Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-81 City of Lakeville .Planning Commission Meeting • December 17, 1981 Chairman Harvey called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: P1iller, Antolik, Harvey, Johnson, Grohoski, Rice. Absent: Geisness. Also present: Sid Miller, Building Official; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Alan Brixius, City Planner. Mr. Harvey stated that the minutes from the December 3, 1981 meeting would be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Harvey opened the .public hearing on the application of Jerome Schweim fora conditional use permit for outside sales and storage at 10720 162nd Street West, at the southeast corner of Kenrick Avenue and 162nd Street. Jerome Schweim stated that he had no problems with the planner's report, and felt placing one of the driveways on the frontage road would be more preferable. P1r. Antolik stated that he preferred having both driveways on 162nd Street to prevent traffic conflict with the faster moving traffic on the frontage road. Mr. Schweim said that with both driveways on 162nd Street there may be conflicts with traffic stopping at the intersection of-162nd and the service road. Mr. Johnson asked if P9r. Schweim would utilize the same parking layout as shown in . the planner's report. Mr. Scheim stated he would use that layout. t1r. Grohoski agreed with Mr. Antolik that he also preferred having both driveways,on 162nd Street due to the heavy traffic on the service road. Mr. Rice concurred with Mr. Antolik and. Mr. Grohoski. Mr. Knutson stated that the public hearing is a due authorized meeting. Mr. Brixius stated that there are additional informational requirements that have not been submitted, however, the Planning Commission should determine if the use and concept are acceptable to give the applicant some direction. Mr. Harvey asked P1r. Knutson if an informal approval of the concept would be a binding. decision. Mr. Knutson stated it would not be binding, only the City Council decisions are binding. Mr. Brixius summarized the informational requirements and additional applica- tions the applicant must provide. Mr. Harvey stated that the Commission give the applicant some direction as to the driveways on 162nd Street. 81.202 P1otion was made by Grohoski, seconded by Miller to continue the public hearing until the applicant provides the additional information as noted in the planner's report.. City of Lakeville Planning. Commission Fleeting December 17, 198.1 • Mr. Schweim asked what would happen if he didn't build in the next year. Mr. Harvey stated that the Commission was just continuing the public hearing. Mr. Schweim said when he builds will depend on the economy and asked what would happen if he received the conditional use permit and he didn't care to build. Mr. Knutson said the permit would be va lid for one year after the City Council approval, however, extensions can be requested. Mr. Schweim said he would like to be assurred that he could build before he invested any more money, Mr. Harvey said only after the City Council approval can the conditional use be guaranteed and their approval will be contingent on the evaluation of the required additional information. Mr. Grohoski noted the informational requirements on pages 2 and 3 of the planner's report. Mr. Brixius added that if Mr. Schweim had any questions he could contact Northwest Associated Consultants. 81.203 Mr. Grohoski revised his motion to continue the public hearing until-February 4, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. to permit F1r. Schweim enough time to pre- pare all. the needed information and allow for staff review. Seconded by Miller. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Grohoski stated his approval of the concept if all the conditions are addressed. Mr. Johnson said it would be a good use. F1r. Antolik said he • had no problems with the request. F1r. F9iller, Harvey and Rice concurred with the rest of the Commission. Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing on the application of Laverne E. Linder for a preliminary plat known as Linder's First Addition located east of -Flagstaff Avenue, south of 170th Street and southeast of the Dodd Park Addition, consisting of various types of multiple dwelling units. Mr. Knutson stated that this was a duly authorized public hearing. Mr. Mike Gair made a presentation of the proposed development to-the Planning Commission. Mr. Gair noted the mix of housing units throughout the development. The density in each development stage is lower than the zoning requirements. .The development is compatible with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan by providing a variety or choice of housing type and freedom in choice of life style. Mr. Rice asked what was to happen to the parcel in the middle of the develop- ment. Mr. Gair responded that the land was purchased from Mr. Kosko and is now rental property. The property would be flanked by townhouses and it was hoped that the~land would eventually be incorporated into the development. t1r. Rice asked where the gas line easement was located. Mr. Gair said it was on the easterly side of Flagstaff and the gas line easement would only impact single family lots 1 and 2 and quad lots b and 7 in Block 1. 2 .City of Lakeville Planning Commission Fleeting • December 17, 1981 Mr. Grohoski asked if the people renting the center property had a short term or long term lease. If it is a long term lease, he would have a problem re- zoning the surrounding property. F1r. Gair was not sure about the lease agree- ment and would check it out. Mr. Grohoski asked what is the proposed classification of Flagstaff. Mr. Brixius stated that Flagstaff was designated as a collector and .required a 50 foot right-of-way. Mr. Grohoski asked Mr. Gair if there was sufficient space from the 50 foot street easement and gas line to provide buffering. Mr. Gair responded that the 50 foot easement has been included and the first unit would be no closer than 40 feet. This could be enough space for buffering. If this is not enough space, two lots would b~ lost. F1r. Johnson asked if the two lots were lost would Mr. Gair keep the single family lots on the north. Mr. Gair said the single family lots would remain as they have a nice affect with what has been developed across the street. He did mention that they may replan. the two lots in another area of the development. Mr. Johnson questioned the impacts. of the mixture of housing types. Mr. Gair said that he had been associated with development in several communities and the concept of mixing and clustering housing unit types does work without value differences. • Mr. Grohoski asked if the development was going to include a park. F1r. Gair said this was discussed at staff level and that a play. area is located nearby and that a cash contribution may be requested. Mr. Gair did mention that a tat lot could be provided in the open area near the townhouses.. Mr. Grohoski asked how the on-site drainage was being handled. F1r. Gair stated that they were considering a pipe system for on-site drainage. He said Frank Kriz would require sediment ponding during construction and may require permanent basins. Mr. Johnson asked if P1r. Gair ever considered single family use instead of twin homes on lots 6 through 17 of Brock 1. This would have single family homes abutting single family homes. The other twin homes would not have any development behind it. Mr. Gair said he has not considered it. Mr. Johnson also stated that the development needs a play area. Mr. Antolik stated his concerns have been addressed. He has. no problems with the concept. Mr. Miller concurred with Mr. Antolik adding that the density was nicely ,addressed. Mr. Harvey said Flagstaff is still gravel and asked if the applicant was going to pave down to .the development. h1r. Gair said the owner will be re- sponsible for the grading and balancing of streets in the site.. They will be bonding to pave the streets in the site and want to escrow r~oney for the development of Flagstaff. • 3 City of Lakeville Planning Commission Fleeting December 17, 1981 • Mr. Johnson asked what was the zoning to the south of the development. F1r. Brixius replied R-A District. Mr. Harvey asked if it was in the Urban Service Area. Mr. Brixius said the. development site was in the Urban Service Area. F1r. Harvey asked if Linder owned or had an option on land to the east or south of the development. F~1r. Gair responded no. F1r. Harvey identified the F1nDOT gravel pit and stated that the impacts from this operation should be considered. Mr. Leo Tutewold said he owned the land to the south of the development and wondered if they were going to extend sewer and water to his property. Mr. Gair said sewer and water extensions could be available. Mr. Harvey asked the Tutewolds if they had any plans for their land. They stated that they .don't have any plans. Mr. Grohoski asked if the land is affected by the flood plain. Mr. Gair stated the 928 a levation delineates the 100 year flood plain and the development is outside the flood plain. Mr. Tutewold asked if there would be another public hearing for each development phase. Mr. Harvey stated that they were going to continue the public hearing and explained the subdivision review procedures to F1r. Tutewold. F1r. Tutewold said he was concerned with the provision of a park in the development. Mr. • Harvey suggested that he attend a City Park Board meeting. Mr. Grohoski stated that he could find the Park Board agenda in the Dakota County newspaper. 81.204 Motion was made by Grohoski, seconded by Johnson to continue the public hearing until review by other committees and staff. Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous Mr. Gair asked for a summary of the Planning Commission's thought on the develop- ment. The Commission did not oppose the housing mix. The Commission did not oppose the density. Mr. Rice said that he would like to resolve the concern over the rented property in the center of the plat. Mr. Harvey said he would feel more comfortable with the housing mix three years from now, to learn from the experience gained of other areas. Mr. Johnson asked what kind of time frame Mr. Gair was considering. Mr. Gair said he hoped to start construction in the spring on Phase One... Mr. Grohoski asked what kind of financing was being considered. F1r. Gair stated he was 'hoping for some type of public assistance. • 4 r City of Lakeville Planning Commission P1eeting December 17, 1981 Chairman Harvey opened the continued public hearing on the application of the City of Lakeville for an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow children's day-care facilities within commercial and industrial zoning districts. Mr. Knutson stated that additional discussions at the staff level were con- ducted and the following items were brought up: whether day-care facilities should be accessory use or a principle use, requiring all day-care facilities on l acre lots, and provision of architectural controls in industrial zones. Mr. Harvey stated that Mr. Geisness had expressed at an earlier meeting that he would like day-care facilities to develop anywhere. Gary Fultcuss stated that his day-care firm would have no objections to the items that Mr. Knutson listed. The building would be similar to the surrounding industrial buildings so it could be vacated and resold 'if necessary. P4r. Knutson asked if the use should be a permitted use or a conditional use. P1r. Harvey stated that the Commission feels it should be a conditional use. Mr. Grohoski stated that he opposed having day-care facilities in an industrial park. He felt the potential for pollution and/or accidents presents a poor environment for children, He noted areas on the periphery of the industrial • parks that are more suitable and convenient. P1r. Antolik agreed with Mr. Grohoski, saying he had a problem with day-care in an industrial park, other areas are more suitable. Mr. Grohoski said with so much vacant land. in Airlake, who can tell what would develop next to the day-care facility. Mr.'Narvey stated that they would have limited control as to what would deve op next door. Mr. Miller stated that the dangers can result in homes also, and many times more often. Mr. Fultcuss stated that the Planning Commission. was drawing a poor concept of Airlake .Industrial Park and to what uses are in the park.. Mr. Grohoski stated that sociologically speaking,-the industrial park is a poor environment for children. The idea of a mother visiting her child at lunch is a nice concept, but it won't .work. Mr. Fultcuss agreed that a parent visiting her child during the day is not realistic, however, his firm did do a; needs assessment and the parents made their assessment known that the ,parents did not see any safety problems. Mr. Miller said that if the mother knows her child is in the same complex, she can feel comfortable. He stated that he doesn`t feel it would throw a monkey wrench into industrial development. P~1r. Antolik said there are many other areas more suitable for day-care facilities. Mr. Harvey said he would like to hear the comments of the Fire Chief on this issue.' If a problem occurs, the Fire Department will have to handle it. • 5 f City of Lakeville Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 1981 • Mr. Rice said the zoning. amendment should consider day-care facilities as a conditional use, both as a freestanding building and as an accessory use within a building. Mr. Fultcuss said if conditions around the day-.care facility become poor, the state would close the operation down. Mr. Grohoski asked if the City would assume liability if the industrial day-care facility was forced to close down. Mr. Knutson. stated that he could imagine a law suit, but did not think the law suit could be won. 81.2D5 Motion was made by Grohoski, seconded by Rice to continue the public hearing until a revised amendment for day-care facilities can be developed and the comments of the police and fire departments can be received. Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Harvey asked what was being done about the blinking .motel light. Sid Miller stated that Mr. McGarvey had a list of violators and letters were being sent to all of them. ~9r. Harvey noted that the sign was also enlarged. Sid Miller said that the motel was just putting a wooden box around the metal sign. Mr. Antolik said the box is larger than the sign and this enlarged the sign. • Mr. Rice stated he .would not be at the next. meeting. Mr. Harvey stated that at the last City Council meeting there were questions regarding smoking at a public meeting and he asked Mr. Knutson to check the regulations governing this item. P1r. Knutson said he would look into it. Mr. Harvey asked about the status of the Renaissance Festival. Mr. Knutson .stated that they had to prepare 15 to 20 exhibits prior to approaching the City again, Mr. Harvey noted the loss of John Antolik from the Planning Commission and made the following resolution: BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Lakeville commends and thanks John Antolik for his 13 years of long and conscientious service to this body and the City of Lakeville. Roll. call was taken: Ayes: Johnson, Grohoski, Rice, Miller, Harvey. Abstain: Antolik. 6 City of Lakeville Planning Commission Fleeting • December I7, 1981 Motion was made by Rice to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Char es Jo ns n, A t'ng Secretary ATTEST: Pat 'ck Harvey, C airman • • 7