Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-05 P & Z CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their re scheduled meeting on December 5, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commission Member Alan LaMotte Commission Member David Kilian Commission Member Rob Sheppard Commission Member John McLean Commission Member Ray DeVine Commission Member Brian Hanson Commission Member Barry Brainard ABSENT: None. COUNCIL: Linda Broussard Vickers STAFF: City Administrator, . I. II. 1. ev opment, gave a brief overview of the history of the pI or the revised Planned Unit Development (PUD). A pr . . ary plat was denied by the Planning and Zoning co ormity ofPUD requirements. Mr. John Lundblad, 6904 Centerville Road, inquired as to where the cul-de-sac would be located and how Ground Development would provide access to the cul-de-sac for his driveway. Page 1 of8 Joel Cooper, Ground Development Engineer, stated it would be relatively easy to connect the driveways to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Mike Carter, 6913 Sumac Court, expressed his concern for increased traffic on Center Street. He suggested stubbing in a road to the south of the development to help alleviate traffic when the property to the south develops. Mr. Wes Schoeberlein, 6906 Centerville Road, expressed concern for traffic on Center Street and for access to his driveway. Mr. Schoeberlein expressed displeasure for the comments of the developer at the last meeting concerning the threat to leave town without putting the development in should the developer not obtain approval by mid- December. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned the elevation difference between Dupre Road and the property to the south. Mr. Cooper stated he believed it to be approximately two (2) feet. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that there may need to be some type of retaining wall to prevent erosion due to the elevation differences. Mr. Cooper clarified that the elevation of Dupre Road was in front of the tree line which abuts the property to the south. There should not be a problem as the grade will not change along the property line. Mr. Lundblad questioned the quantity of traffic Centerville Road is able to handle. Mr. March indicated Centerville Road currently has approximately 6,000 trips per day and is designed to handle 10,000 trips per day. Mr. March expressed concern for access to the development on Centerville Road and suggested turn lanes may need to be added to clear up congestion in the area of the development. Mr. March indicated he had discussed this with Mr. Cooper who agreed turn lanes may be needed and indicated that if the County determines the turn lanes are required the developer will add them at the developer's expense. Chairperson Hanson expressed concern for the size of Lots 15, 16 and 17 in Block 1. Mr. March indicated a minimum width requirement of 80 feet is needed for home construction. Commissioner Brainard questioned whether the City had verified that the lots within the development met the minimum width requirements. Mr. March indicated that there is no minimum width requirement for lots within a PUD development. Mr. Carter expressed concern that the trail way ends at Dupre Road and residents would have to walk along the road to connect with the other side of the trail way. Mr. Cooper indicated there will be a sidewalk along Dupre Road to connect the trail way. Mr. March indicated the City would require a 10 foot wide paved trail way through the development. Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Brainard to close the public hearin~. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7: 12 p.m. Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Lloyd Drilling gave a brief overview of his proposal to build a 10,000 square foot strip mall on the property located at 1873 Main Street. He indicated roughly half of the property is zoned residential and the other half commercial. He is requesting a rezone to commercial for the entire parcel. . Mr. Drilling provided a blueprint drawing of the proposed strip mall for review. Mr. Eric Bowman, 7130 Shad Avenue, expressed concerned for having an entrance to the strip mall on Shad Avenue. He is concerned that traffic levels on Shad Avenue will increase as area residents use it to reach the strip mall. Lloyd Drilling indicated the plan is conceptual at this point and said it may not be necessary to have an entrance onto Shad Avenue. Mr. Bowman questioned whether the strip mall would be constructed the same as the one next to it. He also asked whether there would be an alleyway or road behind the strip mall. Mr. Drilling indicated there was not a plan to have a road behind the strip mall. There would be a privacy fence of some type to screen refuse containers from area residents' view. Mr. Russ James, 7112 Shad Avenue, expressed a concern that if there was an entrance to the strip mall on Shad A venue he would not be able to get into his driveway as his driveway is right next to the proposed entrance. Mr. James also expressed concern for the lighting and activity around the strip mall disturbing a nice residential area. Mr. Drilling indicated he does not want to take away from the neighborhood. He wants to build something that is beneficial to the City and those residents who live near it. Mr. Jerry Engler, 7127 Shad Avenue, expressed concern for increased traffic on Shad Avenue along with a concern that the refuse containers may present a foul odor that would be disturbing to him as he is right next door. He then expressed his displeasure with the clearing of the trees on the lot which has already occurred. During the removal of trees the contractor removed five feet of trees on his property. He had his property surveyed and the survey stake was knocked down and not replaced. Mrs. Lisa Bigelow, 7143 Shad Avenue, told the Commission her family moved out to Centerville because they wanted a rural residential type of community. They do not want businesses at the end of their street. Ms. Bigelow indicated she is aware of the tax problem in Centerville and realizes that commercial properties may help to alleviate taxes but does not believe that this one building will offset her taxes enough to justify the taking down of the trees and building of a strip mall in her neighborhood. Chairperson Hanson indicated the question before the Commission this evening was a question of whether to rezone to commercial. Ms. Bigelow indicated she understood that and expressed to him she did not want the property rezoned but left residential. Mr. Jim Bigelow, 7143 Shad Avenue, inquired as to why there were signs of the strip mall coming if the rezoning had not been approved. The land has been cleared and there has been grading and staking for the building. Page 3 of8 Council Liaison Broussard Vickers explained to Mr. Bigelow that a property owner is allowed to have any type of sign they want provided it meets the requirements of the sign ordinance. The City is not able to prevent the property owner from advertising if the property owner desires to do so. As far as the clearing of land and preparation of the site for the building that has been done at the property owner's expense. If a rezone is not approved the property owner will be out those costs. She also indicated the house that was formerly located at the site was sub par and needed to be tom down. She also indicated that the rezoning is not a "done deal" and said the developer is providing more information concerning the development than is usually provided at a rezoning hearing. Mrs. Bigelow indicated the house was more than likely sub par but the trees did not need to be removed. If the rezone is not approved the trees would not have needed to come down. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated a property owner is entitled to do what they wish on their property provided it is not in violation of law or City ordinance. Therefore, there is no way to control whether your neighbors cut down their trees. Mrs. Katie Bowman, 7130 Shad Avenue, inquired as to how a strip mall fit into the "revitalization" of Centerville. A strip mall is not aesthetically pleasing to look at. Commissioner Brainard indicated the strip mall as designed appears to be a very nice looking building. Mr. March suggested the Planning Commission approve the rezoning of the parcel based on an approved site development plan in order to control what type of facility is built on the property. This would be in the best interest of the neighbors. If a rezone is granted without the stipulation that the City approve the site development plan there could potentially be some type of commercial use of the property that does not fit as well with the residential commercial mix in the area. Mr. Schoeberlein expressed concern that over the years since he moved to Centerville development has gradually been increasing and he is concerned that the small little community he moved to is growing into something residents who live in Centerville do not want. Mr. Bowman suggested a strip mall may be better located out in the area of the freeway. Mr. Carter reminded the residents who live on Shad A venue that part of the property is zoned commercial and some type of use that is less desirable than a strip mall and more of a nuisance could be built on that portion of the property. He indicated he is in favor of allowing the strip mall to help alleviate the tax burden for Centerville residents and to provide more services for area residents. The City doesn't have many places to eat and it is possible that the strip mall would house some type of eating facility. Mrs. Bigelow said she understands the tax ramifications if businesses are not allowed to come to Centerville but said there are areas in the City zoned commercial that should be used for commercial and asked the Planning Commission to leave the residential portion of the property zoned residential. The developer explained that several years ago the mayor at the time did not like his taxes being as high as they were so sections of Main Street were rezoned residential rather than commercial which was a real disservice to the City. Page 4 of8 Mr. Bigelow indicated he was aware of the fact he was moving to a bedroom community with few services and is fine with paying slightly higher taxes to maintain that type of community. Mr. Engler expressed concern that when development begins out near the freeway that the strip mall building may sit empty as the location is no longer desirable. Mrs. Bigelow asked the Commission to please leave the zoning as it stands. She feels the overall tax burden to residents will not be alleviated very much, if at all, by allowing the strip mall to be built. Mr. Schoeberlein told the Commission that residents don't want the strip mall and asked them not to change the zoning. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers told residents present that there were residents at the truth in taxation hearing the night before asking Council to do whatever it took to lower taxes. Allowing a strip mall would provide a lot more tax dollars than a residential use for the property. Mrs. Bowman inquired as to whether the property in question was the only piece in the City left for commercial development. Commissioner McLean indicated there was one other parcel within the City "proper" that is zoned for commercial usage. Mr. James indicated he did not believe that one small commercial development would significantly lower his taxes. Commissioner Brainerd indicated that no one wants development "in their backyard" but development is good for the City as a whole. Commissioner Brainerd asked Mr. March the difference in taxes for a commercial versus residential use for the City. Mr. March said that residential taxes are 1% of the first $76,000 and everything over that amount is taxed at 1.65%. Commercial taxes are 2.4% of the first $150,000 and everything over that is taxed at 3.4%. Mrs. Bigelow commented that if the City is really looking to bring more commercial business base in to defray taxes the City needs to look at the big picture. She questioned if the strip mall would still be a benefit to the City in 10 years or if it would be an empty building devaluating the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Kilian. seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to close the public hearin&. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. III. APPEARANCES 1. Mr. Terry Sager - Mini-Storage Mr. Sager was not present at the meeting. IV. OLD BUSINESS Page 5 of8 None. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Ground Development (Preliminary Plat - PUD) Commissioner Kilian inquired as to how the developer intended to handle construction traffic when the northern part of the development is under construction. The developer indicated he would inform his builders/contractors of City requirements and ensure compliance with those requirements. Commissioner DeVine asked Mr. March to comment on the request to stub in a road to the south of the development for future expansion. Mr. March indicated it was not feasible. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers inquired as to how the developer intended to handle ownership of the outlots within the development. The developer expressed his desire to deed the outlots to the City. He also indicated he wanted to speak to the Park and Recreation Committee to obtain feedback on making the trails open to the public and handled by the City rather than by a homeowner's association. Commissioner LaMotte inquired as to whether the issue of no park south of Main Street had been addressed. The developer indicated this issue would be discussed at the Park and Recreation Committee meeting. Commissioner LaMotte inquired as to whether the developer had come to an agreement with the two property owners of the exception property to the north of the development. The developer indicated the driveways abut the cul-de-sac and therefore, it would not take a lot of work to connect them to the cul-de-sac. Commissioner LaMotte inquired as to whether the developer would put in the turn lanes if it is determined by the County that turn lanes are needed. The developer agreed to add the turn lanes if it is determined turn lanes are needed. Commissioner Brainard inquired as to whether Staff felt the revised PUD met the requirements for approval. Mr. March indicated the revised plan if more beneficial to the City than the original plan as the developer has changed the plan to run the trail way through the open area/wetlands. Commissioner LaMotte inquired as to where the drainage from Lot 6 would go. The developer indicated it would flow east and end up in the county ditch. Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Brainard to recommend to Council approval of the Pheasant Marsh Preliminary Plat - PUD with the stipulation that the trail way is approved by the Parks and Recreation Committee and that the developer follow his proposed timeline concernin~ the impact on the school district. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Lloyd Drilling (Re-Zone - 1873 Main Street) Page 6 of8 Commissioner Kilian indicated he believes the City would benefit by having more services in the City. Commissioner LaMotte inquired as to how much of the property in question is zoned commercial. Mr. Drilling indicated roughly half of the lot is zoned commercial. Commissioner De Vine indicated he was in favor of the re-zone as part of the lot is already zoned commercial. Commissioner Brainard expressed a desire to update the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow for more commercial zoning to help broaden the tax base within the City. Chairperson Hanson inquired as to what, if any, effect there was on property values to those residents living near the strip mall next to the proposed strip mall. Mr. March indicated he was not sure but could look into it. He then said the only complaint he recalls concerning the strip mall was that the lighting was bothersome until it was properly adjusted. Since that time, there haven't been any complaints. Mr. March expressed a desire to ensure that there is a buffer of some sort between the strip mall and the residential neighborhood. Mr. Engler indicated there was enough room for a privacy fence and a pond between the current strip mall and the nearest resident. In this case, his house is much closer and sits up high enough that a six-foot fence would not provide any privacy. Mr. March indicated an eight-foot privacy fence was used at the current strip mall location. Commissioner LaMotte inquired as to Mr. Drilling's time frame for development. Mr. Drilling indicated he would like to start in the spring but needed zoning approval to continue with his plans for the development. Commissioner Brainard inquired as to whether the City could place stipulations on the rezoning approval. Mr. March indicated the rezone could be contingent upon City approval of the site development plan. Mr. March indicated he would clarify the matter with the City attorney to be sure. Commissioner Brainard expressed a desire to approve the rezoning based on City approval of site development plans in order for the City to control the type of commercial development that is placed on the property. Mr. March indicated the types of businesses currently in the strip mall next to this proposed strip mall are unobtrusive to the neighborhood and blend well into the commerciaVresidential mix in the area. He believes that through the site development plan process the City will be able to ensure that the design of the strip mall blends well with the neighborhood and is not a nuisance to neighbors. Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to approve the re-zone of 1873 Main Street to commercial contin2ent upon City approval of the developer's site plan within 120 days. Vote: 6 to 1 (LaMotte voted no). Motion carried. Chairperson Hanson suggested Mr. Drilling work with Mr. March to obtain property valuation information for properties located in the vicinity of the present strip mall to present to Council. Page 7 of8 3. Ordinance #4 Amendments Mr. March indicated there would be a public hearing to discuss proposed changes to Ordinance #4 in the near future. 4. Sign Ordinance Mr. March provided a draft of the sign ordinance containing the changes discussed at the last workshop for review. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. November 14,2000 Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Brainard to approve the November 14. 2000 Meetin~ Minutes as oresented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner LaMotte. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to adjourn the December 5. 2000 Plannin~ Commission Meetin~ at 8:38 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 8 of8