Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-02 P & ZCITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on May 2, 2006, at 6:30 p. m. PRESENT: Chairperson Brian Hanson Commissioner Jennefer Klennert Hunt Commissioner Jeff Hanzal Commissioner Bob Wright ~ O Commissioner Mark Pangell Commissioner Tom Wood 0 Q 0 ABSENT: D. Love COUNCIL: Council Member erway STAFF: Mr. Larson, City Administrator L CALL TO ORDER Rill (',all The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. IL APPEARANCES /PRESENTATION(S) None. III. PUBLIC HEARING(S) Rezoning /Comprehensive Plan Amendment of Certain Parcels within the Downtown Area Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Larson gave a brief review of the downtown redevelopment plan and the new zoning categories. He explained that the M1 zoning is commercial on the first floor with the possibility of residential or commercial on the second and third floors. He explained that M2 zoning a higher density level of housing than is currently allowed. Mr. Larson stated that affected property owners have been mailed notices and also the text of the M1 and M2 districts so they more fully understand what the new regulations would allow if they Page 1 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 are adopted. He stated that amending the Comprehensive Plan would go hand in hand with this zoning change. Donald Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that he would like to know the difference between Ml, M2 and R2. Mr. Larson reiterated the differences between M1 and M2 and noted that R2 is a single family residential district. Mr. Opp stated that the building he owns has always been a multiple dwelling unit and doesn't understand how this has changed. Mr. Larson stated that R2 is single family and R2A is multiple dwelling. He stated that there will be some non-conforming uses created by this change that can continue in their present form, but cannot be expanded. Bryce Wysloski, 1688 Heritage Street, stated that his property has been split between M1 and M2 zoning. Mr. Larson explained that the City had tried to find property lines that fit into a logical place for this plan. Mr. Wysloski stated that that the way the lines are drawn, his detached garage is in M2 and his home and attached garage are in M1 and wondered if a distinction would be made between the two zones for possible expansion. Mr. Larson stated that the way the guidelines are drafted right now, a change in usage will need to be within the master plan for the redevelopment. Wendy Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, stated that her home is current zoned residential and expressed concern about what this possible zoning change would do to her taxes and value of her home. Ms. Brilowski stated that she had no idea when she purchased her home that it would be rezoned to M2. Mr. Larson stated that the use can continue as residential as anon-conforming use. Ms. Brilowski stated that she would like to protest this zoning change for her property because she feels the "rules of the game" have changed. Commissioner Pangell asked Ms. Brilowski to show the location of her property on the aerial map. Mr. Larson asked if her property was part of the County acquisition plan. Ms. Brilowski stated that the County will buy five feet of her property. She stated that she does not see the purpose in rezoning her property because she cannot imagine any Page 2 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 businesses relocating to her property because there is only a school and one other home in the area right now with no direct access to the property. She stated that she understands the rezoning along the main corridor, but not on her home site. She stated that she sees the rezoning as devaluing her home. Commissioner Hanzal explained what the M2 zoning guidelines are and noted that it is not necessarily for commercial or business use. Ms. Brilowski stated that she is not planning on selling to an apartment complex but to another single family. She stated that she is also concerned that her taxes will increase as a result of this zoning change. Chair Hanson stated that her taxes should not increase because taxes are based on current usage. Ms. Brilowski stated that she will have to disclose that the property is no longer zoned residential when she tries to sell the property. Chair Hanson stated that it is still zoned residential, but just a higher density residential than currently. Ms. Brilowski stated that she does not think a developer will be interested in her property because there is no access to where she lives. Chair Hanson stated that a developer would need to establish access because property cannot be landlocked. Ms. Brilowski reiterated that she would like to remain zoned as single family residential. Mr. Larson reminded Ms. Brilowski that even if the zoning is changed, she can continue to use the property as a single family residential use. He stated that the zoning change may actually increase the value of her property in the long run. Commissioner Klennert Hunt noted that although the master plan needs to be followed, there is room for the City to "tweak" the boundaries a bit. She noted that the City is holding the public hearing to get feedback before we make our final recommendation to the City Council. Don Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that he was sure the building he owned has been zoned multiple dwelling and that it must have been changed at some point without his knowledge. Mr. Opp confirmed that he will be "grandfathered in" under his old usage. Commissioner Woods confirmed that the property can continue under its current usage. Commissioner Klennert Hunt reiterated that it is allowed although it will officially be a non-conforming use. Page 3 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 John Ferwerda, 1716 Heritage Street, asked if his taxes will change with the zoning change. Mr. Larson stated that zoning changes do not generally impact taxes until properties begin to sell which could drive up the property values, but noted that it will not happen immediately. Mr. Ferwerda noted that his taxes have risen quite a bit in the last few years. Commissioner Hanzal stated that he did not feel the two issues are related because everyone's taxes have risen. He stated that when developers come in and start buying property, the value of the property will go up and at that time, the taxes will begin to reflect this value. Mr. Ferwerda asked if he would be able to build a garage as he has been planning. Mr. Larson stated that expansion of anon-conforming use is not permitted, so the Planning Commission would have to consider this when it arose. Mr. Ferwerda stated that he did not think his property was originally part of the redevelopment plan and thought it ended on the north side of Heritage Street. Mr. Larson stated that the M1 zoning ended on the north side of Heritage Street but not the entire redevelopment plan. Randy Gnadke, 1751 Main Street, asked if there was anything proposed in the master plan for his property. Mr. Larson stated that the master plan envisions a public building component, which at one time was thought to be a County library. He stated that this is a difficult block because of the value of the existing buildings. Mr. Gnadke stated that if his property is rezoned, then his hands will be tied for expansion. He stated that he had been planning on building a four season porch. He stated that he built this home about five years ago and since the expansion of County 14, many of the nearby houses have begun disappearing, so he may also decide to build elsewhere. He stated that he would like to request that the City hold off on rezoning his property for a while and noted that he property "value" will be affected if he cannot do the things he would like to do with the property. Mr. Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that if this is a "difficult block" he doesn't understand why the City is including it in the redevelopment plan. Mr. Larson stated that looking at the map, this seemed to be a logical boundary. Page 4 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Ms. Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, stated that they are also considering home improvements such as new roof, siding, windows and adding a porch and asked if these projects could move forward with the zoning change. Mr. Larson stated that the maintenance items such as residing, re-roofing and new windows, would not be a problem. Ms. Brilowski stated that they had also planned to expand the kitchen in conjunction with adding on the new porch, when they purchased the home. She asked if the property is rezoned, would they be able to complete these projects as they had planned since they bought the home. Chair Hanson stated that the projects would be considered on a case by case basis and that the Planning Commission cannot answer her questions tonight. Ms. Brilowski stated that she has only lived in this home for one year and noted that they bought the home with the plan of fixing it up. She stated that if she knew this rezoning was coming, she would not have purchased the house. Bryce Wysloski, 1688 Heritage Street, stated that he is new to the area and only found out about this issue last week. He stated that his father-in-law had previously owned this house and recently passed away. He stated that at that time, he and his wife, who was raised in this house, moved into the house and planned to make their life there. He stated that his wife has been very upset about the possible rezoning and he would like to know what they do now. He asked if a developer would be coming to them and making an offer for the property. Mr. Larson noted that the redevelopment plan is a long term plan and there is no way to know how quickly or slowly the process will move. He reminded Mr. Wysloski that he and his wife can continue to live in the house but if they decide to sell to a developer, they could. Chair Hanson stated that there have been concerns raised because of recent eminent domain procedures in the City of Champlin. Chair Hanson assured those present that he does not see the City of Centerville acquiring property in this manner. Mr. Larson agreed and noted that the eminent domain powers are being restricted, so it is a very unlikely outcome for the City to use to acquire property. Randy Gnadke, 1751 Main Street, asked if any developers had been contacted about the viability of this master plan. Mr. Larson stated that a mailing was sent to a number of developers and there have been a few inquiries wanting to know more about the project so the City is trying to get a handle on the viability of the plan. Page 5 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Mr. Gnadke asked if it was true that the Council wanted to have the rezoning process completed by the end of May. Mr. Larson stated that the rezoning is a pretty important piece of the puzzle for the redevelopment plan because developers will want to make sure the zoning matches the potential use for the property. Mr. Gnadke asked that the City take more consideration before making a decision and talk with more developers about the viability of the master plan rather than rezoning this and lurching forward for the project may not begin for 5 or 10 years. Eric Marshall, stated that he lives on the lake and purchased nearby property last year with the thought of splitting it into two lots, one of which would house his shop. He stated that the City has now "hamstrung" him in his process because of the rezoning and the moratorium they passed. He stated that he does not understand the logic in rezoning this to M2 as a residential area when it was rezoned to M1 last summer. He stated that he would like to know what the 10 year plan is, so he can plan accordingly. Mr. Larson stated that the information presented tonight is the plan and noted that the plans shows a drainage pond on his property, but nothing specific was planned for the type of housing. Mr. Marshall stated that he is frustrated because he bought the property, the City imposed a moratorium and now he is paying $1,000 a month which has affected his lifestyle. He stated that he followed the laws that were in place last year and now with the changes he has been hamstrung by the City. He stated that he would like some protection on his investment. Kevin Marios, 1740 Main Street, stated that his property is not really affected by these plans, but was concerned about the lack of adequate parking for the multiple housing units nearby. Mr. Larson stated that these units will be required to have underground parking in addition to the surface parking. Harold Rivard, 7046 Centerville Road, asked when his property was switched to M1. Mr. Larson stated that the plan was formed when they looked at properties that would have potential for commercial traffic and so all corners in Mr. Rivard's area would be commercial use. Donald Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that he thinks people will be hurt if the City makes these changes. He stated that he would like the City to consider the people's good and not just the city's good. Page 6 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Randy Gnadke, 1751 Main Street, asked whether any consideration had been given to the development happening along 35E in Lino Lakes because he thinks that will have an impact on Centerville. He stated that he thinks developers may be pulled more toward Lino Lakes than Centerville. He stated that he would like to urge the City to consider the people and not just "string them along" for ten years and then find out this was not a viable option. He reiterated that he feels the project should be researched for viability before it is pursued any further. Wendy Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, stated that she has attended all of the meetings for this redevelopment plan and does see some value to the plan and appreciates the City having foresight to get things in place, but questions some of the rezoning on the outlying areas. She stated that she feels the outlying areas may have changed from the original proposal. She stated that it is also unclear how Centerville Road will be improved and asked if the County had given a commitment to improve the roadway. Steve King, 1724 Sorel Street, stated that he had come late to the meeting and would like a clarification of the differences between M1 and M2. Mr. Larson reiterated the differences between M1 and M2 zoning. Mr. King stated that he was concerned with parking for the multiple unit structures. Mr. Larson reiterated that these buildings will be required to have underground parking in addition to surface parking. Mr. King asked if this project was considered a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Larson stated that this will probably be developed as a Planned Unit Development with a contract between the developer and the City. Mr. King asked if there would be a package deal with the developer that would allow them certain variances that will not be allowed to residents. Mr. Larson stated that there would not necessarily be variances involved, but would look at the whole development as a package. Mr. King asked if they would have to follow City ordinances such as the noise ordinance. Chair Hanson stated that they would be held to the same standards and noted that zoning does not determine what type of ordinance should apply. Mr. King noted that there has been a lot problems with enforcing the noise ordinance. Mr. King noted that he does not think housing should be included in this redevelopment and feels the whole area should be zoned commercial. Page 7 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Eric Marshall stated that he is concerned that zoning his property M2 will devalue his property in five or ten years. He stated that he invested in this property with the idea that he could do something with it and now the rules have been changed. He reminded the Commission that although, in the big picture, what he is paying on the property is not a lot of money, but it is real money to him. Donald Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that some people are being hurt by this plan and that while he understands the City's position that they need to develop something in the downtown area, he feels it would be fair to put a time frame on it. He stated that, for example, if something doesn't happen in seven years, the properties can revert back to their old zoning. Mr. Larson stated that he feels it may be appropriate to look at the plan in five years to see if it is still viable, but cautioned against an automatic default to the prior zoning. Harold Rivard, 7046 Centerville Road, asked if the County had any plans to improve Centerville Road. Mr. Larson stated that they have not expressed anything in the near term plans for Centerville Road. He stated that there was discussion about bringing road improvements down Centerville Road to Sorel Street for water and sewer improvements, but the plan never involved any funding from the County. He stated that the master plan suggests that the right of way move from 50 feet to 80 feet. Wendy Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, asked whether the financial constraints have been considered in the plans in case the road cannot be widened. Mr. Larson stated that the road will be widened, but it is just a matter of who will pay for it. Mr. King stated that if only his property was sold to the developer, would they just put in a portion of the multiple housing units. Mr. Larson stated that it would make sense for the developer to acquire the whole area for the development and not develop it piecemeal. Mr. Marshall asked if there would be any tax assistance for the developers. Mr. Larson stated that is uncertain because there are a lot of potential public costs for things like parking lots, sewer, water, and road improvements. Chair Hanson asked if there would be any grants available for these projects. Mr. Larson stated that he expected there may be grants that the City would qualify for. Mr. Marshall asked if the City was looking for a specific type of building on his property. Page 8 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Mr. Larson showed an example of the streetscape the City would like to see. He stated that he can share development standards and the market study of what type of businesses that may find this an attractive marketplace with Mr. Marshall. He stated that the master plan does not specify what businesses should be there, just goals on what the City would like it to look like. He stated that he will provide a copy to Mr. Marshall of this information in addition to posting on the website. Mr. King asked what valuation the City would like for the condo units. Commissioner Woods stated that the City is looking for high quality units, but the price will be set by the market. He stated that he would estimate that it would be somewhere in the $200,000 range. Motion by Commissioner Hanzal, seconded by Commissioner Woods to close the public hearing. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Mr. Larson stated that the discussion covered both item one and two from the public hearing calendar but the Commission still needed to have a public hearing on item three. Chair Hanson stated that we had not officially opened the public hearing for item two and stated that he felt we should. 2. Proposed Ordinance #3, Second Series -Modifying M-1 District Requirements and Adding the M-2 District Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Pannell to close the public hearing. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Proposed Ordinance #5, Second Series -Modifying Definitions and Changing Regulations Related to Accessory Structures Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Hanzal left the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Mr. Larson gave a brief overview of the ordinance information. Chair Hanson asked if this would affect the lot in the redevelopment plan that is both M1 and M2. Page 9 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Mr. Larson stated that this does not have any bearing on what the property owner can or cannot do. Bryce Wysloski, 1688 Heritage Street, asked if Chair Hanson was referring to his property and whether this ordinance change was only referring to new buildings. Mr. Larson stated that the ordinance does not impact existing structures only new structures. Commissioner Klennert Hunt stated that this ordinance will apply to the entire community and not just the redevelopment plan area. Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Pannell to close the public hearing. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Hanson stated that he would like to have discussion on the first item from tonight's public hearing. He stated that he understands this effects a number of individuals but he believes this will help revitalize Centerville and feels the City needs to do something to work towards getting a downtown area. He stated that there has been a lot of research and planning to put this plan together. Commissioner Woods stated that he has been a part of the process in putting together a master plan for the downtown area. He stated that right now we are a community of homes and he feels it would be nice to have a community with a presence other than residential. He stated that he sees a commercial presence bringing in convenience and a tax base, but also a downtown as a gathering place. He stated that he grew up in a small town in rural Wisconsin and likes the comfortable feeling of knowing the shop owners and people in the community. He stated that a downtown brings a community that is circled around itself. Commissioner Klennert Hunt asked questions about some of the outlying parcels of the master plan which are not directly part of redevelopment but encompassed with the rezoning. Mr. Larson stated that some of the parcels do not need to be included, but were included as a way of squaring up the area in a logical sense. Commissioner Klennert Hunt stated that she is concerned that the City is "biting off more than it can chew". She stated that she understands many of the concerns expressed during the public hearing and was unaware that residents would not be able to build any accessory structures as part of the rezoning process. She stated that she is concerned that, in the outlying areas, such as Ms. Brilowski's property, the City is messing a little too much with people's lives. She understands that the boundaries made sense, but many of these structures are older homes that the residents need to do something, such as adding on or building accessory structures, to make them workable. She stated that she feels Page 10 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 some of the boundaries should be changed and then the City should continue to look at this and see what happens. She stated that she does not want to see people left hanging. Mr. Larson stated that the boundaries can be modified, but cautioned that he feels the City needs to give the project a chance to succeed. He stated that once the boundaries are determined, the City should be pretty strict about what is allowed to happen on these parcels. He stated this type of process has taken other cities four or five years to get up and running and stated that we should give the plan time to develop. Commissioner Woods stated that in order to get developers involved, the City needs to have guidelines and districts in place or they will not come. Commissioner Klennert Hunt stated that she doesn't disagree but feels the City needs to be cognizant of other things that are happening. She stated that she feels the City needs to be up front with people in letting them know what they can and cannot do on their property. Commissioner Wright stated that he agrees that it may not make sense to include Ms. Brilowski's property in the rezoning plan. Commissioner Pangell stated that he likes the current usage of the property in this area. Commissioner Woods stated that he does not feel excluding this parcel would hurt the master plan, but would like to stick with the rest of the proposed plan. Commissioner Pangell stated that he has mixed feelings about this project. He stated that on one hand he would like to be optimistic about the master plan, but on the other hand, the plan effects many long term residents. He stated that he thinks this is a good vision for the future, but is a hard decision for him to make. Mr. Larson reiterated that once the decision is made, it is important that we give it a reasonable amount of time to develop and happen. Chair Hanson asked if the City was being proactive and trying to find developers. Mr. Larson stated that the Council may schedule a work session and invite the Planning Commission to work with them on how to bring developers into the process. He stated that we need to figure out how to market this project. Councilmember Terway stated that this plan will affect everyone in the City and Centerville will change. He stated that he feels this will have a positive effect on the City and we need to give it a chance to succeed. He stated that the City Council has put a lot of time and effort into this plan and will continue to do so. He stated that he felt it was important not to start "what iffing" ourselves and move backwards. Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Woods to recommend Council approval of the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Page 11 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Amendment of Certain Parcels Within the Downtown Area and exclude lots 7 through 10 as discussed. All present in favor. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Pannell to recommend Council approval of Ordinance #3, Second Series, Modifyin~ M-1 District Requirements and Adding the M-2 District. All present in favor. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Woods to recommend Council approval of Ordinance #5, Second Series, Modifyin~ Definitions and Chan~in~ Regulations Related to Accessory Structures. All present in favor. Motion carried. IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS Calling for a Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit (Realign Clearwater Creek~(SRF -Anoka County CSAH 14 Project Mr. Larson gave an overview of the possibility of moving the creek to make room for the planned pond as part of the redevelopment plan. He stated that this will require a Conditional Use Permit in addition to a public hearing because it is part of the flood plain. Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Woods, to schedule a public hearing at the June meeting for discussion of the Conditional Use Permit (Realign Clearwater Creek) (SRF -Anoka County CSAH 14 Proiect). All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Mr. Steve Hulback, 1736 Center Street Covered Porch Reduest (Ordinance Amendment) Mr. Larson explained that this is an informal request for some sort of cover over his porch to keep rain off his head as he enters and exits his home. He stated that allowing this type of porch would require an ordinance amendment. He noted information he had gathered from other cities on allowing this type of building addition. Chair Hanson stated that he feels if this is allowed, the City would need to create specific stipulations about such things as width, height and roof pitch. Commissioner Wright stated that he feels anything allowed should not have walls but be open on the sides. Page 12 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 Mr. Larson noted that he feels the ordinance from Brooklyn Park may be the closest to tonight's discussion. Commissioner Klennert Hunt noted that the porch type of architecture is making a come back. Commissioner Woods stated that he supports allowing a type of porch that has a roof, but no walls. The Commissioner discussed different architectural styles and continuity within neighborhoods. Commissioner Pangell asked if there was a way for the Planning Commission to see all the plans before they were approved. Mr. Larson stated that it could be made a Conditional Use Permit which would create more of a burden on the property owner. He cautioned that if the reason to see the plans was to approve architectural styles, then he suggests it not be a Conditional Use Permit because then you are trying to impose the Planning Commission's design taste onto individuals. The Commission discussed possible setback issues and materials allowed. Mr. Larson stated that he will draft an ordinance amendment that incorporates the Brooklyn Park language and also that no metal or tin roofs are allowed on the structure. He stated that he will E-mail this information to the Commissioners and suggested scheduling a public hearing for the June meeting. Motion by Commissioner Pannell, seconded by Commissioner Wright, to direct the City Administrator to draft an ordinance amendment to allow covered porches and schedule a public hearing for the June meeting. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Apri14, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Pannell to approve the Minutes of April 4, 2006, as presented. Commissioners Pannell, Wright, Klennert Hunt and Woods in favor. Chair Hanson abstained. Motion carried. Page 13 of 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2006 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Woods, seconded by Commissioner Klennert Hunt to Adiourn the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting at 8:58 p.m. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Kayla Atkins-Rokosz, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 14 of 14