Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-05-04 Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1993 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Centerville held their regular meeting on Tuesday, May 4, 1993 at the City Hall. Chairperson Tourville called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Drilling, Vermeulen, Welk. Absent: LaMotte. MINUTES Motion by Tourville, second by Welk to approve the March 2, 1993 meeting minutes, AYE - Tourville; AYE - Welk; AYE - Drilling; ABSTAIN - Vermeulen, motion carried. The April 13, 1993 meeting minutes were tabled until a majority of the Planning and Zoning members are present to vote. OLD BUSINESS: Possibility of Amending Ordinance #4, Section 34.05 ATTACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING - to allow for only one accessory building (storage shed) per lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed amendment at length. Motion by Tourville, second by Drilling to hold a public hearing to consider the possibility of amending Ordinance #4, Section 34.05 ATTACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS - to allow for only one accessory building (storage shed) per lot, motion carried unanimously. A copy of the proposed amendment to attached to and made a part of thesA minutes. Review of Ordinance #4, Article 7. Chairperson Tourville noted that the permitted and special uses may require more definition. Committee Welk noted that the permitted and special uses are to be used as guidelines. She noted by not having specific definitions the City may have more control. Committee member Drilling expressed that it may not be possible to define all permitted and special uses. It appeared to be the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission to request Gunnar Pettersen, Building Inspector, to define the areas that he feels need more research. The Planning and Zoning Commission also would like to know which areas present the most problems. The Planning and Zoning P &Z MEETING MINUTES MAY 4, 1993 PAGE TWO Commission would also like suggestions for additions and /or improvements to the current definitions. The Planning and Zoning Commission directed City Staff to review the examples from other cities and to work with Gunnar Pettersen, Building Inspector for suggestions for additions and /or improvement to Ordinance #4, Article 7. Possibility of Rezoning of Peltier Lake Hills, Second Addition. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a letter dated April 5, 1993 from Greg Hellings, City Attorney, regarding the question of rezoning Peltier Lake Hills, Second Addition. A copy of this letter is attached to and made a part of these minutes. It appeared to be the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the rezoning of the Peltier Lake Hills, Second Addition when Centerville Comprehensive Plan is amended. NEW BUSINESS: Foundation Sizes versus Minimum Living Area in each of the Residential Zoning Districts. Minimum Lot Size Requirements in each of the Residential Zoning Districts. Chairperson Tourville gave a brief summary of the Centerville Economic Development Task Force's request for the Planning and Zoning Commission to research foundation sizes versus minimum living area in each of the residential zoning districts. It was noted that a two story home could have a small foundation size and meet the current minimum living area requirements. Motion by Tourville, second by Vermeulen to table discussion of foundation sizes versus minimum living area and minimum lot size requirements in each of the residential zoning districts pending Tim Rehbine's, Centerville Economic Development Chairperson, appearance and presentation of information compiled for the Planning and Zoning Commission's consideration, motion carried unanimously. ADJOURN: Motion by Vermeulen, second by Welk to adjourn the meeting, motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sanna E. Buckbee Assistant City Clerk City of Centerville March 18, 1994 Village Hall 1880 Main Street To the Planning and Zoning Commission; This letter is from Lloyd and Diane Hansen and Erick and LyNae Marshall (Lloyd and Diane are parents of LyNae). We are the people who have purchased the lot on Centerville Lake bordering Sorel Street and right next to Mr. and Mrs. LaMotte's Home. We've requested variances from six sections of two ordinances in order to allow us to split the lot and build our two homes as single family dwellings. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and then met for 'several hours, on March 1st, to discuss our requested variances. The Commission then tabled our request until their next meeting scheduled for April 5th, 1994. We very much appreciate the time and attention the Commission has given to our request. The purpose of this letter is to clarify why we still feel the Commission (and eventually the City Council) should seriously consider granting the variances. This letter will attempt to summarize how we view the situation to date and answer the concems voiced by the Commission at the March 1st. meeting. We would like to accomplish this by addressing the four standards that variances should conform to (65.03 -1 thru 65.03 -4, see attachment l): First, with respect to standard 65.03 -1. The lot we purchased is the only one remaining, in the city and on the lake, that cannot be subdivided in accordance with the lot size ordinance (i.e. 100 ft. lot widths). However, our lot is large enough (over 32,000 sq. ft.) to more than meet the minimum size for two single family dwellings (15,000 +15,000=30,000sq.ft.). To our knowledge, all other undeveloped lake property is at least 200 ft. frontage or less than required square footage. it is also an irregular shape (see attachment II). The items listed above, we feel, define the special conditions and circumstances peculiar tb our lot that did not result from our actions. Second, standard 65.03 -2 states that if literal interpretation of the ordinances would deprive us of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties, then a variance may be issued. We know there are many lots on Centerville Lake and Pettier Lake that are less than 100 feet wide. We realize that most of these lots were subdivided prior to the ordinance being inacted. However, we would hope that the Commission view this lake lot as unique in that it was formed long before the ordinances and has never really been developed even though there have been many false starts. Thirdly, standard 65.03 -3 wants to make sure that the variances, we're asking for, do not confer on us special privileges denied to others. This is a little tougher to address in that we cannot forsee what others might request in the future. However, during the March 1st. meeting, maps were brought out that showed that this lot is the only one that cannot be subdivided in accordance with the ordinance. In addition a Commission member suggested that the few other people who own Lakeshore land could be contacted to see if they would feel our proposed variances confer special privileges. We would be happy to follow up on this if it would further clarify this standard for the Commission. We believe that everyone on the Commisssion agreed that our variances conform to the fourth Standard (65.03 -4) in that they do not impair light , air or property value of the surrounding property owners. In addition we've confirmed with the Police Chief and Fire Chief that public health and safety is not impaired with our proposed variances. We can understand the caution the Planning and Zoning Commission is taking with our Variances. These are not easy decisions to make. In the remainder of our letter we would like to address some concems we heard voiced during the extended March 1st Hearing and Commission Meeting. No one appeared at the hearing to object or even question our intentions for these variances. In fact, one week prior to the hearing we visited all the neighbors within 300 feet of our lot (including Father Wolters of St. Genevieve's), showed them our proposed lot split and the proposed location of our houses (see attachment 111). Not one person objected to it and most were happy to see two homes proposed for this lot. We know there were concems expressed by the Commission that there are so many (6) variances. However, after listening to the discussion we feel that all six can be distilled down to two basic issues; 1. forming a lot with no street access and 2. forming two lots whose widths (80 ft) are below the 100 ft. minimum. The first issue is easily addressed by one party granting a permanent easement for a driveway to the other party. This is what we are proposing and both the Police and Fire Chiefs see no problems with this approach and in fact this arrangement has been done in other situations within the city of Centerville. The second issue (100 ft minimum) is the controversial one and we feel the major concem of the Commission is the precedence this action may set for others- In fact it was mentioned thatthe city lawyer recommended denial of our • variances based on the precedence it may establish. There is no obvious answer to this issue. However from our standpoint we feel this lot is a unique situation in that it is a lake lot (traditionally narrower than an off- the -lake lot) and is the last one in the city with sufficient square footage to subdivide but not sufficient width. Our intentions always have and continue to be -to build our homes on Centerville Lake. Naturally we would like to build two single family homes on their own lots. But if this is not possible we would no doubt build twin homes or town homes on the single lot. We feel it would be better and in keeping with the present neighborhood to build two separate single family homes. We feel that the cost of the lot, it's size and the surrounding homes support a two family home usage rather than one large single family dwelling. The last thing we want to share with you is how we feel about this situation, putting aside variances, ordinances and precedences. We've been discouraaeg but also encouraged with what has happened so far on our attempt to buy and build in Centerville. Discouraged because of the time all this has taken. First we had lots (no pun intended) of problems buying the lot that involved drainage, judgements, back taxes, assessments and liens. Then we tried, unsuccessfully, to vacate the remainder of Sorel Street. Now we're attempting this lot split, all the while interest rates creep upward. However we're encouraaed after talking with all our future neighbors and seeing how receptive most all of them have been to us. We're also encouraged with the attitude of the Commission in that you're willing to work with us on these issues. You more than once mentioned you see your role as one of working with people to accomodate special requests as long as these requests 'do not jeopardize or compromise the city of Centerville or other city home owners. We look forward to the next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on April 5th. Sincere • :tea. ► - ! �-' J : t /,, 410 LIo' and Diane Hansen Erick and LyNae Mars al phone- 429-0431 phone 429 -2419 Planning and Zoning Commissioners; Dan Tourvilie— Chairman Lloyd Drilling Alan LaMotte • Katrina Verrneulen Kathy Welk cc: Mayor John Buckbee 111 65.02. DECISION BY THE COUNCIL. Upon receipt of the recommendations of tne commission, the council shall hold whatever hearings it deems advisable and shall make its decision upon the request to grant the variance. In granting the variance tne council may impose conditions which it considers necessary to meet the standards of this ordinance and to protect the best interests of the surrounding area and the city as a whole. Violation of any such condition is a violation of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall recommend a e and the council shall order the issuance of such variance only if it conforms to the following standards: 65.03 -1 - Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and do not result from the actions of the petitioner; 65.03 -2 - Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance; 65.03 -3 - Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; 65.03 -4 - The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the city. 66. AMENDMENT. • 66.01. IN GENERAL. This ordinance may be amended by following the procedure specified in this section. 66.02. TNITTATTS)N OF PROCEEDINGS. Proceedings for amendine this ordinance shall be initiated by at least one (1) of the following three (3) methods: L11 B petition of an owner or own of vro_n �tv phirh is vrnvnsed to he rezoned. or for which rlietriot regulation rhAnses Ant erovnsed. (71 Rv recnmmensistinnusf the wlanninc CnmmiRainn (3) By artinn of the City Council . an amendment not i n i t i a t e d by the aJ mnz' no Commission shall be refer'ed to the commission for study and - eport. And the council -40- i t R&tf& 1T ZL - e � • 0 N a O C c vi g 5 Rat f' CHNLEN1' I Z 4• A t "o t 9 - t �u t t . t N kcticts * - . . 51 g . * it et , l Pi t 4 _ - o t 1 . 4 4 . 1 1 U ApR s ,t D April 21, 1994 Centerville City Council 1880 Main St. Centerville, MN 55038 Dear Council Members: I was happy to read in the Quad Community Press that you recently unanimously denied a variance to split one lake lot on Centerville Lake into two building lots. My wife and I live on Centerville Lake and feel if people are able to build on less than 100 foot lots, or jam two houses onto one lot it will "cheapen" the lake. We are especially concerned because we own an upper middle class home on the lake which has a number of vacant lots next to us. I would hate to see a precedent set whereby those lots next to us are also split up. If you start granting building variances, what I envision is a "shanty town" developing around the lake. I strongly support your concerns of this happening, and hope you all have the courage to stand by your initial decision. Sincerely, lttre4± Kenneth Klingelhoets 1405 Mound Trail Centerville, MN 55038