Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-06 P & Z Handouts(3 5tantec Memo To: Planning Commission From: John W. Shardlow, FAICP City of Centerville St. Paul File: Fruth rezoning and lot split Date: December 6, 2016 application Reference:Summary of Planning considerations and potential findings related to this application I have been asked to review the Planning background and assist the Planning Commission as to review this application. I will also suggest some findings for your consideration and will attend the meeting to provide additional assistance. omI The Fruth's own a ten -acre rectangular parcel that is currently guided Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan, but is zoned R-1 Rural Residential. They also request approval to split the 10 -acre parcel into a 4-acre parcel that will include the existing house and a 6- acre parcel. Rezoning - The request for rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be approved. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act states that all local governments in the seven county Metropolitan Area should adopt any necessary changes to their "Official Controls" (zoning map or ordinance, subdivision regulations, codes, etc.) to be consistent with their comprehensive plan within nine months following its adoption. Barring some compelling facts that I am not aware of, or stated policy in the Comprehensive Plan the rezoning should be approved. Any property owner in the City has the right to have their property zoned in a manner that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Lot Split - I have not reviewed the City ordinance regarding lot splits, but both parcels that would be created will significantly exceed the minimum lot size in the R-2 District. What is important to note is that no further development of either parcel should be approved without platting. When a City approves a subdivision one of the primary considerations is how that division of land will affect the development potential of the surrounding parcels. In this case there are vacant properties to the north and northeast. When any of these parcels are subdivided there will need to be a plan to serve all of them with a safe and efficient roadway alignment. As it is right now the six - acre parcel can be accessed off a cul-de- sac, but it exceeds the 800 ff. maximum length. SUGGESTED FINDINGS: - The proposed rezoning of the Subject Property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation and should therefore be approved. The proposed lot split will result in two parcels that both significantly exceed the minimum lot size in the R-2 District and should be approved. No further development on either parcel should be approved without platting and the establishment of a roadway system to serve this property and its neighboring parcels. In sJ c:.Xu5eY \0ordlowldesktop\ftuth application.docx December 6, 2016 Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 Reference: Fruth Application ., - J hn W. Shardlow, FAICP Senior Principal Phone: (651) 967-4560 Fax: (651) 636-1311 John.Shardlow@stantec.com Attachment; C. Design with community In mind sj c:\usersljshardlow\desktapNfruth applbaflon docx To: Planning Commission From: Centerville File: 707 20th Avenue Comprehensive Date: Plan Amendment, Rezoning John W. Shardlow, FAICP St. Paul December 6, 2016 Reference:Muellner Blacktop Co. Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, & Rezoning, From R-2 Single Family Residential to B-1 Commercial The Subject Property is a long-standing pre-existing use on a triangularly shaped parcel. It currently takes access off 20m Avenue N (County Road 54) via a driveway, but lacks sufficient lot width at the roadway to be a developable lot. The property contains a house and a large outbuilding that is used to store equipment for the blacktop business. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for Low/Medium Density Residential, although all the surrounding residential land was platted without any provision for future access to serve this parcel. 1*0109611011 The property owner is entitled to use the property in a reasonable way. Several factors, including the existing buildings on the site, the shape of the property, the proximity of the creek and the relationship between the parcel and the surrounding lots combine to create several practical difficulties. The City should be fair in working with this property owner to ensure that he, or his successors can put the property to a reasonable use. If the applicant is willing to submit a letter waiving the 60 Day Rule, then my advice would be to continue this application. If he needs an answer immediately my recommendation is to deny the application. If the application is continued the applicant will not lose his application fee, During the time of the continuance he could proceed to market the property and hopefully return with an actual business use for the property. This would allow a site plan to be reviewed that would allow the City to address screening, lighting, noise, building design, landscaping, signage, and many other features. It might also be possible to combine the property with some of the adjacent commercial property to facilitate a more efficient and attractive development with better screening and buffering of adjacent residential areas, If the applicant cannot find a new owner who has the resources to reconfigure and redevelop the property, the City could consider approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for the property. This could allow the future owner to use the existing structures for a temporary period (to be negotiated). In exchange for that approval the City could require some reasonable improvements to be made to the property and attach conditions regulating the temporary use of the property. December 6, 2016 Planning Commission Page 2of2 Reference: Muellner Blacktop Application There are simply too many things wrong with the current situation to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning request as submitted. There are numerous factors that present barriers to develop the property in strict compliance with all the codes and ordinances. The City should work with the land owner to find solutions to these problems, either with a new proposed business use, or a well -reasoned Interim Use Permit. If the applicant needs a decision immediately, my recommendation is for denial. If he will work with the City to find better solutions he could either withdraw and reapply or agree in writing to an extended continuance. J n W. Shardlow, FAICP Senior Principal Prone: (651) 967-4560 Fax: (651) 636-1311 John.Shardlow@stantec.com Design with community in mind N cAuserA shardlow\desktoplmuellner application.docx L