Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-06 Minutes r Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission of Centerville held their regular meeting on Thursday, November 6, 1986 at city hall. Chairman Tourville called the meeting to order at 7:25 P.M. Present: Murray, Buesseler. Absent: Welk, Lindgren. Motion by Buesseler, second by Murray to accept the minutes of the October 7, 1986 Planning and Zoning meeting, motion carried unanimously. Chairman Tourville spoke with Keith Kruger referencing Mr. Kruger's inquiry as to the possibility of constructing a pole barn at 6719 Centerville Road and operating a small auto repair business out of it. Chairman Tourville relayed Planning and Zoning's consensus of opinion that this business would not be in compliance with the zoning of that property. OLD BUSINESS: Continued discussion of Jerry Roach's special use permit for multiple dwelling at 7159 Mill Road. Members of the audience expressed their opinion in opposition to this special use permit: Joe & Carol Pelton, 7178 Mill Road - submitted letter which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Myra Spjer - 7200 Mill Road - expressed concern with devaluation of property and the fact it is not in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. Commission member Buesseler went over his analysis which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Motion by Buesseler, second by Murray to accept in principal the special use permit for the property at 7159 Mill Road based on the analysis by Commission member Buesseler attached; and ask Mr. Roach for a detailed drawing of the site in order to discuss specific conditions at the next meeting, motion carried unanimously. Clerk will contact Mr. Roach to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting on December 2nd at 8:30 P.M. Motion by Buesseler, second by Murray to recommend the City Council approve with changes requested and with the advise of the city attorney on penalty section the building numbers ordinance amendment, motion carried unanimously. Final draft attached to and made a part of these minutes. Clerk will check into county planning services. At the next Planning and Zoning meeting the parking ordinance will be discussed from 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Ordinance #4 will be discussed from 8:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. The Roach special use permit will begin at 8:30 P.M. Clerk will notify council the need to begin soliciting for a new Planning and Zoning Commission member. Motion by Buesseler, second by Murray to adjourn meeting, motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debra Gonsior November 6, 1986 To: Planning & Zoning Committee - Issue: The issuance of a conditional use permit for the conversion of the 7159 Mill Road duplex into a six -unit apartment building. Statement of Intent: We wish to strongly oppose the issuance of the conditional use permit. The reasons for our opposition to the issuance of this conditional use permit are many. Most importantly the proposed six -unit apartment conversion contradicts the existing zoning of R -2 single family residential - sewered as it will clearly not be a single family dwelling. These apartments contradict the principle of the zoning by allowing a development six times more intense than the existing zoning's "permitted principal uses." Secondly, the STANDARDS (Section 54.02) in the zoning code by which the decision of whether or not to issue a conditional use permit state that such a use at the proposed location will be consistent with the general and applicable specific objectives of the comprehensive plan and this ordinance. The zoning ordinance as stated above clearly does not permit this type of development. Exceptions are made through the issuance of the conditional use permit, but only if a series of standards are met. While the comprehensive plan does encourage multiple family dwellings, it does not state to do so within R -2 zoning areas. The STANDARDS go on to state that the proposed use will be harmonious and appropriate in the area. Several residents have demonstrated that this is not a harmonious use to be adjacent to single family homes. It is highly inappropriate to place this higher density use next to these homes when there are other areas within the city where this type of development could be built next to other higher density existing facilities or designate an undeveloped area for these uses. The STANDARDS also state that the development will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses and will not result in traffic congestion. As a duplex, this building already has 6 - 9 vehicles in its driveway. These 7 __ are disturbing both visually and noisily at this level of housing. With the addition of four more units, the - volume of vehicles could increase to 18 - 27 vehicles. This is by far too much of a potential disturbance to the neighboring houses. The potential hazards of air and soil pollution from this concentration of vehicles is too high also. Remember that there are extremely high water tables in this area and there is a house immediatly next to the proposed apartment building. There is also the issue of high traffic congestion from this concentration of vehicles that will occur. On — a single family lot this is too congested both on site and on the road. In addition, the comprehensive plan states that the city, in conjunction with the Minnesota and Anoka County Historical Societies will strive to preserve all significant historical sites within the city. St. Genevieve Cemetery is one of the sites identified by the above as a historical site. The proposed development is directly adjacent to the cemetery and would impact it adversely visually as well as potentially its air quality and with increased noise levels. In addition, once issued the permit's conditions must be policed and Centerville has neither the staff or funds available to do this policing. Therefore any infringement upon the conditions would most likely go uncorrected and the neighbors would be the ones to suffer. Other arguments include the lack of a specific plan for construction that could allow the developer to subdivide his home with no set date for completion. Our property values would drop or not rise at the same rate as if without this apartment building next to us. The selling time would also be lengthened because it is harder to sell a house under such conditions. We have talked to several realtors and they have confirmed this from their experiences. While we are not a opposed to a person making a profit, we feel very strongly that that profit should not be made at the expense of other people. Also renters do not have the incentive to maintain a property as does some one who owns the property. Thus the property will more likely deteriorate than improve over time. Although the owner currently lives in one of the units, there is no assurance that this will continue to be the case. , tom: / Our strongest point against the issuance of the conditional use permit is that the zoning does not permit this type of development. Only with this permit can this development take place IF it meets the standards set forth in the ordinance. It clearly does not meet several of them. Therefore we strongly recommend that this permit be denied. a.. Respectfully submitted, i r4r4 e` ' PA/7 • Carol and Joseph Pelton 7178 Mill Road ROSEDALE REALTY ML 3585 NORTH LEXINGTON, SUITE 175 ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 55112 484 -9551 October 28, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Pelton 7178 Mill Road Centerville, MN 55038 Dear Joe and Carol, In response to your request to calculate the marketability of your property located at 7178 Mill Road with consideration to the proposal for a six -plex at 7159 Mill Road. I have compiled sales data of homes in your area from 1983 through the present time. The figures used are from information from the St. Paul Area Board of Realtors and does not include properties sold by owners or other properties not included in the Multiple Listing Service. Home sales in Centerville consists primarily of "starter" homes, the majority being on Shad, Peltier, and Center Sts, In 1983 the average listing price was 569,100 and a selling price of 567,180. The average days on market was 153 days. The homes sold this last year had an average list price of $72,590 and an average sale price of $71,080 with a days on market average of 72 days. The difference in sales prices between 1983 and 1986 amounts to a relatively stagnant 59.. I believe the primary reason for the increase in prices was not so much apprecation, but from the fact that in 1983 most of the homes sold has unfinished basements and in 1986 the basements had been finished. Mill Road consists of some of the nicest homes in Centerville. Homes on Mill Road are generally larger and more diverse in style. If a six -plea was allowed at 7159 Mill Road, it is my opinion it would be detrimental, in so far as lessened future appreciation of your home and that of your neighbors. Quite possibly this development could depress the value of your property, depending upon the management of the six -plea. Most assuredly the marketability of your home would be lessened. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michael B. Zoff RESIDENTIAL _ .NVESTMENT °'- e'§ MICHAEL ZOFF REALTOR MULTI MILLION DOLLAR CLUB IEDALE REALTY 85 N. LEXINGTON. SUITE 175 0: 484 -9551 ARDEN HILLS. MN 33112 H: 481 -0328 r TO: Planning and Zoning Members FROM: Peter Buesseler RE: Request for Special Use Permit - 7159 Mill Road Criteria for issuing a special use permit are specified in Ordinance #4, 64.02 as follows: #1. Use at the proposed location will be consistent with the general and applicable specific objectives of the comprehensive plan and this ordinance (#4), #2. will be harmonious and appropriate in the area, #3. will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses, #4. will not result in traffic congestion, #5. will not create excessive additional public expense. Criteria ##1 - The comprehensive plan directly addresses multiple family residences. Under the section "Development Plans and Policies ", pg. 18, Applicable Policies and Plan Recommendations ##5, it states: - Multiple family residences will be encouraged to develop in the sewered area according to the following criteria. a) Close proximity and easy access to collector streets or minor arterials - Mill Road is classified as a collector street (see Thoroughfare Plan pg. 367) b) Located so as to minimize conflicts with adjacent land use - The building is located on the edge of the residential district and has a 40 foot setback from the residential property to the north (10' is standard), and a 63' setback from the street (50' is standard) c) Sited, landscaped, and oriented to produce a harmonious relationship with adjacent development - Proposed remodeling will make the present structure look more like a residential building than it presently does. d) Organized vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the neighbor- hood. - Presently exists. e) Of such a scale or size as to proserve the planning objectives of the comprehensive plan. - Building will remain the same size. Will go from 2 to 5 or 6 units. r Page Two - Request for Special Use Permit analysis f) Multiple family should be encouraged to locate near high amenity areas. - Near Clearwater Creek. Pg. 244, comprehensive plan proposes to preserve land adjacent the creek for aesthetic and recreational opportunities. Criteria #2 - Our zoning ordinance currently permits multiple family dwellings to co -exist with single family dwellings in the sewered residential district. This should not be part of this argument (whether this is right or wrong). The perspective that needs to be taken here is: "Are there any concerns unique to this particular proposal that makes this development less harmonious or appropriate in this location versus any other location. Concerns raised by residents at the October 7 hearing were a) Traffic congestion - Nothing specific about this proposal makes traffic a greater or lesser concern than elsewhere in the district. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan re: collector streets. b) Noise (vehicle) - Vehicle noise could be minimized by requiring surfacing of the driveway and parking area. The parking area could be sited on the south side of the building and screened if necessary from the road. c) Noise (residents) - Setbacks are already large. Screening to the north (eg. conifers) might provide some buffering. The proposal is for efficiencies and 1 bedrooms which will minimize children. d) Property value loss - What is unique about this concern in this particular case? The improvements proposed will improve the appearance of the property. Criteria #3 - The development will not create any hazards. The disturbance factor is discussed under Criteria #2. Criteria #+ Discussed under Criteria #1 (a), and Criteria #2 (b). Criteria #5 None known. r AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 4 CITY OF CENTERVILLE COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA This is an amendment to Ordinance #4, Article 3 adding Section 38 Building Numbers as follows: 38 Building Numbers 38.01 Building Numbers Required. It shall be the duty of the owner, lessor, or occupant of every house, industrial, commercial or other building to have proper house or building numbers either by affixing to said building such numbers in metal, glass, plastic or other durable material. The numbers shall not be less than four inches in height, in a contrasting color to the base, and so placed to be easily seen from the street. 38.02 Alternative Display. In those cases where the principal building is obscurred from view from the street of address by accessory buildings, trees, shrubbery or other visual obstruction, the numbers shall be displayed from a permanent mounting on the property so that they are clearly visible from the street of address. 38.03 Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of section 38 shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor as defined by state law. 38.04 Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon its passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the Centerville City Council on (MAYOR) (CLERK)