Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-06 P&ZCITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 2007 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on February 6, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Vice-ChairJennefer Klennert Hunt Commissioner Ben Fehrenbacher Commissioner D. Love Commissioner Mark Pangell Commissioner Thomas Wood Commissioner Robert Wright ABSENT: Chair Brian Hanson COUNCIL LIAISON: Council Member Linda Broussard STAFF: City Administrator Dallas Larson I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Vice-ChairKlennert Hunt called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS None III. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1. Mr. Jeff Hanzal – Request for Variance (7381 Old Mill Road) Continued from Previous Meeting. Vice-ChairKlennert Hunt opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Hanzal, 7381 Old Mill Road, addressed the Commissioners and the audience. He put forward a power point presentation on the application request for a structure variance of 20 feet for Lot 6. He indicated the front setback would be 30 feet from the curb to the closest point of the structure due to its position outside the horizontal curve. Mr. Hanzal stated Centerville is nearly fully built-out so it is important to maximize the use of the remaining land to enhance the tax base. He reported the City would benefit from the additional license and building permit revenue, and the increased property Page 1 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 values that would positively impact Centerville’s bottom line. He pointed out a significant amount of the proceeds from Lot 6 would be used to subsidize the neighbor’s assessments for Old Mill Road utility and road improvements. Mr. Hanzal discussed the property value concerns by providing photos and diagrams of the property. He compared setback elements of Lot 6 to those of the Deer Pass and Eagle Pass developments. He indicated surrounding property values would be protected by covenants and the fact that Lot 6 had the potential to support a 3350 square foot home, which is at the upper range of homes in the surrounding area. Mr. Hanzal addressed safety concerns stating the driveway redesign would accommodate a larger green space where children could play. He stated the driveway would provide two parking spaces that would not encroach on the Right of Way. Mr. Hanzal displayed a line-of-site diagram and photos of the curved road to depict how safety was a prime concern. Commissioner Pangell asked Mr. Hanzal what the setback was at Deer Pass. Mr. Hanzal replied it was at least 34 feet from the curb. Mr. Hanzal explained how approving the variance would comply with the five criteria outlined in Minnesota Statutes and City Code 154: 1)Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. Mr. Hanzal stated the bend in Clearwater Creek renders the lot unusable for reasonable residential use without a variance. Mr. Hanzal reported the variance would relieve the undue hardship and support residential development in a similar manner to others commonly enjoyed in R-2 districts. 2)The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Mr. Hanzal indicated the majority of the surrounding areas are not subject to watershed or wetland restrictions. The variance would correct those uncommon extraordinary circumstances. Such variations have occurred and were approved in other developments where similar circumstances are found. Mr. Hanzal stated the proposed variance is not exclusively based on income alone. The variance is being requested because the characterist5ics of the lot should be enjoyed by potential owners. Page 2 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 Mr. Hanzal reported a good portion of the proceeds would benefit many parties including the City of Centerville, neighbors being assessed for Old Mill Road improvements and decrease the overall tax base. 3)The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Mr. Hanzal stated the hardship is the result of factors not created by persons having an interest; including: the bend of the creek, the re-routing of Old Mill Road during the Acorn Creek developments, and ordinance restrictions of the City of Centerville and the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Hanzal stated there was no indication the lot contained a hardship until the preliminary plat was drafted in late 2006. It is impossible for a common person to foresee a pending hardship as complex as this without the ability or knowledge of the situation. Mr. Hanzal indicated he had no experience with development nor had any indication from the previous owner that there were issues; therefore, prior knowledge would be impossible. Mr. Hanzal stated the two out lots were purchased for $1.00 in order to attach the mortgage to the legal property parcel that contained the residential structure. This is not an indication that there was prior knowledge of the hardship. Mr. Hanzal indicated his knowledge was limited to the City’s zoning ordinances allowing the land to be used for residential building purposes. 4)The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Mr. Hanzal stated the variance would support the increase to surrounding properties and a decrease in the overall tax base. He indicated the structure and driveway would be developed to accommodate all R-2 guidelines with the exception of the front setback. Mr. Hanzal reported the structure and driveway have been designed to maximize green space and retaining walls have been designed as low as possible for public and emergency personnel safety. 5)Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district that the subject property is located. Mr. Hanzal stated the lot and structure would be for single-family, residential use only, as commonly enjoyed in other R districts. He stated he purchased the property knowing the City’s zoning ordinances supported the use of this property for residential development. Page 3 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 In conclusion, Mr. Hanzal addressed the letters of opposition. He stated the safety issue of the small front yard is not an issue because there are 38,000 square feet in the back yard for play. He addressed the police patrol issues indicating if the structure is closer to the road, criminals would have a better place to hide is unfounded. Mr. Hanzal stated he believes the high speeds on Old Mill Road would be lessened once the property is developed. Mr. Hanzal stated there is no way one could find the lot required a variance until the engineer was out to look at it. He indicated he understood the concerns of the neighbors and he is sensitive to them. Mr. Jon Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, asked Mr. Hanzal how large the garage would be. Mr. Hanzal replied it would be a two car garage. Mr. Krueger asked about the designated flood plain area in the back yard. Mr. Hanzal replied it is a flood plain only to a point. Mr. Krueger asked if the back yard would be a flooded area and if the house could be put in line with the others in the neighborhood. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt commented to the audience that the letters from the neighbors have been addressed. Mrs. Norma Essex, 7333 Old Mill Road, stated she was told by the Rice Creek Watershed the flood plain is seven feet. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal to comment on the size of the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Charles Plow, Sr., Plow Engineering, responded that the height of retaining wall varies to meet the needs of the grade based on the property survey. Mr. Krueger stated he lived across the street from Lot 6 and opposed the variance because it would not fit the neighborhood. He reported the other driveways in the area have a 50-foot setback from curb and this one would be only 30 feet. Mr. Krueger mentioned the line of site is a matter of opinion as there is a bend in the curve and a hill where cars could not be seen until the last minute. He pointed out traffic from Eagle Brook Church use Old Mill Road as a shortcut. He indicated traffic speeds would increase because of the additional traffic. Mr. Krueger stated he is here to address the needs of the community and the neighborhoods. He stressed Deer Pass development is a cul de sac with no through traffic and Eagle Pass is a mix of townhomes and single family homes with winding streets; they do not compare with the neighborhood. He pointed out some lots are zoned rural and Lot 6 would be zoned R-2. Mr. Krueger stated the garage would not compare Page 4 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 to others in the neighborhood and the foundation would be smaller than others in the neighborhood. He asked how the hardship could not be considered a financial gain. Mr. Krueger asked if a variance was requested from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Hanzal replied it had not. Mr. Krueger pointed out on the diagram where the driveway was located. Mr. Hanzal stated it would be at 30 feet from closest point of the structure. Mr. Krueger stated the neighbors want him to follow the same guidelines they had to follow. He stressed he wanted the house to conform to the other homes in the area. He mentioned that a portion of the property was an outlot at one time and considered not developable. Commissioner Pangell asked Mr. Hanzal if the house would it be in a registered flood plain if it were set further back and if so, why would someone want to build there. Mr. Plow Sr. reported other similar situations had sought a variance from the Rice Creek Watershed and were turned down; therefore Mr. Hanzal did not pursue it. Mr. Krueger stated the 20-foot variance is huge and unprecedented indicating that if he wanted to add onto his garage and add 20 feet he should be able to. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt replied that the Commission is very concerned with setting a precedent, and wanted to make sure there is a good reason to grant the variance. Mr. Krueger pointed out the Commission must look at what the neighborhood wanted. Commissioner Fehrenbacher replied that the Commission must consider what is best for the City as a whole. City Administrator Larson reminded everyone the issue to be addressed is whether the request meets the criteria to qualify for the variance Mrs. Ladine Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, stated this is not an easy thing to oppose because they have a great relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Hanzal. She indicated there is a safety issue as children would play in the front yard in the summer because the mosquitoes are so bad in the back yard. She reiterated that the Deer Pass and Eagle Pass developments are not relevant to Lot 6 and to compare them is misleading. She stated neighbors believe their homes are their investments and are here to protect them. Mrs. Krueger asked the Planning Commission to help them protect their investments by considering all the reasons brought forward in totality. Page 5 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 Commissioner Love asked if the foundation size is 1,117 square feet and the R-2 requirement is 1,050 square feet, could the house and garage be pushed back and still meet the R-2 requirements. Mr. Hanzal replied it might be possible but the house would still require a variance. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked if the other driveways he was comparing to were PUDs (Planned Unit Developments). Mr. Hanzal replied yes. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal if he had considered a PUD. Mr. Hanzal replied yes, but he was not sure it was right for this lot. He indicated that if he did a PUD the house would be fine. He stated he wanted individual family homes to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Hanzal also replied to the statement about his back yard, indicating it remained dry 90 percent of the time. He stated the garage size is a matter of preference. City Administrator Larson explained what a PUD was, for the benefit of the individuals in attendance. Mr. Krueger mentioned developers are required to pay Park Dedication Fees or donate land. He stated the outlot could be donated for City park land. Commissioner Fehrenbacher asked Mr. Hanzal if the appropriate covenants would be put in place if the variance is approved. Mr. Hanzal replied the covenants would be strictly followed. Mr. Kruger asked if Mr. Hanzal’s other lots could be split equally so variances were not required. Mr. Hanzal replied this would require moving or tearing down his house and that is not an option. Mr. Kevin Malani, 7354 Old Mill Road, stated granting Mr. Hanzal the 20-foot variance would put his house right in front of him when he opened his door. Mr. Tom Wilharber, 6849 Centerville Road, stated he had served on the City Council for 18 years, served as the Mayor for five years, and also served on the Planning Commission. He reported this area was intended to be zoned only R-5, so he is surprised at the R-2 designation. Mr. Wilharber pointed out the lot was never a buildable lot; it was always an outlot. He stated Eagle Pass was a planned development with coved streets to allow more homes to be built and Deer Pass is on a cul de sac which allows shorter lots. Ms. Sandy Salazar, 7336 Old Mill Road, stated she is concerned for the safety of children and the fast traffic on the road. Page 6 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 Mrs. Krueger addressed the Commission again and displayed photos of what the neighbors would be looking at. She pointed out how close the houses are to the street at 30 feet and at 50 feet. She mentioned the homes are not all set back at the same footage. Mrs. Essex stated everyone in the development had a two car garage, two cars and room for storage. She stated the future owners of Lot 6 would not have enough room for more than two cars and no extra storage space. She stated extensive flooding did occur in this area on many occasions during the year. She emphasized the area could not be used during the summer because of the mosquitoes and bugs. She indicated safety is a large issue for her. She reported that when they built their home, they had to comply with the current conditions and did not get a variance. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the Commission would consider the five criteria for approving a variance. Commissioner Pangell stated the Commission had already recommended the change to an R-2 zoning designation to the Council. Mr. Plow, Sr. stated the Rice Creek Watershed District had not given their final approval of the development plan, but he expected it soon. Motion by Commissioner Pangell, seconded by Commissioner Love, to close the public hearing on the request for variance at 7:50 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the first criterion to be met is: Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. Commissioner Love reiterated the most important issue to determine is if an undue hardship exists. Commissioner Fehrenbacher agreed and stated he was unsure if the fact that Mr. Hanzal did not know of the hardship qualified as meeting the criteria for an undue hardship. Commissioner Love asked if there were records indicating the City Council designated the property as not developable. Mr. Wilharber replied it should be in the early records. City Administrator Larson stated the City would have commented on the portion that was not buildable-the remnant portion left over after development of the land across the street, but that it did not affect the rest of the lots. Commissioner Love stated he did not look at it as a whole. Page 7 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 City Administrator Larson responded it is irrelevant now and must be looked at as a whole. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated her issue with undue hardship is that it is often hard to know if a property is in a floodplain by just looking at it. Commissioner Fehrenbacher stressed he did not want to set a precedent of “did not know” as an undue hardship. Commissioner Love stated the Commission must set exact variables. Commissioner Pangell stated each situation is unique. Commissioner Wright agreed. Councilmember Broussard recommended that the Commission look first at the criteria the variance did meet. Criteria 5: Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district that the subject property is located. All commissioners agreed it met this criterion. Criteria 4: The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Commissioner Pangell stated he lives on an inside corner on Eagle Pass. He mentioned the line of site is often a problem and agreed an inside corner is a positive in Mr. Hanzal’s favor. He stated the line of sight appears to not be a problem. Commissioner Wood stated he lives at 7307 Deer Pass Drive where his children play in the back yard of the house. He indicated he did not see the safety issue as the responsibility of the owner as long as they met the criteria of the state. Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he appreciates the safety of children, but the assumption that there would be children on the property is not at issue. All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion. Criteria 3: The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated this is a Rice Creek issue and Rice Creek usually does not give variances so it is not worth pursuing. Page 8 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 Commissioner Wood indicated water management and Rice Creek are strict. He stated the property had no where to go back. All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion. Criteria 2: The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion. Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he is not sure, based on the second half of the statement, that it met this criterion. Councilmember Broussard asked Mr. Hanzal if it is possible to build a house on the lot without the variance. Mr. Hanzal replied the house could not be built without the variance. Councilmember Broussard stated it did not render the lot unbuildable. She suggested looking at where the City ordinance and Rice Creek differ on what is unbuildable. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated basically the lot is unbuildable. All Commissioners agreed it met the criteria Criteria 1: Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. Commissioner Love stated what gave him pause, is that not knowing is not an excuse. He indicated that an individual buys a lot with a vision of what could be built on it. He indicated they would not know about potential problems until the engineering process began. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated it gets back to the creek and road determining where the house could be built. City Administrator Larson interjected that perhaps there is some variation of this; that would make it more bearable, such as entrance to the garage or something else that would reduce the impact. Page 9 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 Councilmember Broussard gave examples of a variance that was granted and one that was not as a point of reference for the Planning Commission to consider in making their decision. Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated that when looking at the six lots, it is a line proposed by this development; however the question is if the Commission did not approve the variance, did it prevent the development of Lot 6. He stated he would like to see it developed but did not want to set precedence. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal why the line is proposed at the current location. Mr. Hanzal replied that the line is to meet the setback requirements. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Hanzal if it is possible to reduce the foundation and put a sunroom on the side and go up two stories, to match the other houses in the area. Mr. Hanzal stated there is a recommended three season porch that could be changed to a four season porch. He stated the house is proposed back as far as it could go. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated a variance would still be required. Commissioner Wood mentioned the smaller foundation would move the house back. Commissioner Pangell asked if this could be a side lot variance instead. Mr. Hanzal replied it could be set two feet further back bringing the house 32 feet from the street and 17 feet from the property line. Commissioner Pangell recapped; stating all members of the Commission agreed on Criteria two, three, four and five, with number one the only criteria at issue. Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated the issue is the 20-foot variance request. City Administrator Larson suggested the Commission could indicate it could live with “X” amount of variance but not 20 feet because at some point it becomes too much. Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked for specifics on the side setback areas. She indicated the result is there is no way to satisfy this with a side setback and the conclusion is there is only one place the house could be built. Commissioner Wood stated he would like to table this and see what other options Mr. Hanzal could come up with. Councilmember Broussard suggested it could be forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation and with the stated concerns. She stated this would give the Engineer time to research other options. Page 10 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 City Administrator Larson discouraged this option. He encouraged the Planning Commission to forward a finding and recommendation. Mr. Plow, Sr. presented the option of using five-foot side setbacks making the total distance from house to road 35 feet. City Administrator Larson stated the hardship is the inability to use the property due to circumstances outside the control of the property owner. Commissioner Love stated City Administrator Larson’s definition clarified what the hardship is. He indicated he would be okay with this if the house could be moved back, but it must decide how far. Mr. and Mrs. Hanzal stated they did not have a problem with the smaller foundation size and a ten foot variance. Motion by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Fehrenbacher, to table discussion of the request for variance until the March 6, 2007 meeting. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS 1.Sedona Townhomes – Final Plat City Administrator Larson indicated he had reviewed the final plat for the Sedona Townhomes and he is unaware of any concerns. Mr. Keheler addressed the Commission and indicated that the final plat is very similar to the preliminary plat. Commissioner Love questioned Councilmember Broussard in regards to Council’s desires for recommendations submitted to them by the Commission. Councilmember Broussard replied she would discuss this with Council. City Administrator Larson stated there would be a joint meeting with the Council and Zoning Commission in the near future. This could be a discussion point at that meeting. Motion by Commissioner Love, seconded by Commissioner Fehrenbacher, to recommend Approval of the Sedona Townhomes Final Plat. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 2.Comprehensive Plan Review a.Consultant Selection Process Page 11 of 12 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2007 City Administrator Larson stated that the City Council recommended establishing a committee that would include two members of the Commission and two members of the Council to select a consultant. The Commission appointed Commissioners Love and Wood to serve on this committee, with Commissioner Pangell acting as an alternate. Review of the Comprehensive plan was tabled until the March 6, 2007 meeting. V. NEW BUSINESS None VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.January 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Commissioner Love requested the removal of “Commissioner Jeff Hanzal” from the list of members . Motion by Commissioner Fehrenbacher, seconded by Commissioner Pangell to approve the Minutes of January 2, 2007, as amended. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Wood to Adjourn the February 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Dianna Wise, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 12 of 12