2024-08-14 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2024 Commissioner Seppala asked Mr. Carlson some questions about city code 156.210 items b and c; she noted that the code says that all conditions for a CUP or IUP must be met for a PUD and wondered if preservation of unique natural resources of land an exception would be because tree removal and other activities associated with development would alter the natural landscape. Mr. Carlson noted that while this is a wonderful site, he would not consider these natural resources in the sense that the Grand Canyon is Î itÓs a residential property with some old trees. Commissioner Seppala asked about item c, Ðplanning and development proposal appears to harmonize with both existing and area surrounding the projectÑ and does a 4-story building harmonize with the school right next door or with the lake or the neighborhoods around it. Mr. Carlson said there is probably not one right answer, but the property to the north is about 200 feet from those homes Î itÓs not ten or twenty feet. Other homes are next to each other and there are also existing trees in the area, noting that the development certainly harmonizes reasonably. Mr. Carlson added that a school is a busy place during the day and a building next to it does not seem unreasonable or out of character. To the lake, the building is set back significantly; the other part of the clause is future proposals, and the intent of the downtown is that it will be built up with more intense dense development. Commissioner Seppala read aloud the definition of harmony, noting that she does not know how this development is compatible with the school, lake, or surrounding neighborhood, because it is not a visually pleasing combination, adding that it sticks out like a sore thumb. Mr. Carlson noted it falls in the area of judgement. Commissioner Seppala further added that the code says that all conditions must be met. Commissioner Seppala asked how we get past the Master Plan limiting buildings to three stories and the development is four. Mr. Carlson noted that with sloping site, it meets the criteria. Discussion ensued about a definition of ÐstoryÑ in terms of livable space. Discussion ensued about evaluating the project in terms of criteria that are currently in place. Discussion also ensued about changes to the density in the M2 district last year. Discussion ensued about internal inconsistencies in the Downtown Master Plan such as Ðlow to mid-rise housingÑ in the M2 district. Commissioner Thompson noted that the city has a Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan that says we want to grow downtown within the parameters of the planning documents, adding that then we go out to the development community and say this is what we want and then a developer comes in and tries to meet most of what we want. He added that if there are things that we want to change, like parking, the view to school, etc., the Commission can set conditions through the CUP. Further, Commissioner Thompson said that he is having trouble understanding why the Commission is having trouble moving this forward to the city council when the CommissionÓs role is to review the project against the city code and guiding document Î he added that the CommissionÓs role is not to consider political ramifications of rental housing versus home ownership TIF, etc. Commissioner Seppala said that the Commission needs to do due diligence and vet this for the Council, adding that they should point out the parking, height, contradictions in the Master Plan and the conditional use permit. Commissioner Thompson asked if the Commission wanted to point out the contradictions and pass this forward or deny it. Commissioner Seppala noted that she would make a motion to deny the LaLonde Property CUP for a PUD based on not conforming with zoning related to parking, related to height as outlined in the Stantec denial, that it conflicts with the Master Plan Î specifically the height and mass of the building do not protect the integrity of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The design of the building is not consistent with the architectural design standards in the referenced Master Plan. The Master Plan limits projects to three stories, whereas, the proposed project would rise more than three level on the western north side, the conditional use permit 156.21 that it does not harmonize with the existing surroundings, for safety and the proximity to the Centerville Elementary School, and the Page 9 of 16