HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-29-80 I !
i
i
Lakeville, Minnesota
S~ecia) Planning Commission Meeting
29 April 1980
~'li
The meeting was called ti order at 7:20 p.m. by Vice Chairman Patrick Harvey.
Roll call was taken: Pre~ent: Antolik; Asmus; Enright; Harvey. Absent: Geisness;
Johnson; Rice.
Also present: Sid Miller City Building Official; David Licht, City Planner.
Vice Chairman Harvey a~hnounced the special meeting had been cal led to review the
Draft Zoning Ordinance jrevision and turned the meeting over to Mr. Licht for presentation
of material . Mr. Licht have a brief review of the formulation and ordinance redraft process.
The Commission then begpn a paw by page review of the Ordinance text. Questions by
the Commission were raises on the following topics:
1 . Page 4 -Item 7 - dlefinition of animals.
2. Page 7 -Item 55 -j the definition of.elderly (senior citizen housing needs to be
corrected to coinc~de with district provisions.
3. Page 57 -Item 65 note was made on the change i n defi ni tion for fences .
4. Page 14 and i5 - ~ detailed discussion of this section on nonconforming use took
place .
Mr. Geisness arrived at ~he meeting at 7:40 p.m.
5. Page 16 -Section X4.2. (2) - a discussion of earth sheltered housing as it related
to this provision took place.
b. Page 17 -Section i4.4 (4) - Mr. Miller suggested modification of the section
governirx~ the size lof accessory uses.
7. Page 17 -Section I4.5 (2) - Mr. Miller suggested addition of terminology from the
existing ordinance~to the clause.
Page 18 - Fences ~ the Commission suggested addition of provisions for:
a. Allowing sigh -foot high fences only by conditional use permit.
b. Requiring the tfinished face of the fence being the side exposed to adjacent
proixrh' •
c, Check provisions governing swimming pools.
d . Governing ho{w close adjacent fences could be located to each other to
provide for maintenance.
9. Page 18 - Mr. Geisness stated his opposition to limiting interior yard fencing to
twenty-five percent of the rear yard. He also questioned what provision if
any governed general landscaping and hedges. Mr. Licht stated at present no
• clause addressing this matter was included and that he would investigate the
possibility of such laddition.
Lakeville, Minnesota
Special Planning Commission Meeting
29 April 1980
10. Mr. Harvey noted a number of typographical errors throughout the draft.
11. Page 19 -Section 4.7 (1) - Mr. Miller questioned if the provision was intended to
apply to business or industrial property abutting residential district or uses. Mr.
Licht stated the clause was intended as stated, but was a policy consideration to
be thoroughly evaluated by the Commission and Council .
12. Page 27 -Section 6.4 (1) (a) -The Commission directed that "belt courses" should
be dropped from the clause.
13. Page 27 -Section 6,4.(1) -The Commission concurred that energy conserving entry-
ways shauld be allowed as acceptable encroachments into. front yards for older style
housing by conditional use permit.
14. Page 27 -Section 6.7 - Mr. Licht advised that the provision should also apply to
industrial uses. The reference to Section 39 should also be changed to 42.
1~. Page 27 -Section 6.8. -Minimum lot size per unit requirements were discussed
with special attention to elderly housing requirements.
Mr. Harvey called for an end of the discussion for the evening and a continuing of the
review beginning with page 29 at the Commission meeting on 1 May.
Mr. Licht .reviewed agenda items for the 1 May meeting.
80.67 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded b Antol ik to ad'ourn the meeti n . •
Y I g
Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous
The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
L~~~
Marvin Geisness,Secretary
ATTEST:
atrick Harvey, Vice Chairman