The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-15-80 I Lakeville, Minnesota • Pl~nning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 May 1980 The Planning Commission llmeeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Johnson. Roll Call of membership v~ras taken: Present: Antolik; Johnson; Asmus;'fnright; Harvey. Absent:Geisness; Rice. Also Present: Sid Miller,, City Building Official; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; David Licht, City Planner. The Chairman called for review of the minutes from the special Planning Commission meeting on 29 April 1980 80.73 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Enright to approve the Planning Commission minutes from the special rheeting on 29 April . Rohl call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. Chairman Johnson called ~~for a review of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 1 May 1980. i ~.74 Motion-was made by Enri~ht, .seconded by Harvey to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes for 1 Mai 1980. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Antolik; Johnson; Enright; Harvey. Abstain: Asmus . Mr. Asmus explained. his abstaining on the vote due to his absence from the 1 May 1980 meeting. ~ i Chairman Johnson opened~fihe public hearing on the application of Robert R. Jackson, Jr. for a rezoning and platting of a parcel of property on the south side of 170th Street West. IVIr. Knutson advised that proper notice of the hearing has been given. Mr. Licht explained that the applicant has subimitted revised plans in conjunction with the recommendations of the Planning Commission end City staff.. In addition, a certificate of survey properly documenting. the land trade between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Marek occurring in August 1979 had also been supplied. he Commission advised the applicant that he may, wish to record with the County the City' action on the Marek resubdivision in order to avoid a future. title .problem.. 80.75 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Antolik to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on t ~ motion. Ayes: Unanimous. Mr. Geisness arrived at t~e meeting at 7:40 p.m. Lakeville, Minnesota ' Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 May 1980 80.76 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Enright to recommend to the City Council the approval of the application of Robert R. Jackson, Jr. for a rezoning and platting of a parcel of property on the south side of 170th Street West subject to the condition that the property should not be resubdivided at a later date as such action would. likely create land locked or substandard parcels due to street al ignments and access considerations. RoII call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous. 80.77 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey that based upon and following procedures of Ordinance 113, Section 1.F.1. to recommend to the City Council approval of the Jackson/Marek land trade as documented by the certificate of survey dated August 1979. Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Unanimous The. applicant was advised that his requests would be considered by the City Council at their 19 May T980 meeting. The Chairman opened the public hearing on Lakeville State Bank's sign variance request. Mr. Mike Gresser, Cecil Pagatchnik, Jerry Errickson and John Enggren represented the • bank and appeared before the Commission. Mr. Knutson advised that his law firm represented the applicant and therefore could not advise the Commission. He did state, however, that from his review of the records that the hearing had been duly advertised. Mr. Gresser described the request to the Commission indicating the bank's interest in a quality sign and that the message reader board had been deleted from the plans. Additionally, the structure is aligned with the City's liquor store sign across the street. Mr. Harvey questioned,. based on Section 5.4 of Ordinance 42, whether the Commission could consider anything but a demonstratedphysical hardship in recommending a variance. Mr. Enggren indicated lot size and the size of the building complimented the sign sizing. Mr._Pagatchnik stated banks commonly have large. scale signs. When questioned by the Commission, Mr. Gresser indicated there would be additional, indirectly lighted signing on the building. The structure in question would be internally back,li~hted with florescent Lighting. Mrs. Enright indicated a smaller sign would be ry~pr~,appropriate fortithe downtown area and questioned the impact if all businesses had a simal~r+sized structure.,; Mr..Et~ggren stated that the sign had been approved by the projeEt,architect.e_,Heiglt~wm~al3o p factor of minimizing vandalism.. As a consequence of rentaa ~s,pa~c yin the bt~ildingl,~~i~lent'r#-iEation was also .needed. , 80.78 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Geisness, to close the public hearing on the Lakeville State Bank sign variance request. Roll call was taken on the. motion. Ayes: Unanimous. • Mr. Geisness stated his concern for large signs in the downtown, but thought the request justifiable. 2 i Lakev i I (e, Minnesota Pjanning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 May 1980 80.79 Mr. Geisness moved and jMr. Johnson seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the 4akeville State Bank sign variance request based upon the findingsthat: (1) It was associated with a large parking lot; (2) it was not abutting residential property; {3) i~t was to be built in conjunction with a large building; (4) the sign size was typical of financial institutions; (5) the sign was to be located. in the Central Business District; and {6) there is a need for identification of anchor businesses in the area. Roll call was taken`on the motion. Ayes: Geisness; Johnson, Nayes: Antolik; Asmus; Enright; Harvey. I The Chairman indicated the motion failed and called for another motion. 80.80 It was moved by Enright,'~seconded by Harvey to recommend to the City Council a denial of LakevNle State Bank's sign variance requested based upon the rationale of establishing. a bad precedent for the alrea and the applicant demonstrating no physical hardship justifying the request. Roll call was taken on the motion: Ayes: Antolik; Asmus; Enright; Harvey. Nays: Geisness; Johnson. The applicant was advise! that the matter would be considered by the City Council at the 19 May meeting . The Chairman opened the public hearing on the application of :Robert J . Layeux for a conditional use permit aryl variance in rear yard setback to build a new house on Lots 2, 3, 4, 23 and 24, Block ~ of Lyndale Lakes Club-Second Addition. Mr. Knutson testified to the validity of the heajring, No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr, Licht advised the Commission tat upon the recommendation of the City Attorney," Mr. Layeux had been contacted by latter and informed that the .City could not take action on his application until the driv~ewfry and adverse possession question existing on the property had been resolves! with his neighl~br. Mr. John Gardner, the neighbor in question appeared beforethe Commission d indic~at~d use of the driveway in question by the past and present owners`oF~his {s~-opsrty si ce 1961`. > Additionally, there appeared to be no other means of °='•~tt~~ce~ssi`ng h'rs prop~rty~~s~o•the`_~lri3eway'was essential . Mr. Licht questioned Mr. Gardner of his knowledge of the ity's position on substandard lots in the area and recent precedents in denying use of (ots noij meeting ordinance minimums. Mr. Gardner stated that he was aware of the situation . I „ f (f'~ I 3 Lakeville, .Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting Minutes S 15 May 19$0 80.81 Motion was made by Asmus, seconded by Harvey to continue the hearing on the Layeux request until the applicant recontacted the City or unti 117 July 19$0. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. The Chairman reopened discussion of the revised zoning ordinance, third draft beginning with page 65. Mr. Knutson advised the planning Commission that staff was evaluating the agricultural preservation legislation recently enacted by the State Legislature . Through general discussion by the Commission, the advisability of the provisions being added to the City ordinance was highly questioned. It was generally agreed that the furthest extent of action should be to add it as a district provision, but not consider applying the district to the map unless specifically requested to do so by a property owner. Discussion of the districts and their purpose and intent took place. Specific comments were received on the following: (1) The removal of Section 35.5 (2) and (3) and a clarification of (4), and (2) expansion of the type of uses allowed within the I-1 District, The Commission concluded that discussion of the freeway district be continued until the special Planning Commission meeting on 22 May at 7:00 p.m, The Commission made note that it would appear highly advisable to have the Council liaison present at the meeting on 29 May when the freeway property owners were invited to discuss the "ICD" district. 80.82 Motion was made by Antolik, seconded by Enright to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion, Ayes: Unanimous. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m, Res ec ully submitted, r arvin Geisness, Secretary ATTEST: Char es Johnson, C n 4