandard lots. He asked if they were permitting developrr~nt of smaller lots. Mrs. Enright replied that sub- standard lots are buildable if they rr?eet 7Q percent of the zoning ordinance requirements. Mr. Geisrtiess asked through what process will the small lots be combinesd. Mr. Nielsen said the procedures are established in the City ordirrortces, however, some incentives could be set up to encourage Iof combinations. Mr. Bakken asked if the City would purchase tax forfeited lots. Mr. Nielsen. said he thinks that when the land belongs to the state, the county has first purchase option, .then the cities, then the individual . When it is county owned land the cities have first option. Mrs. Enright stated that the resolution should be amended to include the need for ~ditional public meetings in geographic locations. 81.146 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Enright to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous • Mrs. Enright suggested that the resolution be amended to include: Before finalization, the LARP into be reviewed by the Planning Commission, with well publicized public hearings in geographic locations. Mr. Miller suggested the resolution be amended to omit the fourth Whereas and to revise No.. 1 underNowTherefore, be' it resolved by the Lakeville Planning Commission to read as follows: 1. The Lake Area Redevelopment Plan is d~eatied consistent,' in a general sense, with the Lakevi I le Comprehensive Plan , and is approved on an interim basis •uht41 such ~1'ime as more public ir~ut and information can be ascertained. Mrs. Enright asked if items 2 and 3 are to be saved. Mr. Harvey read items 2 and 3. 2. ' The Lake Area Redeveioprfient Plan is to be made available upon request to property owners and potent is ( deve (opers i n the areas-surrounding Lake Marion and C~-chard Lake . 3. Upon finalization of the Lakeville Comprehensive Plan, the Lake Area Redevelopment Plan is to be re-reviewed by the tlanning Commission and then to be processed as an amendment and addendum to the Ccm~prehensive Plan. Mr. Geisness suggested that item 3 be revised to say "reviewed again" instead of "re-reviewed"~ 6 0 . Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting. August 19$1 X1.147 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Antolik to adopt the. resolution as amended. Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Johnson, Enright, Rice, Miller, Antolik, Harvey. Noyes: Geisrtiess -for the following reasons: 1 . Does not present any guideline or policy that goes beyond existing guides. 2. Inclusion of map of proposed guideline is confusing. 3. Not enough public discussions prior to presentation of resolution..:.... 4. Planner says we have been given enough loop holes that the plan need not guide. our future action, therefore of what use is the plan . 5. Plan was not initiated with a clearly stated purpose. 6. Given the discussion of the Commission members tonight, many seem not to take it as a serious guide for future development proposals. 7. Vote is a protest of the seemingly needless expenditure of public expenditures. 81.148 Motion by Rice seconded by Enright to forward the resolution to the City Council Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous OTHER BUSINESS Sid Miller stated that Section 11.4, Building Type and Construction should be amended. The provision r~ures a minimum of a Type 4 building throughout the City. He stated that 9Q% of tfie existing .construction. is Type 5. Ha noted the Acorn Motel was also a type 5 building. Mr . Knutson stated that a pub (ic hearing would be necessary to amend the ordinance . Mr. Harvey stated that notices for a public hearing should be published and. the staff should conduct a complete review of Section 11,4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Sid Miller suggested that the ordinance amendment be:,sent to ,the State Bvildi,pg,Consultant for approval prior to the Planning Commission tal~ir~g,,gctipn.,,; ~ .g Mr. Harvey stated that the public notice requires two weeks. The amendment would be brought up at the first meeting in September. Mr. Harvey asked Sid Miller if anything was beingd~,pbouf,the (~ackhoes or~,Frontage Road. Sid Miller replied that no action had been taken, , , FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Brixius~stated that Koinir~ Baptist Church conditional use permit for a PUD would be up at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Antolik asked if the Spande Building and the Kawaski Sho separated their drainfield. Sid P Mi I ler replied that they had . 7 I Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 6 ,4ugust 19€il Mr. Rice asked if the silo with the Airlake sign meets the sign ordinance requirements. Sid Miller stated that Pat McGarvey and David Licht were present when the sign application was received and he was instructed to give the sign permit. Mr. Kriz stated that the Foxborough Second Addition will be on the next agenda, also Linder. Development Preliminary Plat at Flagstaff and 170th Street. Mr. Anto) ik asked where the Linder Devei~ment was located . Mr. Kriz stated that, the develop- ment is located east of Flagstaff. Mr. Knutson asked if the area was located in the Urban Service Area. Mr. Kriz stated he didn't know. Sid Miller said that a conditional use for a garage over 1,000 square feet on Pilot Knob Street will. be coming up. Mr. Johnson asked about the status of Speedy Market. Mr. Knutson stated that depositions have been taken since Juiy. Mr. Kriz stated that he did know the status of Argonne Park. Mr. Kriz went on to mention that Ramada Inn was considering a site along Highway 70 for future development. 81.149 Motion was made by Rice to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was .taken: Ayes: Unanimous Chairman Harvey adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted,' G~~ Marvin Geisness, Secretary ATTEST: Patrick Harvey, C airman i