Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-80 i° c_ Lakeville, Minnesota • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes S June 1980 The meeting was called to~~~order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Harvey. 'Rail call on members was ~aken: Present: Geisness; Antolik; Enright; Harvey. Absent: Johnson; Asmus; Rice. II Also resent: Sid Miller iBuildin Official; Lego N hus En ineer• Ro er Knutson p g Y Y 9 9 Attorney; David Licht, Planner. The Vice Chairman calledl~ for a review of the 14 May 1980 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes . 80.85 Motion was made by Enrig~t, seconded by Geisness to approve the Special Planning Commission meeting minutes of 14 May 19$0. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Enright; Harvey; Geisness. Abstain: Antolik. A review of the minutes o the 15 May Planning Commission meeting was asked by Vice Chairman Harvey. 0.86 Motion was made by Anto ik, seconded by Enright to approve the Planning Commission minutes of 15 May 1980. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. Discussion of the Special rlanning Commission meeting minutes of 22 May was requested by the Vice Chairman. 80.87 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Geisness to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 22 May 1980. Roll call was taken on th 'motion. Ayes: Unanimous. A review of the 29 May 1 80 meeting minutes was directed by the Vice Chairman, 80.88 Motion by Enright, seco~ed by Harvey to approve the minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting of 29i May 1980. Roll call was taken on th motion. Ayes: Unanimous. I I I Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 J une 1980. • The Vice Chairman reopened the public hearing on the Lakeway Park PUD application, Mr. J. Byron Watschke, President of Fortune Realty, the applicant, introduced Mr. Carl Dale, Planner for the project. Mr. Dale reviewed the changes in the project which eliminated traffic movement into the Lakeridge neighborhood and the increase in duplex, quadraminiums and townhouses in the southern portion of the project. Landscaping has also been increased for buffering and screening. Other poinh of concern were also reviewed. Mr. Greg Grinols, 18773 Jordan Trail questioned the visual impact of the proposed develop- rnent on the existing residences. Mr. Dale explained the topography and proposed site grading. He additionally illustrated the planting and screening which will shield a majority of the proposed project from the Lakeridge area. Mr. Steve Grohoski , 18848 Joplin Avenue, stated he had several points to voice: (1) He is opposed to leaving 188th Street open to T .H . 50 as the intersection is highly dangerous and the inconvenience caused the few people by closing the street should not out-weigh the safety concern. Joplin could possibly be closed off by a cul-de-sac as it intersects 188th to respond to residents' concerns. (2) The proposed change to quadraminiums and townhouses creates and- improves good transition. He stated, however, that he questioned the legality of restrictions proposed on the apartments. (3) Does the curve in 1$8th Street, to provide for the cul-de-sac at Jordan Trail, create a problem? (4) Jordan Trail should be opened, even if one-way. (5) Costs for street improvements appear to be extreme for the protection being provided. • Mr. Grohoski concluded by stating that he was in general agreement with the overall development proposed. Mr. Grinols questioned how valid the apartment restrictions would be. Mr. Knutson stated it is a matter of practicality. {f it is a structural main- tenance problem, the City would get involved. The extent of involvement is a matter of practicality. Mr. Grohoski asked the size of the proposed duplex units. Mr. Watschke stated that they would be two and three bedroom units, intended for individual ownership. Mr. Dale stated that these units would be the first phase of the project. Mr. Grinols stated he believed that the 188th intersection with T . H . 50 should be retained . Ms . Enright questioned the number of houses which would be affected by the closing. Mr. Grohoski stated 14 homes would be impacted. Mr. Geisness questioned why so few of the Lakeridge residents were. in the audience. Mr. Licht responded that the bad weather undoubtedly influenced the turnout. Mr. Watschke stated he was open to any solution to the traffic circulation question on the south of the project. Mr. Harvey stated that the Commission recognized the willingness of the applicant to work out problems. Mr. Antolik questioned how the duplex units would be controlled architecturally. Mr. Knutson stated that through the PUD process, each unit would be reviewed by the City. 80.89 Motion was made by Geisness, secondedbyEnright to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. 2 .Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 J u ne 1980 Ms. Enright stated that th$ Commission must take a long range look at the road concern and act for the .benefit of the overall community. If safety is a concern, the road should be closed. Mr. Harvey stated a more fundamental question is the office and commercial use in this area, as it represents a major change in land use. Mr. Geisness questioned whether this proposal consi'ituted spot zoning. Mr. Knutson stated that from a legal perspective, it was not spot zoning and no precedent was being established legally for other situations in the area. Mr. Watschke stated the present development plans were greatly influenced by the cchange in status to 185th Street. Mr. Antolik questioned whether stormwater runoff was being properly handled . Mr . Nyhus responded that the rate would be controlled to its present amount. 80.90 Motion was made by Enrig,~t, seconded by Geisness to recommend to the City Council approval of .the rezoning c{nd concept plan application for Fortune Realty, Inc. for a planned unit development~'~,known as Lakeway Park, located on approximately 47 acres of land located north of 188t~, Street, west of Highway 50 and east of the Minneapolis, Northfield Railroad, subject to the conditions of the staff's recommendations as summarized in their written reports. Ms. Enright stated she save no better use of the land than that which is being proposed. • Roll call was taken on then motion. Ayes:. Enright, Harvey, Geisness. .Nays: Antolik 80.91 Motion was made by Enrig~t, seconded by Harvey to review alternative plans for 188th Street . Mr. Geisness stated he w uld like the residents of the area notified of when this matter would be discussed . Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. The applicant was advised that the matter would come before the City Council at their. 16 June 1980 meeting. Mr. Harvey questioned if lany one in the audience was in attendance for the Housing Plan or Community Improvement Program.. No response was received. The Vice Chairman indicated these matters would be deferred until later in the meeting. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the application of Tom Ames and Jerry - Everson for a preliminary ~lat known as Lakeview Heights, consisting of lots Located on the south side of 185th Strleet approximately one-half mile east of Highway 50. Mr. Knutson advised that the hearing qnd proper notices were published. Mr. Jerry Everson made a • presentation of the propos' d plat, explaining the layout and site development problems and constraints. Mr. Ron Dra~er, a neighbor along 185th Street, questioned the stormwater ll~ 3 Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 June 1980 . drainage system as flow would likely be on his property. Mr. Steve Grohoski, developer of the Woodridge Plat to the north, also questioned this matter. Mr. Nyhus responded that the system was Adequate and properly designed. Mr. Draper questioned the value of houses proposed: Mr. Everson suggested a range of $75,000 to $90,000, although detailed market- ing had not yet been conducted. Mr. Geisness questioned who would build the units. The applicant responded that they would be sold to contractors. Mr. Knutson questioned if the 'applicant had prior experience, Mr. Everson stated that he was an engineer with no direct personal development. Mr. Ames stated that he was a foundation contractor with con- siderable construction experience. Mr. Grohoski outlined the Woodridge Development, plus other properties in the area and stated he believed the proposed development not to be in harmony with the existing and proposed uses in the neighborhood. He stated the lots in Woodridge averaged approximately 27,000 square feet. Others in the area were over 20,000 square feet. The lots in the Lakeview Heights Plat .were the 11,000 square foot minimum. This, he believes, is injurous to other persons. He has discussed plan revisions with the applicant and suggests a reduction from 47 lots to 34 lots. Mr. Draper stated he was in agreement. Mr. Geisness questioned the development time framework. Mr. Everson stated it was hoped that utilities and streets could'be installed yet this year. He also stated that the smaller lots were basically an open field which were not marketable as larger lots as they offer no special amenities. in those instances where special features exist, larger lots have been provided. Mr. Grohoski questioned the Northwestern Bell cable, which is a major element • of the intercontinental system being placedl,in an easement in front yards. This would create problems for utility service, plus would create a significant liability for the future property owners. Mr. Nyhus stated that the construction problems, as well as reduction of possible cable break problems could be addressed at the time of utility construction and that these were. not insurmountable. 80.92 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Antolik to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. 80.93 Motion was made by Geisness to table further consideration of the applicationuntil more infor- mation could be supplied and the applicant re-evaluated the lot sizing. The motion died for the lack of a second . Mr. Harvey stated that the zoning for the development as proposed is on the property. 80.94 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Geisness to recommend to the City Council the denial of the application of Tom Ames and Jerry Everson for a preliminary plat known as Lakeview Heights consisting of lots located on the south side of 185th Street approximately one-half mile east of Highway 50 based upon: (1) The possible negative affect of the development on surrounding properties created by drainage, (2) the proposed lots are out of character with surrounding uses, and (3) the serious questions posed by the Northwestern . Bell cable . 4 I t ; Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting Minutes . 5 June 19$0 I~ Roll call was taken on they motion. Ayes: Harvey, Geisness, Enright. Nays: Antolik. The applicant was advised that his request would come before the City Council at their. meeting on 16 June i980.~, Vice Chairman Harvey opined discussion of the final plat for Foxborough First Add"rtion, located west of Cedar Avenue. The applicant, Northland Mortgage, and representatives from the project consultant, Suburban Engineering, were present and briefly described changes from the preliminpry plat. Mr. Nyhus questioned: (1) the status of Outlot D;> (2) the spliting of the dup~ex lots; (3) the Cedar Avenue right-of-way connection; (4) corrections of the undersized lots; and (5) the development agreement. The repre- sentative responded that ~e first four items had been properly addressed. The developers agreement is being finali ed. Mr, Licht stated he had no additional comment or questions. 80.95 Motion was made by Geisj~ess, seconded by Enright,. to recommend to the City Council approval of the final platlfor Foxborough First Addition, located west of Cedar Avenue between Dodd Road and County Road 46. - Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous, • The applicant was advised that the fins! plat would be before the Lakeville City Council on 16 June 1980, provid that the development agreement for the project is finalized. Discussion of the buildin and site. plan for Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church was opened by the Vice Chan man. Mr. Geisness questioned why the matter was being con- sidered by the Commissio Mr. Licht explained this was the final step in a conditional use permit request which as initiated in 1978. He further explained that there were only two minor concerns elative to the site plan. One additional parking space is required and a landscaping plan mist be prepared and implementated. The Church representatives have agreed to these items. 80.96 Motion was made by Antc~lik, seconded by Enright, to recommend to the City Council approval of the site and building plan for the Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church at the southeast corner of 202nd Street and Iberia Avenue subject to staff approval of the landscape plan and the Church providing an additional parking space. RoII call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Enright, Harvey, Antolik. Abstain Geisness. Mr. Geisness explained that he abstained from the vote as he was not a member of the Commission when the matter was first considered and approved. 5 i Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 June 1980 The public hearing on the Housing Plan was opened by Vice Chairman Harvey. Mr. Knutson advised that the hearing had been duly published. Mr. Harvey questioned what the City was doing to imp{ement the policy to encourage earth she{tered housing. Mr. Licht responded that the proposed zoning ordinance allowed such construction. Mr. Miller stated such buildings were currently allowed in the City and governed by state building regulations. 80.97 .Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey to approve the Housing Plan, dated September 1979 and recommend the document for approval to the City Council . ;Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the Community Improvement Program dated May 19$0. Mr. Knutson attested to the va{idity of the hearing. Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Antolik to table consideration of the report • until the next meeting. Mr. Knutson advised that such action would delay the City from submitting its Compre- hensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council within the 1 July deadline and that an extension would, as a consequence, have to be requested from the regional agency. Roll call was taken on the motion. Nays: Unanimous 80.98 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Geisness to close the pujalic hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey to approve the Community Improvement Program dated May 1980 and to recommend its approval to the City Council . Rol{ call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous 80.99 Motion was made by Geisness, seconded by Enright to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous 6 Lakeville, Minnesota Planing Commission Meeting Minutes S J u ne 1980 Vice Chairman Harvey ad~ourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. i Respectfully submitted, i Mari Geisness, Secretary ATTEST: P rick Harvey, Vic Ch irman I!, i i I i I 7 I