Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-14 P & ZCITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on March 14, 2006, at 6:30 p. m. PRESENT: Jennefer Klennert Hunt Jeff Hanzal Bob Wright Mark Pangell D. Love Tom Wood ABSENT: Brian Hanson COUNCIL: None STAFF: Mr. Larson I. CALL TO ORDER 1.Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. II. APPEARANCES - None III. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1. St. Genevieve’s Church – Requested Variance for Driveway –6995 Centerville Road (Recessed from February 7, 2006 Meeting) Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Mr. Larson stated that this public hearing was recessed from February 7, 2006 because the church was asked to look at the alternative of keeping the driveway to the west until it passed the back of the residence before aligning with Goiffon Street. Mr. Brian Barrett of 6538 Deerwood Lane in Lino Lakes stated that he is on the building committee for St. Genevieve’s and the plans before the Commission are not the latest version and he is not sure where the City got these plans. Mr. Barrett stated that the Page 1 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 driveway already aligns with Goiffon Street, so to change the alignment would cause them to “bow” out the driveway. Mr. Larson stated that the City did not craft this paperwork. He stated that he assumed these plans came from Mr. Wilharber. Mr. Barrett stated that he feels these are an earlier plan of what they had proposed to do. Mr. Barrett explained the history of this project and that the church thought that they had the necessary land to locate the roadway and align it with Goiffon Street. He stated that by the time the additional research and surveying was done to determine the property line, the building and parking lot were already completed. He stated that the church did not intend to build the building in its present location and just get an easement later. He stated that a mistake was made and a Quit Claim deed was not recorded properly. He stated that the church would like to run the road straight and align with Goiffon Street as a matter of safety at both the intersection and for the people who will be walking back and forth between the church and the new facility. Mr. Barrett reiterated that the church did not know it would need the variance when they began the construction. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that the Commission was under the impression that the plans in the packet were the revisions asked for at the last meeting. Mr. Barrett passed around a copy of the latest plans that showed what the church was actually requesting. He stated that they may need to go back before the Rice Creek Watershed District with the plans. Mr. Barrett stated that he was concerned with site lines if the roadway is curved. He stated that to move away from the corner of the house, it will take an additional 75 to 100 feet to align, so a variance will still be needed. Commissioner Woods asked how much it would cost to change the roadway. Mr. Barrett stated that he was unsure what the costs would be as well as what the Rice Creek Watershed District would say because of draining and ponding issues. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that as part of the variance process, the applicant needs to have a hardship in order to qualify for a variance. She asked Mr. Barrett to explain what the church’s hardship would be in this case. Mr. Barrett stated that the hardship would be they had originally planned for the driveway to be straight to ease traffic issues, site line issues and other safety concerns. He stated that the potential safety concerns are the main reason because he is unsure if the cost will increase greatly. Mr. Spitzmueller of 6521 Lino Lakes Road stated that he was also on the Building Committee with Mr. Barrett. He stated that there will be additional costs incurred because the road bed has already been prepped for paving. He stated that there will be additional engineering costs incurred as well. Page 2 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 Commissioner Wright stated that the Commission needs to think of the nearby residents. He stated that he had originally thought a berm could be put in, but that may not be possible because of drainage issues. Commissioner Woods asked if the church has met with the property owners to try and come up with a compromise for a win/win situation. Mr. Barrett stated that he has not spoken with them personally, but Mr. Wilharber has spoken with them but there has not been any resolution. Ms. Christy Highland of 1680 Heritage Street stated that Mr. Wilharber has “stopped over” a few times when they have been outside to tell them what was happening with the project, but they have never been asked to sit down and talk about the issue. She stated that the church has never asked for a meeting to say “look, we know this road is going to be close to your property, let’s talk”. She stated that the variance they are asking for is very large and not just a few feet. She stated that she has a two year old and they are concerned about having a driveway so close to the property line. She stated that she agrees that safety should be considered, but feels making the driveway straight will encourage cars to drive faster, so if people were walking between the two buildings, this would be a safety issue. She stated that she felt most of the traffic from the church would exit onto Centerville Road. Mr. Spitzmueller asked if the setback is different for commercial versus residential. Mr. Larson stated that for this use the setback is 20 feet. Mr. Barrett reiterated that the church fully thought that they owned this land. He stated that they wanted to get the sand roadbed laid before the weather turned and so Mr. Wilharber called the City to begin the process and felt that the road could be moved if it had to. Commissioner Love asked what was meant when it was stated that “the road could be moved if it had to be.” He stated that he did not think the biggest issue has been addressed, which is the closeness of the residential lot to the driveway. Mr. Barrett stated that if the roadway is moved it will not align with Goiffon Road. Commissioner Woods asked how much traffic will be using this driveway and whether it would only be used during weekend services. Mr. Barrett stated that the only time the new building is used is for 10:00 a.m. mass on Sundays which would have about 100 cars. He stated that the other services are held at the old church building. He stated that there may be a few small meetings during the week at the new facility. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked what the homeowner’s were looking for in this situation. Page 3 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 Ms. Highland stated that the driveway is just so close to their yard. She stated that perhaps a fence could be erected so there is a barrier between the property and the driveway. She stated that they are not totally against the driveway, but they are very worried about the safety of their child. Commissioner Woods asked if the Highlands would be willing to sit down and talk with the church and discuss options such as fencing. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt cautioned that a variance would still be needed for the driveway. Commissioner Woods stated that he understands a variance would still be needed but would like to see a win/win situation between the church and the property owners. Mr. Barrett stated that he would have no problem meeting with the Highlands to discuss the issue. Mr. Joel Highland of 1680 Heritage Street stated that he did not feel the additional costs the church will incur as a valid hardship because they caused this situation by beginning the project before the property boundaries were established. He stated that their property slopes towards the road and there is no room for either a berm or trees. Commissioner Hanzal asked if Mr. Highland was willing to sit down and discuss the situation with the church. Mr. Highland stated that he was willing to sit down and talk with the church. Dennis Caterhenry of 4114 Oakview Lane in White Bear Lake stated that he is Christie’s dad and grandpa to their 2 year old. Mr. Caterhenry stated that he feels it makes sense to have a curve in the driveway to slow down traffic. He stated that at a prior meeting there was discussion to swing the driveway a different way and he does not feel the church has presented those plans. He stated that the plans presented tonight were from last year. He stated that he feels there has been a lot of miscommunication which has not been the fault of his daughter and son-in-law. He stated that he does not see a hardship for granting this variance. He stated that he feels constructing a fence should be a last resort and that the road should be moved further away from their property. He stated that the church made mistakes and now is asking the City to go from a 20 foot setback to 8.5 foot setback. Mr. Barrett stated that he wanted to make it clear that the church could not find the correct lot line. He stated that he feels not lining up this driveway with Goiffon Road is a bad idea. He stated that the County has also requested that this driveway align with Goiffon Road. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked if the property was surveyed before the building was constructed. Page 4 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 Mr. Barrett stated that it was surveyed and they thought that they had an additional 13 feet and then when additional research was completed, the Quit Claim Deed was found that had been granted to the LaMotte family. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked why they went ahead with constructing the road before this issue was clarified. Mr. Barrett stated that the driveway was not constructed, only the sand base was put in. He stated that it was felt that the road could always be moved if it needed to, but they wanted to get this completed before the weather changed. He stated that working out the property lines has been a very confusing process, but they are willing to sit down and work with the Highland’s to try to resolve this issue. Mr. Spitzmueller stated that the ponding has already been engineered with their current plans so if they are changed there could be significant watershed issues. Commissioner Hanzal asked if the Rice Creek Watershed had been contacted about this potential revision in the plans. Mr. Barrett stated that they have not yet contacted the Rice Creek Watershed. Mr. Larson stated that he is in agreement with the church that the driveway should align with Goiffon Road. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt noted the letters received from the Police and Fire Departments also agreeing with this alignment. Tom Fitzgerald of 7087 Goiffon Road stated that he also would like to talk with the Highlands and work something out. He stated that they can come up with a Plan B if necessary, but they would like to have the road go straight. He stated that he does not want to endanger any children. He stated that this is still a work in progress and the church is not trying to push anything over onto the Highlands. Mr. Larson asked if the church was willing grant an extension to the City to allow time to discuss this with the Highlands. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he felt an extension was fine. Mr. Highland stated that they will be out of town for the next meeting. Commissioner Hanzal asked if the Highlands would have any problems with the meeting going on as planned if they had come to an agreement with the church by that time. Ms. Highland stated that if there was a signed agreement with the church, they would not need to attend the meeting. Page 5 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that the goal of the City is to make everyone happy with the outcome. Motion by Commissioner Love, seconded by Commissioner Woods to continue the public hearing for St. Genevieve’s Church and their request for a variance for a driveway to allow time to reach an understanding regarding the property line issues. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. David Fisher – 7072 Centerville Road – Request to Construct an Accessory Structure and Variance (Moratorium and Oversized) Mr. David Fisher of 7072 Centerville Road stated that the way the ordinance is written is very confusing to him. He stated that if he follows the ordinance, he can basically build a garage big enough for a Yugo and nothing else. He stated that he began this process in 2003 and thought it could be 4% of his lot size and not the 2% as it currently states in the ordinance. Commissioner Love asked if Mr. Fisher was willing to match the exterior of the garage to his home. Mr. Fisher stated that he will match the exterior and stressed that he was not trying to put in a shed or pole barn next to his home. Mr. Larson read from the codified version of the zoning ordinance in section 154.132. Commissioner Hanzal assured Mr. Fisher that the City wants to work with him to get his garage erected. He asked whether constructing the garage with a breezeway between the home and garage would be a solution. Mr. Fisher stated that he wants to build a detached garage because he does not want to put in a lot of money into frost footings because they may not stay in the home. Beth Fisher of 7072 Centerville Road stated that part of their frustration has been the potential redevelopment plans for the downtown area. She stated that they feel stuck because they really cannot sell their home without disclosing the potential redevelopment plans. She stated that they have questioned whether they should stay and put money into this with the hope that the redevelopment is far away. She stated that they would like to make it decent and livable while they are there. She stated that if it is redeveloped for commercial use, they do not want to sink a lot of money into this because they will not get that money back. Commissioner Love stated that the more value your home has, the more money you can sell it for. Page 6 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 Ms. Fisher stated that will not be the case if it is sold commercially. Mr. Larson stated that discussion of the Accessory Structures and Uses as well as M1 and M2 is on the agenda for discussion later tonight. He stated that the City needs to figure out where it is going and get the moratorium lifted as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher stated that he originally had a larger garage in mind, but he has scaled it back because of the potential downtown development. He stated that with the moratorium in place, he cannot do anything right now. He stated that the Mayor asked him to work with the Planning Commission to try to resolve the issue. Commissioner Love asked if the moratorium can be removed for an individual case. Mr. Larson stated that it cannot be removed for an individual case. Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to begin constructing his garage in July. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that Mr. Larson will communicate with Mr. Fisher about our discussion on districts and rezoning. She thanked Mr. Fisher for explaining his situation as it helps put the percentage issues into perspective. IV. OLD BUSINESS 1. Draft Section 154.022 – Accessory Structures and Uses Mr. Larson presented the revised draft of 154.022 and noted that the 2% language regarding structure size is included. He stated that the ordinance is geared towards encouraging attached garages and allowing small accessory structures. He noted that the Commission needs to consider item D) which does not allow any accessory structure to be erected anywhere other than the rear yard. He showed some examples of where current accessory structures are located in the City. He stated that he had removed the special dispensation for the M1 district because he did not feel there should be a more liberal standard for commercial developments. The Commission discussed the structure not exceeding 2% of the lot size. Commissioner Love stated that he did not feel our ordinance fits Mr. Fisher’s situation. Commissioner Hanzal stated that he feels the City should look at possible height restrictions to prevent two story accessory buildings. Commissioner Pangell suggested taking a look at what other cities have in their ordinance for these types of structures. Page 7 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 The Commission discussed attached versus detached structures and limiting the height of the structures. Mr. Larson suggested that the wording be changed to state “not to exceed 15 feet in height, other than to match the roof pitch of the existing structure”. Commissioner Hanzal stated that he thinks “slope” is the more correct terminology in place of “roof pitch”. The Commission discussed needs for accessory buildings in industrial areas of the City. Commissioner Woods stated that he feels commercial and industrial should be separated. The Commission discussed moving this information into the commercial areas of the ordinance. They discussed that there could be different rules for commercial to keep height restrictions in place, but it is not as important in the industrial section. There was a consensus to amend section 154-060 to make changes stating that the accessory structure in commercial areas are not to exceed the height of the principle structure. Mr. Larson stated that he will work on other language changes for this section to discuss at the next meeting. 2. Draft Section 154.090 – Mixed Use District (M-1) Mr. Larson stated that we are proposing to create two districts downtown, M-1 and M-2. He stated that M-1 would be limited to first floor commercial use with residential above. Mr. Larson read the draft section of 154.090 and noted that he feels it is important to be fairly rigid about what is allowed in this area of the City with our ultimate redevelopment plan in mind 3. Draft Section 154.091 – Mixed use Neighborhood District (M-2) Mr. Larson read through the draft of 154.091 which relies on the redevelopment plan to give guidelines in how to proceed. Mr. Larson stated that the language changes for the Accessory Structures should be ready for discussion at the next meeting. He suggested that a public hearing on the entire section could be scheduled in May. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Ordinance Codification Page 8 of 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2006 Mr. Larson stated that the Council has adopted the code, including the reorganized Chapter 154. He stated that they are planning not to distribute too many copies until the three segments discussed tonight are finalized and can be included. The Commission discussed the landscaping issues of the BNR plan discussed at a past meeting. Mr. Larson stated that he will send a letter to the applicant stating that the Commission is satisfied with the existing landscaping but reserves the right to reopen the issue in the future. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. February 7, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Hanzal, seconded by Commissioner Wright to approve the Minutes of February 7, 2006, as presented. Commissioners Hanzal, Wright, Love and Woods in favor. Commissioners Klennert Hunt and Pangell abstained. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Woods, seconded by Commissioner Love to Adjourn the March 14, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting at 9:13 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Kayla Atkins-Rokosz, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 9 of 9