Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-03 Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING - TUESDAY - MARCH 3, 1981 PRESENT: Charles Baumann, Chairman Robert LaMotte Charles Cross Elmer Murray Robert Lindgren welvin Dupre Walt Williams, City Engineer Jeff & Jim Gardner - Gardner -Seim Construction William Brezinsky, Suburban Engineering Chairman baumann called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Public Hearing on GARDNER ESTATES was held before Planning and Zoning. Jim Gardner gave brief presentation on the proposed plat. Walt Williams, went over recommendations and comments he had on the plat, copy of which is attached to these minutes. Planning and Zoning discussed recom- mendations from City Planner, Bill Short, copy of which is attached to these minutes. Motion by LaMotte, second by Murray, to approve preliminary plat of Gardner Estates, contingent on Rice Creek Watershed approval, changes to be made recommended by City Engineer and city receipt of 10% deposit of assessed valuation of land for park dedication, motion carried. Mr. -iugene Wegleitner appeared before Planning and Zoning with sketch of proposal for property on Mill Koad and Main Street. One piece being lots for single family homes and two lots for commercial purposes. Mr. Wegleitner was told to bring in plat on above for approval by Planning and Zoning. Motion by Murray, second by Dupre to adjourn meeting, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. Planning and Zoning will meet on March 17tg for work on proposed Ordinance 110. R- 444 submitted, Lu Pra i ar, Clerk l a BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. February 26, 1981 Mr. Frank Zirnney, Chairman Planning Commission City of Centerville 1694 Sorel Street Centerville, MN 55038 Re: Gardner Estates Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Zirnney: 1 have reviewed the preliminary plat (dated February 16, 1981) for the proposed subdivision. 1 have reviewed it relative to the city's Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Cornprehensive Plan. The following comments summarize my review of the proposed plat. 1. Land Use. The proposed single - family subdivision is generally consistent with the Land Use Plan and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. All but the northeasterly 13 acres is included in the Single - Family Residentail - Sewered classification of the plan. The proposal is generally consistent with the Land lJse Policies listed on page 18 of the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically satisfies Policy No. 4, which states: "Residential development within the sewered area shall be encouraged." 2. Sewer Plan. All but approximately 13 acres of this 36 -acre development is within the sewered area as defined in your Sewer Plan. Because only such a small portion of the plat is outside the sewered area 1 don't believe that there will be any serious conflicts with Metropolitan Council plans. But, I would recommend that the developer contact Metropolitan Council staff to inform them of this deviation and to receive their approval. The proposed sanitary sewer plans for this development should be reviewed by the City Engineer. 3. Parks. The Parks Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan indicates the need for a neighborhood park in this general area, but as a longer range consideration. Considering the 75 units proposed in this development, 23 units in Rehbein Estates and 43 units in Futura Village, the need for a local neighborhood park in this area is getting more important. As suggested in the Parks Plan, there should be a neighborhood park located within every inajor neighborhood, and desirably within a one- quarter or one -half mile walking distance to these residential neighborhoods. 1 see no great need for the developer to designate a neighborhood park in this development at this time. However, the Planning Commission and City Council should recognize that Mr. Frank Zirnney February 26, 1981 Page 2 the need for a small neighborhood park in this general area is getting greater and that a logical area should be designated for potential acquisition through dedication or purchase in the future. In an effort to develop the park that the city has recently acquired, I would suggest that the city accept cash in lieu of land (at 109 of the value of the land) and designate the use of those funds towards development of the new perk site. I would further suggest that the city consider designating a three- to four -acre parcel adjacent to the northeast side of this subdivision, in the vicinity of the ditch and where there are some existing trees, as a future neighborhood park site. Then as this area develops, the city can acquire this site through parkland dedication or purchase, and it can be available for use by the residents in this area to satisfy the close -to -horse recreation needs without having to cross Main Street (minor arterial thoroughfare) and Centerville Road (collector thoroughfare). 4. Streets. Although the proposed street plan doesn't follow the exact layout shown in the thoroughfare plan, it does satisfy the intent of the plan. The Street Plan has tied into Shad Avenue from Rehbein's Estates and eliminated that long cul -de -sac. The street plan has also taken advantage of existing road rights -of -way along Mill Road (Dorothy Street and Faye Street). Also, Frederick Avenue will provide a through north -south street and access to the property to the north, while Ann Street will provide access to the property to the east. I would suggest that the street plan is acceptable and that the only two issues worth discussing or considering are as follows: 1. The cul -de -sac at the end of Jefferson Avenue might possibly be connected with .Mill Road through the parcel noted as (EXCEPTION) on the plan. Such an alignment would eventually eliminate a cul -de -sac which some cities consider a maintenance headache and might also influence a little bit more efficient lot layout. Tie developer may want to contact the owners of that exception piece t0 see if such a plan is feasible. 2. The only other criticism that I have is that the intersection of Dorothy Street and Mill Road is offset to the continuation of that street to the west of Mill Road. Such offset intersections are undesirable from a traffic control standpoint. There may be nothing that this developer can do about it, but if there's anything that the city can do about it, such an effort should be considered. 5. Lot Layout. The site is basically flat and therefore conforms to the grid -type layout proposed. The only natural characteristics of the land which seers to be awkward is the north -south ditch through the western sections of Blocks 3 and 5. The drainage arrangement in this area will have to be rerouted. The vegetation shown along that ditch appears to be the only vegetation on the site. It would be nice if some measures could be taken to preserve some of that vegetation. As mentioned by the developer in his February 16th correspondence to the Clerk, there are eight corner lots which are ten feet narrower than the Mr. Frank Zirnney February 26, 1981 Page 3 required 110 foot minimum width for u corner lot. The developers asked for a variance for these narrower lots. Under most interpretations, the use of a variance is directed towards hardship cases; where the character or configuration of a lot is such that strict enforcement of the standards of an ordinance will result in a hardship to the property owner. I would suggest that the appropriateness of a variance in these situations is stretching the administrative function of a variance about as far as it should go. If the city does issue a variance for these eight lots, you should cite the hardship that you are trying to alleviate and consider this case as loose an application of, the variance procedure as you should ever use. 6. Block Length. Section 8 of the Subdivision Regulation require that no block exceed 620 feet in length without providing some provision for pedestrian walkways. Blocks 3, 4 and 6 exceed 620 teet. The city should be advised of this situation. However, from a planning standpoint, I see no great need to require through block movement in this subdivision. 7. Soils. Section 9 of the Subdivision Regulations gives the city authority to require soil testing of the site if inherent limitations of the site soils would appear to cause potential problems in building foundations or other construction. The Anoka County Soils Survey indicates the presence of soils with severe restrictions due to wetness on most of this site (over 70%). Those problem soils include Dundas loarn (Du) and Webster loam (Wb) both of which are projected to have seasonally high water tables within three to five feet of the ground surface. Since this developinent will be served by city sewer, they don't have to worry about limitations to on -site systems, but there may still be problems with building foundations, etc. Also, the Soils Survey indicates a number of small depressions with wet soils in the northern half of the site. The city may wish to require the developer to perform soil tests on the site to better understand what the limitations of the site are and to illustrate to the city how they will overcome those problems+ In conclusion, the proposed single - family subdivision appears to be generally consistent with the city's plans and ordinances. The above comments are provided to assist the Planning Commission in reviewing the proposal and they should be considered and resolved prior to approval of the preliminary plats If the Planning Commission has any comments or questions or would like further review, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William Short Senior Associate cc: Walt Williarns, City Engineer WFS /ajo r 4 . Y x �s P,' ...z?„. s ts~ 2 t I t > 3 x ,x . S S .?&'S .- , -x e iz ? 4` W i ;1 q . a ., ? $SOCIATE3 56G W st H gSws 96 41 J i. SI. Gt r neo SI 314 Udk Streit • Corstvttintp £ngl w.d S Lerwern ' St Phi Mines 'a Si 1 S 1 rai d Mu; nesola 56361 Sauk Cen tre , Mnoesola 56378 0 S•A SAUK Wan # ctai o = 44 , ;: i �4} 7251 3c 3664 .e 2. Feb. 25, 1981 City of Centerville 1694 Sorel St. Centerville, MN 55038 RE: Proposed Plat Review - Gardner Estates Gentlemen: We have reviewed the proposed plat for Gardner Estates and have the following comments: 1. Sanitary Sewer - The sanitary sewer as shown on the plan will work properly. - The sewer will have to be constructed according to City requirements and be a minimum of 8' -0" deep. 2. Watermain - Futura Homes proposes to serve their development with a central well. - The developer for Gardner Estates should investigate the possibility of sharing the well and installation costs with Futura Homes. Gardner Estates could then install watermain and have mudicipal water. 3. Storm Drainage - Additional easements will be required for backyard drainage. - All drainage easements shall be 20' -0" wide. - City of Centerville Feb. 25, 1981 Page 2 3. Storm Drainage - cont'd - The storm sewer in Block 1 and Block 4 should be relocated south to match Ann Street. - The drainage plan will have to be approved by Rice Creek Watershed before final plat approval. - The developer will have to provide drainage for the backyards of Block 3 and eliminate the ponding area in Peterson's Old Homestead. - The developer will be required to provide the City with a grading and erosion control plan as part of the plans and specs. - Easements will be required from the retention pond in Block 1 to the existing creek east of the retention pond. 4. Streets - The street grades will have to be revised to eliminate most of the cross drains. It is our opinion that the basic plat and street layout is good. If the developer makes the various changes suggested in street grades and drainage, we would recommend approval. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours, MILNER CARLEY / LEEYY &4SSOCIATES, INC. 6 ( ` 1 ° zC/ C• Walter L. Williams, P.E. WLW :bjw cc: Wm. J. Brezinsky Suburban Engineering Jim Gardner Gardner -Seim Constr., Inc.