Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-06 P & ZCITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 6, 2007 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on March 6, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: ChairBrian Hanson Commissioner Jennefer Klennert-Hunt Commissioner Ben Fehrenbacher Commissioner D. Love Commissioner Mark Pangell Commissioner Robert Wright Commissioner Thomas Wood ABSENT: None COUNCIL: Mayor Mary Capra STAFF: City Administrator, Dallas Larson City Attorney, Kurt Glaser I. CALL TO ORDER 1.Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. II. APPEARANCES None III. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1.Mr. Jeff Hanzal – Request for Variance (7381 Old Mill Road) Continued from February 6, 2007. Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Chair Hanson reminded everyone the topic for discussion was the variance and previous meeting topics would not be re-addressed. Mr. Jeff Hanzal, 7381 Old Mill Road, appeared before the Commission to present his updated proposal for consideration. He discussed the variance request, how the square footage requirement would be met, how the structure would fit with the surrounding homes, and justify the undue hardship on Lot 6. Mr. Hanzal stated the structure meets the 1,050 square foot foundation requirement and the 1650 finished square feet requirement regardless of the building technique. He Page 1 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 pointed out the surrounding home sizes range from 1,918 square feet to 3,386 square feet. Mr. Hanzal stated his proposed structure on Lot 6 would be either a 3,460 or 3,090 square foot structure and would fit within the neighboring developments. Mr. Hanzal displayed the new Lot 6 diagram, stating Outlot A would not be used. Mr. Hanzal confirmed, under Minnesota State Statute 462.357, an undue hardship means the property could not be put to reasonable use if strict interpretations of the ordinances were followed. He indicated the hardship is caused by circumstances unique to the property, such as the Rice Creek 100 foot drainage easement, the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements, and the City of Centerville requirements that impact the shape and buildable area of Lot 6. He stated the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality as the site and surrounding area are zoned for single-family residential use. Mr. Hanzal stated the proposed single-family home would be at the upper square footage relative to surrounding homes. Mr. Hanzal concluded the variance would relieve an undue hardship created by the properties natural and environmental issues. He pointed out the ten foot variance addresses more than practical difficulties; it allows a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Hanzal stated his attorney’s findings indicate the proposed ten foot variance satisfied the undue hardship requirement of both the City Zoning Code and Minnesota Statutes. Mr. Jon Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, pointed to the site map and talked about the Hanzal property. He said the property would not be divided into lots until the City Council approves the request; it is currently one large 4.6 acre lot. He stressed that creating a non-conforming lot (Lot 6) would not meet the setback requirements. Mr. Krueger implied special conditions exist that are particular to the property. He indicated it ties into the State Statutes that say the actions of the landowner by the way it is subdivided creates a need for the variance on Lot 6. Mr. Krueger sited four court cases to justify his statements. He pointed out that creating a non-conforming lot (Lot 6) would set precedence. He stressed that most of the people in the neighborhood are against this and want to know why the Commission is trying to find ways to push this request through. Mr. Krueger stated this could be a PUD or rezoned and he would like to see a covenant for an R-5 home on the lot. City Attorney Kurt Glaser stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had the authority to go either way on this. He mentioned some of the court cases referenced by Mr. Krueger predate 1995. He explained the old rule was that when an individual purchase a property, they also bought the problems. He stated that when determining if undue hardship was created by the landowner, the statutes now address what warrants an undue hardship. City Attorney Glaser conveyed that Lot 6 is a unique situation because of the existing house on the property and the area to the south. He clarified there are two ways to look at this; one being to have five lots and a large area to the south because of the current wetland conditions. He said that secondly the southern lot that is landlocked by setbacks could be developed using the plan presented by the Mr. Hanzal. Page 2 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 City Attorney Glaser recommended, from a legal perspective, the Commission make very detailed findings as to why the decision was made. He stated clear and detailed findings of fact need to be evident in case of litigation. He indicated there are many facts before the Commission; consider them all carefully. Commissioner Wright asked if the total property is one lot, and if, by subdividing the lot, a hardship would be created. City Attorney Glaser replied the Courts stated the old rule was not fair and if there are other factors, the property owners deserve a variance. He explained the old rule did not serve as an automatic bar. Commissioner Wright asked if Mr. Hanzal created his own problem by subdividing. City Attorney Glaser replied this situation is unique because there is an existing home on the property. He stated it is up to the Commission to decide. Commissioner Wright asked if the Commission could decide Mr. Hanzal created his own hardship by subdividing. City Attorney Glaser replied that was an option. Mrs. Ladine Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, stated she lives across the street from Lot 6 and asked if Mr. Hanzal had two years to start or finish the construction. She stated because this is a nonconforming lot, a speculative home would have to be built within the time frame. She reiterated the lot has no back yard, a small front yard, and no buyer for the house. She expressed concern at having a home built that might sit empty. Mrs. Krueger pointed out the road curves and the house would be at the curve. She stated the point is safety with the house being so close to the road. She mentioned her other concern is why a variance that has been opposed so strongly is still being discussed. She asked what is so special about granting this one when others have been denied. Mrs. Norma Essex, 7333 Old Mill Road, stated she is concerned about the home sitting empty also. She said the back yard is useless, floods, is full of mesquites in the summer, there is no room for storage, and the fill would not settle for a very long time. She said she did not understand why Mr. Hanzal wants to build on an unbuildable lot. She suggested they could give the lot to the Rice Creek Watershed District and build on the other five lots. Mrs. Essex stated Mr. Hanzal had other options and the lot could be used for other purposes. Mr. Kevin Malan, 7354 Old Mill Road, stressed the point that this is a self created hardship. Mr. Hanzal responded to the comments stating the lot to the north of the existing house could be zoned R-2. He asked if it would be considered a spot zone. He said if he did get the variance and built house, the risk is his. He stated they have tried to address the concerns of the neighbors and find something everyone could live with. He pointed out Page 3 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 Acorn Creek Second Addition on the zoning map and stated it was created by a developer who received variances on two lots. Mrs.Essex commented the developers did not create the hardship. She stated the only changed was to the outlot that was already there. Chair Hanson asked if the two lots were divided before the developer came in. Mrs. Essex replied they were. She stated the triangle outlot was created by the developer to redirect the road. Mr. Hanzal responded he got his information from 1995 minutes. Mr. Malani pointed out in the previous minutes, a discussion ensued on any approvals and that there could have been a mistake in rezoning the area. He said if the house did not fit, it should not be approved. City Administrator Larson stated this is a zoning issue. A discussion on the R-2 zoning commenced. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated the Commission always looks at the size of the lot, however, as surveys are done, items come up. She indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to clarify where the home would be built. Motion by Commissioner Love, seconded by Commissioner Pangell, to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Hanson brought the discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Wright stated the hardship is caused by Rice Creek, not a City ordinance. Commissioner Fehrenbacher replied it depends how it is looked at. Chair Hanson restated each criterion and asked for final discussion or comments. Commissioner Wright stated the new information on whether the property owner purchased the problems is negated by the new rules. He indicated it is one big lot and by subdividing, in his mind, it is a self created hardship. Commissioner Pangell agreed it is one large parcel of land. He stated that if Rice Creek would not change their standards for setbacks, why should the City of Centerville. Commissioner Fehrenbacher reported he researched what other ordinances in past have been similar. He believes this is an undue hardship in that he would have to tear his home down to make the lot larger. Commissioner Love stated since there is a home on the property already; it makes it difficult to split up. Page 4 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated this is a legal lot and fits the requirements; the question becomes is it a buildable lot. City Attorney Glaser stated the water setbacks have not always been as deep as they are now. He mentioned that when the streets were put in they might have been back to 50 feet. He stated it is a balance between the City and owner to be able to use the land wisely. Chair Hanson stated he looked at it and took it out of the setting. He said the creek is what makes it unique. He mentioned Rice Creek Watershed District decided how close a property owner could build to the Creek. Chair Hanson stated that if the Commission did not grant a variance, it would be something to take a look at because precedence had been set previously. Commissioner Pangell asked what if the decision was wrong in the past; should the Commission keep approving the variances because of precedence. He stated there is uniform opposition to this. Commissioner Love responded the law sets the precedence unless the Planning and Zoning Commission hears something strong enough to say it was wrong. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt said the Commission must look at each situation individually. She said the Commission needed the comments and feedbacks so it could reach consensus and say it made the right decision no matter what it was. Commissioner Pangell stated the court cases and the Planning and Zoning Code are two different things. He stated the term precedence is judicial. Commissioner Wright reiterated his comment about a self created hardship by subdividing a larger lot. Commissioner Love pointed out he is concerned with the possibility of legal ramifications. He stated that whatever is decided, a legal situation for litigation is set up. Mr. Terry Sweeney, 7154 Brian Drive, stated he believed the variance was set when the setback was different. He said this is not comparing apples to apples; precedence was not set. He stated the lot was there, the creek was changed, which made the lot unbuildable and therefore is not a self created hardship. He stated the lot was plotted and then the creek was changed. Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated the roads were in place and did not change. Commissioner Wood stated that if the Planning and Zoning Commission went with the variances set by Rice Creek, how many of the current homes in the area would be less than 100 feet from the creek. He asked if that was any different than the Hanzal property. He mentioned the current homes still enjoy that domain for the same purpose Mr. Hanzal proposes. He said the new laws are there for a reason. He stressed the Mr. Hanzal did not move the creek or the road; he did not create the hardship. Commissioner Wood Page 5 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 stated there is more than one way to look at this. He asked what is in the best interest of the City of Centerville. Chair Hanson asked what year Old Mill Road changed. Mrs. Essex replied it must have been 1994. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated she went to the Hanzal property and measured it to see what the setbacks were. Commissioner Pangell stated this situation is very common on lakefront property. He said older homes are grandfathered and new homes must meet the new setback requirements. Mrs. Essex stated her home is sitting where the road used to run. Chair Hanson asked if road changed to the north. Mrs. Essex replied it did not. Chair Hanson broke down the criteria for a hardship and a discussion ensued on the criteria and whether the property met the criteria for a hardship. There was extensive discussion on whether or not this hardship was created by Mr. Hanzal. The outcome was Rice Creek Watershed caused the hardship on a conforming lot by increasing the setback requirement. The creek causes a topographical hardship. City Attorney Glaser read from the Statute and stated the property in question could not be the plight of the landowner, is unique to the property, and not created by the landowner. A discussion ensued on the hardship criteria to be met. City Administrator Larson stated a condition of approval could be that the house proposed must be the house built. Commissioner Wood asked if a condition that the home not be built until the lot is sold could be added. City Attorney Glaser replied he was not sure. Chair Hanson stated Mr. Hanzal had the right to tie up their money the way they see fit; the risk is theirs to take. Commissioner Wright stated a neighborhood did have the right to be concerned with a home sitting empty. Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he would be more comfortable if the condition to sell and start building within one year was added. Page 6 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 City Attorney Glaser stated if Mr. Hanzal agreed, it could be added. He explained Mr. Hanzal could also request an extension. Chair Hanson said the concerns for safety are all speculation as to what type of buyer would want the property or home. He stated people with children would be taking on the responsibility of safety. Commissioner Love stated the lot did meet the criteria, however there must be conditions attached. Commissioner Fehrenbacher agreed. Commissioner Wright said he would stick with his belief it is a self caused hardship. Commissioner Pangell stated he believes it is a self-created hardship due to where the landowner decided to divide the property. Chair Hanson said he believed it met the hardship based on the issues created by Rice Creek. Commissioner Wood stated he believes it meets the criteria for a hardship due to Rice Creek and that it is a legally conforming lot. He indicated that if the proposed house is built he would support approval of the variance. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated Rice Creek and the existence and location of the current home create the hardship. She said it met all criteria other than the front set back and believed it would fit in to the neighborhood as proposed. City Administrator Larson reminded the Commission that City Attorney Glaser advised them to create detailed findings of fact. He passed out a draft findings and recommendation for the Commission’s consideration. He stated that since this has gone on for three months, it is time for a decision. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners read the proposed recommendation for approval with conditions. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt commented the minimum size of home should be added. Commissioner Wood would like the minimum to be 3,000 total square feet. Commissioner Fehrenbacher said he wanted to add the ‘no spec home’ provision and to establish minimums. City Administrator Larson replied minimums could be specified to off-set the impacts on the neighborhood. Commissioner Love commented it was more than fair to say a minimum of 3,000 total square footage, not counting the garage. Page 7 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 Commissioner Wood recommended ‘greater than or equal to’ a total of 2,800 square feet. He said the condition could stipulate that it is a walk out also. Commissioner Pangell asked who would follow up and make sure all the conditions were met. A discussion on the minimum square footage arose. Commissioner Love asked why the Planning and Zoning Commission was afraid to approve the proposed plans submitted by Mr. Hanzal. He stated the proposed house did not decrease the value of the neighborhood and is larger than the other homes in the neighborhood. Mayor Capra interjected that Mr. Hanzal would own that home until it was sold; therefore, paying taxes and two house payments. City Administrator Larson displayed the County records indicating the sizes of the other homes in the area. He confirmed the Hanzal’s proposed home is larger than the other homes in the neighborhood. City Attorney Glaser recommended using the term ‘floor area’ as stated in the Code. City Administrator Larson stated a condition to consider might be to require the petitioner build the home and not sell the lot. City Attorney Glaser recommended keeping it specific to the land or specific to the applicant. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt asked if this meant the applicant could not sell the vacant lot. City Attorney Glaser explained if he sells the property, the new owner would have to start over. A discussion on property and home building specifications and how to word this ensued. City Attorney Glaser indicated a condition that a building permit would only be issued to Mr. Hanzal could be added. Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated another fact is that Mr. Hanzal is homesteaded next door and it is unreasonable to expect them to tear down their home. City Attorney Glaser asked if there was any other way to put a home on Lot 6 without tearing down the current home. He said to wipe out a home creates in itself an undue hardship. City Administrator Larson asked Mr. Hanzal if he had a revised plan. Page 8 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 Mr. Hanzal said he would provide a plan sheet and date it March 6, 2007. Motion by Commissioner Love, seconded by Commissioner Fehrenbacher, to recommend granting the proposed variance with the stated findings and recommendations. Vote: 5 Ayes, 2 Nays Pangell and Wright. Motion carried. City Administrator Larson commented this item would be on the March 14, 2007 City Council agenda. IV. OLD BUSINESS 1.Comprehensive Plan Review a.Consultant Selection Process This will be discussed at the combined City Council//Planning and Zoning Commission work session on March 21, 2007. V. NEW BUSINESS th 1. B & R Properties, 6805-20 Avenue – Site Plan Approval (Building Addition) City Administrator Larson indicated this is a request for approval of a site plan at B & R Properties at 6805 – 20th Avenue. Commissioner Wood mentioned there were concerns with the soil conditions. Chair Hanson asked if there was a setback issue. Commissioner Wood replied there was with the tree line. City Administrator Larson stated there was a condition on the last approval to implement additional landscaping. He said he asked B & R to submit a revised site plan to indicate the location of the trees. He commented it did not make sense to provide additional landscaping if there are trees that would prevent the plantings from getting sunlight. A discussion on the Site Plan commenced. City Administrator Larson pointed out where the building encroaches into the wetlands. He said B & R must get a release from Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated he believes Rice Creek would release it after easement issues are resolved. Commissioner Wood asked if the City require B & R to get flood plain insurance. City Administrator Larson replied that would be an issue for the property owner. Commissioner Pangell asked about the parking issues. Page 9 of 10 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 City Administrator Larson replied additional square footage would increase the parking requirements. He explained the requirements are three parking spots per 1000 square feet of building. Discussion ensued on parking requirements and where parking could be located. Chair Hanson stated B & R needs to come to the Commission and answer specific questions. City Administrator Larson replied he would contact B & R. He stated the builder is anxious to start and asked if the Commission is willing to meet with B & R before the combined meeting. Council agreed. B & R will meet with the Commission at 6:15 p.m. on March 21, 2007. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS City Administrator Larson stated there are three proposals from consultants for the Comprehensive Plan. He reported the subcommittee of Council/Planning and Zoning Commission would interview and make a recommendation to the commission who in turn would then make a recommendation to Council. He stated he anticipates having someone hired by mid April. City Administrator Larson mentioned the proposals indicate cost ranges from $18,000 to $28,000 for updating of the plan. Chair Hanson said he was very pleased and proud of how the Hanzal issue was handled by the Commission. He stated the Commissioners did a fantastic job and stuck to the facts. Mayor Capra agreed and stated the Planning and Zoning Commission took the brunt of this matter. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.February 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Klennert-Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Love, to approve the Minutes of February 6, 2007 as presented. Vote: 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstain (Chair Hanson as he was not in attendance at this meeting). Motion carried. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wood seconded by Commissioner Pangell, to adjourn the March 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 9:12 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Dianna Wise, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 10 of 10