Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-80 ' I ity of Lakeville, Minnesota Panning Commission Meeting 3 Apri 11980 The meeting was called to rder at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Johnson. Roll call was taken. Present: Geisness; Antolik~Johnson; Asmus; Enright; Harvey. Absent: Rice. Also present:' Sid Miller, ~ity Building Official; LeRoy Nyhus, City Engineer; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Dcpvid Licht, City Planner. The Chairman asked if them were comments or corrections to the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 20 Mar~h 1980. 80.55 Motion was made by Geisn~ss, seconded by Antolik to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 20 Mar~h i 980. Roll call was taken on the otion. Ayes: Unanimous. Chairman Johnson opened he continued public hearing on the Lakeway Park PUD project. Mr. Licht summarized com ents and questions raised at the 20 March public hearing as outlined in his memorandurm to the Commission dated 27-March 1980. He also advised that the questions raised previously, plus additional concerns voiced this evening would be responded to in writing by the staff and/or applicant at the 17 April meeting at the earliest. Mr. Courtney Oaks, 19200 Jewell Path stated his concern for the increased traffic congestion and safeijy of children in the Lakeridge Addition. He also noted the hazardous intersection of J~rdan Trail and Highway 50. Mr. Don Daniel, .19060 Jordan Trail stated he and the resi ents of the area were opposed to the project and wanted single family development maintained. He presented a petition of 82 signatures from residents of the area documenting the opposition. The Chairman received the petition and directed that it be enured into the record. Timothy Claire., 18788 Jordan Trail stated that there was land presently zoned in the City for commercial and that no additional land for such use was needed . lie also questioned whether this current proposal was the same as prior development requests for the property. If so, why is the project back for con- sideration. Mr. Claire alsp asked if Dakota Electric had the service capacity to accom- modate the proposed development. Ms. Sue Renelt, 18801 Joplin Avenue, stated the community does not want tlhe proposed development. A greater buffer between the single family homes and apartments is needed. 'Property values of present owners wilt be decreased. Mr. Geisness questioned whether .any of the existing homes fronted the. proposed duplexes, fourplexgs tend apartments.' He questioned what .justification the developer had for the proposed rezoning from sin~le family. , Mr. Carl Dale, planning consultant for the applicant, summarized the rationale fir rezoning, cis'outlined on page 10 of his report dated February 1980: "Mr. Timothy Claire"stated that the justification based upon increased noise was not valid. Ms. Anita Claire, 18788 Jordan Trail, stated that there was no market for the proposed deve{opment. M .Jack Berger, 19217 Jewell Path questioned if apartments would as a consequence of noise be developed along all of Highway 50. Mr. Timothy • Claire stated truck traffic n the area. would be increased by the proposed project. i I City of Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting f 3 April 1980. Ms. Sue Renelt stated three .points: (1) The noise corridor was not a problem as existing single family homes border Highway 50; (2) Traffic into and through Lakeridge would be increased by the convenience commercial facilities; (3) Density should be phased and where is the dividing line for commercial development. Mr. Mike Murphy, 18801 Jordan Trail questioned if the present proposal was based upon the tight money market, He stated that the development proposed should be further north. He questioned whether the sewer routing through the property was laid out based upon the developer's. .plans and whether there was a conspiracy between the staff and the applicant. IVIr. Nyhus stated the sewer plans were drafted without knowledge. of Mr. Watschke's development plans. Mr. Courtney Oaks questioned the overall .capacity of the City's sewer system citing existing problems at 175th and Jerseyway. Mr. Nyhus stated the problem referenced was being addressed as were other. portions of the sewer system. Mr. Dwight Weniger, 18772 Joplin Avenue stated his house was adjacent to a proposed apartment' building which he objected to. More buffering is required. Noise from sewer construction was a problem Fast summer as was children's safety due to the depth of sewer construction. He stated he asked workmen on the sewer site the purpose of the improvement and was informed that it was intended to serve duplexes, multiples and commercial development.'` Mr-. Nyhus responded that eight inch lines, the minimum size permitted by the City, was installed. Mr. Weniger continued • that he would experience a loss in property value as a result of the proposed project. No one in the area favors the project and there is no need for the proposed development, Landscaping of the site will be required regardless of the type of development undertaken. Apartments are not desirable as they are not cared for and traffic congestion. will be in- creased. He stated he is also paying fora street light which has never been installed. Mr. Knutson stated thaf many of the concerns cited could be controlled through a developers agreement. Ms, Anita Claire stated her experience with rental property management and concluded that apartments would be allowed to run down,` A decent buffer zone is required ds well as an attempt for the finest development: Mr.-Greg`Grinols, 18773 Jordan Trail stated he had experience as an apartment caretaker and that it takes a continual flow of money to maintain rental property. Investors typically are not willing to maintain°the necessary influx of money for such upkeep. 1Nr. Don Daniels stated he moved to Lakeville to get away from apartments and Lakeville should maintain a country atmosphere. The investment by the applicant should have no bearing on the project decision. Mr. Daniels presented a second petition for a street light at Highway 50 and Jordan Trail. The Chairman advised the audience that such matters were not the Commission's unsdictiori: Mr. Johnson directed, however, that staff receive the petition and forward it ~n to the'tity Council. Ms. Sue Renelt questioned the size of the sewer pipe #hrough the project and questioned the difference between pope sizes in residential aril commercial dreas.''Mr. Nyh'us'ari~l~Mr. Licht responded with a brief explanation. Mr. Geisness questioned the issue of a staff/ developer conspiracy and stated evidence of such a situation was-not apparent and a ..determination of such a problem would be difficult to determine. Possibly an audit or s9rr~tlai,ng,is,necessary, ye stated, however, his concern that the location of activities • and use be the main topic+ of concern. Mr. Harvey stated the problem of routing the sewer line across Mr. Watschke's property was one of traversing the'site from the southwest 2 ity of Lakeville, Minnesota • Planning Commission Meeting 3 Apr i 11980 to the northeast. The routi g was highly logical based upon site factors to be taken into consideration. Mr. Ti othy Claire again questioned whether the sewer size was more than was needed. Mr. Courtney Oaks questioned why commercial development was being considered fihis far south along Highway 50. Mr. Watschke stated this plan was different .from past proposals. Streetllayout had. been changed as well as initial concepts to develop the area as light industrial ~lueto access existing with .the railroad and Highway 50. The reason for bringing the proppsal to the City at this time was because of the sewer installation and the assessments which npw would have to be carried by the property. Mr. Asmus expressed his concern that the audience was assuming a conclusion on the project was already established by the Commission. He stayed this,was not the case and the purpose of the hearing was to gain citizen input. He staged furthermore that for the benefit of the audience as well as the applicant that he wished to'~voice his position and concerns:. (1) There is currently too much land zoned commercial in t~e community. If this land is rezoned, there should be a parallel reducfion.in equivalent zonling; (2) The tract in question is too far from (-35 and will make for spot, isolated commercial activity; (3) Better buffering is needed for the residential area to the south, a more gradual i~nd use transition is.needed; (4) Noise is not a valid justification for the zoning and development requested; (5) The City and local units of government supported improvement of County Roagl 70 and this development would appear to compete with possible development in that area ofl the City; (6) There is no total upgrading of T.H. 50 planned which causes concern for ps~ssible increased traffic generated by the proposed develapment; (7) There is a labor force sh'prtage in the community and there is a need. for multiple units which could possibly be increased in the project area; (8) The property east of Highway 50 is zoned residential and thej proposed rezoning .may, jeopardize development of this area as residential; and (9) Zoning as proposed. possibly constitutes spot zoning. Anita Claire again appeared and questioned Mr. Watschke on .examples of his developments to which Mr. Watschke responded.. ~VIr. Geisness questioned Mr. Watschke on the .history of the property's ownership plus th'~e zoning on the property at the time of his purchase.. Mr. Watschke responded as to_p~st ownership and Fortune Realty's purchase. He also stated sewer availability prompted the development plan now proposed as well as following basic principles of land use compatibility arhd development. 80.56 Motion was made by Enrigh~, seconded by Harvey that based upon the time already provided and to give the staff and ap~plica~at sufficient time to formally respond to questions raised that the,pu~lic hearing on l~akewq~C~lyark PUD be continued until the 17 April 1980 Planning CommJSSion~meeting. ~ I~, , Roll calF was~1taken on1the ~otion:~~Ayesc Unanimous. Citizens from the audience basked if they could obtain a copy of the applicants or staff's response to questions raisedlprior to the next meeting. Mr. Licht advised that a report is . typically available two to i~hree days in advance of the meeting and that they should contact Mr. McGarvey's office for !information. Mr. Geisness questioned 'whether rezoning signs had bCen placed on the property under conside~a~ion: 'Res'idents~advised that they had, but the sign at 185th Street wad down as much as it was up. 3 City of Lakeville,. Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting 3 Apri( 1980 Under other business, Mr. Harvey ques Toned the size of the freeway corridor zone which appears to be increasing from. that initiaNy proposed on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Licht stated that LakewayPark had requested this designation, but the staff had advised against such consideration as the maximum extent of the district would be recommended for consideration to the rbilroad right-of-way bordering on the west of the project. Furthermore, a conservative approach would be taken on the zone, and expansion considered on individual cases based upon criteria) establ fished' in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Harvey also questioned whether a relocation of fire station No. 1 was being discussed by the City Council and whether the Planning Commission would be given an opportunity to comment on the matter. Mr. Knutson advised that the City Council would be considering the matter at their 7 April meeting. He stated,. however, that it was uncertain as to the. review procedure being followed. .Mrs. Enright expressed her concern that procedures for handling. public hearings needed to be tightened and more structured. While not attempting to limit public comment, limitations on time, topics and discussion are needed. Mr. Harvey stated his opinion that the public. should be given every opportunity to voice their opinion with. no restrictions. Mr. Asmus • stated that the audience appeared to lose respect for the Commission in the hearing just conducted. Mr. Geisness stated that rules have already been established and that the Chairman needs to be more of a buffer between the audience and .the. Commission/staff. Mr. Licht expressed concern of the staff.. being put on the spot to respond to detailed questions without adequate time to respond and to be able to respond in detail with adequate time to research aril assemble answers. Mrs. Enright suggested the formulation of public hearing procedures and that the audience be so advised.. 80.57 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Enright to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion, Ayes: Unanimous. Mr. Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Res ec ulty submitt d, ATTEST: arvin Geisness, Secretary R Charles Johnson, Chairma 4