Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-14 P & Z CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their r scheduled meeting on November 14,2000, 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: I. CALL TO ORDER ll. earing at 6:37 p.m. Street, addressed the Commission and requested a larger sign t dinance #4. Mr. Schlavin stated that he is partially is requesting a larger sign as a benefit of paying same. . erd uestionedthe current allowable sign size and consensus was e foot sign was currently allowable. oIDIDlsslOn eVine questioned the amount of street frontage Mr. Schlavin owned. Mr. Schlavin stated approximately one hundred (100) feet. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned sign dimensions that had been discussed at a previous work session. The Commission that a two (2) foot by three (3) foot sign is allowable for a home based business. Ms. Vickers questioned whether Mr. Schlavin had Page 1 of 10 City of Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 2000 researched the possibility of rezoning his property to commercial and the effects of same on his property taxes. Mr. Schlavin stated he had contacted Anoka County but was unsuccessful in obtaining same. Ms. Sanna Buckbee, 7381 Peltier Circle, stated that in her opinion Mr. Schlavin should be allowed to erect a larger sign due to his property location. Chairperson Hanson suggested that Mr. Schlavin research the possible advantages of rezoning his property to commercial and the effects of same on his property taxes. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned resident response to the variance request from Mr. Schlavin. Mr. March stated he had not received any negative input from residents regarding this matter. Commissioner McLean stated that the request did not meet the requirements for granting a vanance. Motion by Commissioner Brainard. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to close the public hearin~. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. 2. Ground Development (Preliminary Plat - PUD) Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Terry Hannah, Ground Development, was present and discussed the proposed eighty- eight (88) lot development and the phasing (3) of same. Mr. Hannah also discussed the elements of the development and outlined the modifications previously requested by Planning and Zoning and Council. Mr. Hannah discussed the following modifications: Traffic Impact (Centerville Road) Mr. Joel Cooper, Engineer; Ground Development, stated that a formal traffic study had yet to be conducted, it is generally understood that eighty-eight (88) lots would generate eight hundred eighty-eight (888) trips per day on the roadway. Mr. Cooper anticipates that 1/3 of the traffic leaving the development will flow outward to Centerville Road and the other 2/3 will flow north to Center Street. Mr. Cooper reminded the Planning and Zoning Commission that traffic generated by the new development would not come at once but rather in phases as the development is scheduled to be built out within three (3) to six (6) years. Mr. Cooper stated that in his opinion Centerville Road had been designed to handle 7,000 to 8,000 trips per day and should be able to handle the added volume of traffic. Driveway Access (Two (2) Properties to the North) This issue had yet to be effectively resolved and negotiations continue with the property owners. Page 2 of 10 ~: City of Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission November 14,2000 Trail Issue Subsequent to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, it was determined that the City would request to have the trailway continued north through the Hunter's Crossing development and travel along the sewer force main easement. Drainage Ditch Mr. Cooper addressed the drainage issue and stated that Ground Development would install a storm sewer and ponding system that would drain into an existing wetland area. As designed, there would be less runoff, post development, than at present. Mr. Cooper felt that the impact due to modifying the drainage at the site would be null. MUSA Line Swap The City has stated that Ground Development would need to secure a MUSA Line Swap and associated expenditures. Dupre Road Ground Development would provide for sidewalk installation along Dupre Road. Park Land or Park Dedication Fee The Parks and Recreation Committee requested park dedication fees rather than park . land. Previous discussion involved the possibility of dedicating a portion of the land marked for open space on the plan for a park should future development occurs. Monument Sign The City has questioned whether a monument sign would be erected at the entrance to the development. Mr. Hannah concurred. Tree Conservation Mr. Cooper submitted maps showing the treed areas and various tree lines. Mr. Cooper stated that over half of the trees would remain, however, several would need to be removed for construction purposes. Commissioner Killian questioned the type of trees that would remain and be installed within the development. Mr. Cooper stated that an official tree study had yet to be conducted but to the best of his knowledge, the trees would be softwood not hardwood. Impact on the School District Lengthy discussion was had regarding Centerville Elementary's operating capacity, student enrollment, occupancy of Phase I homes in 2002, the building of the new school, Page 3 of 10 r City of Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 2000 the average price of homes comparative to the amount of children that reside in same and the general impact on the school as a result of the proposed development. Mr. Cooper stated that one of the PUD requirements consist of dedicating 20% of open space within the development. Mr. Cooper addressed this issue and stated that 21.7% open space has been allowed. Commissioner Brainerd questioned whether the certificate of occupancy could be contingent upon whether the new school is open for enrollment. Mr. March indicated he had received various input from area businesses and residents concerning the development. Some in favor of and some against. Mr. March stated that three areas concerned him with the plans submitted. Mr. March also stated that Centerville Road, as the developer indicated, is capable of handling 7,000 to 8,000 trips per day. However, it currently is handling that many trips and the developer would need to speak to Anoka County to receive a permit to access Centerville Road from the development. Mr. March stated that the developer had indicated the reason he was applying for a PUD was to have a variety of lot sizes, and that this is misleading due to the current City Code that allows for various lot sizes with standard residential platting. The open space requirement for PUD' s has not been met in this case, as the open space is required to be useable land that is not private land. The developer has dedicated a wetland and space in the backyards of the available lots as open space and that is not currently allowed by City Code. Mr. March submitted a letter from the developer addressing the issues requested by the City. Mr. March also submitted a letter from the Superintendent of Schools stating the school district is operating above capacity and will be doing so until the opening of the new school in the fall of 2002. Mr. March indicated the current proposal submitted by Ground Development does not meet the requirements for a PUD. Ms. Buckbee questioned how open spaces could be private but could not be in private yards. Ms. Buckbee questioned whether the City of Lino Lakes had received a similar letter from the Superintendent of Schools. Mr. March explained that the area dedicated for open space within the development needed to be land not included in private lots individual owned. Mr. March also informed Ms. Buckbee that it was his understanding that the City of Lino Lakes had received a similar letter from the Superintendent of Schools. Commissioner McLean questioned whether the development was in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. March concurred. Ms. Lori Peterson, 7065 Dupre Road, expressed her concern that Dupre Road would be a thoroughfare for traffic going out of the development to Center Street. Mr. Cooper believed 2/3 of the traffic would flow north to Center Street. Mr. Wes Schoeberlein, 6906 Centerville Road, expressed several concerns; current capacity ofCenterville Elementary, exit and entry to the development and the amount of Page 4 of 10 City of CentervilIe Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 2000 traffic currently and in the future on Centerville Road. Mr. Schoeberlein felt that Center Street is currently unsafe due to the high volume of traffic and was concerned for children's safety. Commissioner Brainerd stated that the development of the property would be coming in one form or another and suggested that a traffic study be completed to provide the best and safest access to the development. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned whether Mr. Schoberlein had a driveway easement and, if so, where it was located. Mr. Schoberlein stated that he drives straight out to Centerville Road. Mr. John Lundbald, 6904 Centerville Road, stated that he had a valid easement that was part of the legal description for his property. Mr. March indicated it may be easier to address the driveway access issue by eliminating a couple of lots and centering the (2) two homes on the cul-de-sac at the north end of the development to provide better access for the two (2) properties in question. Mr. March stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission needed to determine whether the development met the requirements of a PUD and either approve, deny, or table action. Commissioner LaMotte questioned. the sewer force main running to the north of the development. Mr. March stated that the Met. Council owned the force main and was in the process of replacing the piping in that area. Mr. Joe Schwartz, 6882 Centerville Road, stated that he had concerns regarding the proposed trail that would run along his property. Mr. Schwartz stated that moved to Centerville to be outside of the inner city and was upset that the development was commg. Mr. Mike Carter, 6913 Sumac Court, stated that it could be possible for the development to have houses in place prior to the opening of the new school, which concerned him. Mr. Carter expressed a desire to have a park located within the development rather than receiving park dedication fees. Mr. Carter felt that a park was necessary to prevent children from crossing Main Street to go to the nearest park. Mr. Carter also expressed concern for increased traffic on Center Street. Ole Mersinger, 6936 Tourville Circle, expressed his concern for the safety of the children along Center Street if traffic volume is increased. Mr. Hannah, Ground Development, offered to amend the submitted plans to R-2 which would increase the minimum lot size if the City could guarantee approval of the plans by December 15,2000. Mr. Hannah stated that if the City were unable to come to terms by December 15,2000, Ground Development would not be developing the area. Mr. March advised the Commission against making any commitments to an R-2 plan since there would need to be a public hearing on the matter. Page 5 of 10 City ofCenterville Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 2000 Mr. Schwartz stated that he had received information from the previous owner of his property, which led him to believe, the area next to his lot would not be developed as it was a nature area and that was reason he purchased the property. Commissioner Brainard stated that it is the responsibility of property owner to research many areas prior to purchasing property, such as school district, sewer and water, undeveloped land nearby, etc. Commissioner Brainard stated that it is unreasonable to think the area would stay undeveloped in a growing community. Mr. Carter stated that in his opinion, Ground Development was pressuring the City to agree to their terms by a specific date. Motion by Commissioner Brainard. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to close the public hearin2. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. III. APPEARANCES 1. Mr. Roger Shimon - Zoning/Electrical Fencing Mr. Shimon, 1751 Peltier Lake Drive, was present and expressed his concern for electrical fence running along the back of his property, eight (8) feet off the property line. Mr. Shimon stated that there should be a larger buffer and requested that the Commission modifies the ordinance accordingly. Ms. Buckbee stated she was the owner of the electrical fence and that the fence was previously fifty (50) feet off the property line as a courtesy to neighboring residents. However, recently the fencing was moved to within eight (8) feet of the property line. Mr. March stated that R-l zoning allows for electrical fencing and that the issue is whether the ordinance needed to be amended to include a buffer zone between properties where electric fencing is allowed and where other residentially zoned areas abut. Chairperson Hanson stated that the current ordinance allows a property owner to place a fence directly on the property line if so desire and that it is a courtesy that the property owner has left an eight (8) foot buffer. Commissioner McLean questioned whether there were similar properties that have electrical fencing. Ms. Buckbee stated that there were other properties within Centerville large enough to have livestock but was unsure if others have electrical fencing. Mr. March indicated the Commission would need to amend Ordinance #4 if they felt there was a need to incorporate a requirement for a buffer zone between properties with electrical fencing and those without. Page 6 of 10 City of Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission November 14,2000 Commissioner De Vine questioned whether Council Liaison Vickers' property had electrical fencing. Council Liaison Vickers stated she did not but thought there was old barbwire fencing located on your property. Commissioner DeVine stated he did not feel the need to amend Ordinance #4. 2. Mr. Terry Sager - Mini-Storage Mr. Terry Sager and his partner, Ed Sadeline were present and requested the Commission's willingness in allowing a mini-storage facility in Centerville. Commissioner Brainard questioned whether the facility would have an on-site attendant. Mr. Sadeline stated it would not. Mr. March stated that previously a proposal for mini-storage had been denied due to limited space in the industrial park, the facility did not use city utilities, and did not create jobs for the City. Mr. Carter requested clarification on the location of the proposed mini-storage facility. Mr. Sager stated that it would be located on the east side of the industrial park property. Mr. Carter stated that he would prefer a mini-storage facility to an apartment complex or some industrial use that would generate a lot of traffic. Mr. March questioned the size and valuation of the building that was being proposed. Mr. Sadeline stated that he did not have the exact dimensions at this time but would forward them to the Commission in the near future. Commissioner De Vine stated that the size and valuation of the building would weigh heavily on his decision on whether or not to grant the request to build a mini-storage facility. Mr. Sadeline thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for its time. IV. OLD BUSINESS None. v. NEW BUSINESS 1. Schlavin Variance Request Chairperson Hanson questioned whether Mr. Schlavin had a sign on the exterior of his home/office. Mr. Schlavin stated that a sign is installed in his front yard, but not on the home/office. Commissioner DeVine stated that Mr. Schlavin's situation was unique; it did not fit the requirements for granting a variance. Commissioner DeVine suggested that Mr. Schlavin bring his tax statement to the next work session scheduled. Page 7 of 10 II'" City of CenterviJIe Planning & Zoning Commission November 14,2000 Mr. Schlavin stated that he is researching various avenues for his property, including obtaining a variance for a larger sign and possibly moving out of the residence and converting the building to a commercial use, allowing him to rent out part of the space. Chairperson Hanson invited Mr. Schlavin to the work session on Tuesday, November 21, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. 2. Ground Development PUD Commissioner McLean stated that Ground Development had done a good job of addressing the concerns of the City and residents with the revised plan. Commissioner McLean also stated that whether or not this development is approved, there would be a development on that property at some point. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the Issue is whether the plan of the, developer meets the requirements of a PUD. Commissioner Brainard stated that since the plan of the developer did not meet the requirements of the PUD, the Commission had no choice but to deny their request. Commissioner De Vine encouraged Ground Development to come back before the Commission with an R-2 development plan. Mr. Hannah questioned whether he would need to file a new application and pay the required fee. Mr. March concurred. Mr. Cooper questioned whether the Commission could give the developer an indication of whether a plan for R-2 zoning would be approved. Chairperson Hanson stated that a review of revised plans, a public hearing, remedies to previous requests and commission's approval needed to be granted and felt that it was inappropriate to speculate their decision prior to the above process. Mr. Cooper stated that it was his understanding that changing to R-2 zoning would eliminate four lots but everything else would remain the same. Mr. Cooper also stated that Ground Development would like to get a feel for whether the plan would be approved with R-2 zoning. Chairperson Hanson stated that in his opinion a plan with R-2 zoning had a better chance for approval than the PUD plans submitted. Commissioner DeVine questioned whether Mr. March could point out any differences between the PUD plan and R-2 zoning. Mr. March stated that he would need to see the plan but said the minimum lot size width and depth would be larger. Mr. March stated that the Comprehensive Plan called for a low to medium density development therefore, R-2 and R-5 zoning are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the Ground Development's plan assumes the MUSA line swap will be approved. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that any plan approved by the City would be contingent upon receiving approval of the MUSA line swap. Page 8 of 10 ~ City of Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission November 14,2000 Mr. March stated that it is unrealistic to assume that all approvals required for the development could be obtained by December 15, 2000. Chairperson Hanson told Ground Development that the City appreciated his show of good faith in addressing all the issues raised by the City and residents. Motion by Commissioner Brainard. seconded by Commissioner Killian to deny approval of the Ground Development Preliminary Plat - PUD. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers thanked members of the audience for their input regarding this issue. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the City has a Comprehensive Plan for development and the school district has had and is aware of. The development discussed fits within the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Centerville could stop development, but neighboring communities such as Lino Lakes are not required to do so. Therefore, the City of Lino Lakes could continue to develop and send children to Centerville schools. The City of Centerville is a developing community and legally the City cannot stop the development from coming in unless it has just cause. 3. Ordinance #4 Amendments Mr. March submitted information concerning possible amendments to Ordinance #4 and asked the Commissioners to review the information and bring any modifications or suggestions to the work session. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Commissioner Brainard noted his displeasure with the City Council for granting a variance request the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial. He felt the request was granted for a purely political reason and opened the City up for legal liability. He requested that in the future when Council goes against the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and grants a variance, the Council be required to provide specific examples as to how the requirements for the variance were met. Commissioner Kilian agreed with Commissioner Brainard on this matter. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated she was not at the meeting the Commissioners were referring to but would bring the comments of Commissioner Brainard and Kilian to the Council. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. October 3, 2000 Meeting Minutes Chairperson Hanson requested the seconded portion of the first motion on Page 13 be changed from "Hanson" to "LaMotte". Page 9 of 10 r I ~ City of Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission November 14,2000 Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to approve the October 3. 2000 Meetin~ Minutes with the requested chani:e. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sheppard. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to adjourn the November 14. 2000 Plannin~ Commission Meetin~ at 9:09 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 10 of 10