Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-02 P & Z CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 2, 2001 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on January 2, 2001, at 6:30 p. m. PRESENT: Commission MemberAlan LaMotte Commission MemberDavid Kilian Commission MemberRob Sheppard Commission MemberJohn McLean Commission MemberRay DeVine Commission MemberBrian Hanson ABSENT: Barry Brainard COUNCIL: Linda Broussard Vickers STAFF: City Administrator, Jim March Public Works Director, Paul Palzer I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING(S) th 1.Joyce A. Stevens – Rezone from R2 to I1 Request – 7007 – 20 Avenue Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Stevens addressed the Commission and stated he would like to have the property rezoned as his current tenant would like to purchase the property and has requested the rezone. Mr. Stevens indicated his property is in line with other industrial property along th 20 Avenue. Mr. March explained the property in question is a pizza shaped piece of property with a residential structure on the west edge of the property and a pole barn currently being used for a business on the other side. The pole barn has been used for a business for approximately 30 years. Mr. & Mrs. Yaeger are building a house on Lot 14 across the street from the property of concern, questioned whether the property will remain as is or if the tenant has plans to expand the business and if the property is rezoned to Industrial would residents have input into usage of the property? Chairperson Hanson indicated there were several allowed uses for property that is zoned Industrial. He then read the list to Mr. & Mrs. Yaeger. Page 1 of 10 Mr. March explained due to the property being located near the creek and the size of the parcel some of the allowed uses for industrial property would not be allowed. He then explained that the pole building would not be allowed to be reconstructed in the event of destruction by a natural disaster. Mrs. Yaeger expressed her concerns for truck traffic, diesel fuel smells and chemical smells if the property is rezoned to Industrial and the use of the property changes. Ms. Karen Maska, Brian Court, stated she believed she was building a house in a residential neighborhood and would not have built her home in that location if she were aware that the parcel would be rezoned to Industrial. She is very concerned that something louder, smellier and more disruptive to the neighborhood would come in should the property be rezoned to Industrial. Mr. Mark Radley, 7044 Cottonwood Court, questioned the need for a rezone to Industrial if the intention is to keep the same type of business there. He then asked the Commission to consider the fact that this parcel is bordered on three sides by property zone Residential. Mrs. Stevens presented her tax statement to Chairperson Hanson, which indicated she is currently taxed Residential and Commercial for the property. Mr. March noted the property owner is requesting the entire parcel be rezoned to Industrial. The property owner had considered splitting the property, however, there is no buildable area on the portion with the pole barn due to the floodway. The current tenant would like to continue to use the entire piece of property and can continue to operate the business under a Special Use Permit. Ms. Maska questioned how residents or the City could control the use of the property in the future. Mr. March indicated any new business would need a Special Use Permit, which would require a public hearing to inform residents and receive resident input. Mrs. Yaeger questioned whether there was a difference in which businesses could be located on the property if the parcel was zoned Commercial, rather than Industrial. Chairperson Hanson stated there were different businesses allowed under Commercial, rather than Industrial. Mrs. Yaeger questioned whether it was possible to split the parcel and leave the portion of the lot with the house on it Residential and zone the other Commercial. The Stevens indicated they did not have a preference either way for zoning but had received a request from the buyer of the property to request a rezone to Industrial as a condition of the sale. Mr. March explained the business could continue to operate as is under the currently issued Special Use Permit if the zoning remains the same. If the buyer of the property should want to redevelop in the future, rezoning to Industrial would be required. Page 2 of 10 Mr. Yaeger questioned the submittal of the rezone and who requested same; the City, the property owner, or the buyer of the property. Mr. March explained the business currently operating out of the pole barn is non-conforming but would be allowed to continue operating under the Special Use Permit without a rezone to Industrial. Mr. March stated he was not privy to the terms of the sale but suggested the buyer may have requested the rezone to make the property more saleable in the future or perhaps it was requested by the financing institution. Mr. March stated he was not sure whether the rezone to Industrial affected the sale of the property. Mrs. Stevens indicated the rezone to Industrial would affect the sale of the property. Mrs. Stevens indicated she has been paying Commercial taxes for a number of years and believes she is entitled to the rezone. Mr. March explained that Anoka County taxes property at the highest use rate allowed and due to the fact there is a business operating out of the pole barn, Mrs. Stevens is being taxed Commercially on the portion of the property regardless of the zoning designation by the City, which is Residential. Mr. March stated if the property is not rezoned the business will be allowed to continue to operate under the currently issued Special Use Permit. The City cannot revoke the Special Use Permit unless the business is found to be in violation of the conditions of same. Ms. Chris Swenson, 7016 Brian Court, explained to Council she had researched the area and believed the area to be a residential development. She expressed concern for future use of the property should the rezone to Industrial be granted. Ms. Swenson stated she did not believe an industrial use for the property was appropriate or safe for the neighborhood. Ms. Maska expressed concern for the impact on the neighborhood if an industrial use for the property is approved. Ms. Maska stated she was concerned for property values and resale of the homes in the neighborhood if there is an industrial property in the neighborhood. Mrs. Yaeger questioned whether there were trucks parked at the building. She then suggested the parcel be split and the portion with the pole building be zoned Commercial or be issued a Special Use Permit. She also suggested requiring the buyer to install some type of screening. Mr. March noted the tenant did not appear too concerned for the type of zoning of the parcel provided the Special Use Permit would allow him to continue to operate his business. Mr. March explained the building is non-conforming structure and, therefore, could not be rebuilt should it be destroyed by a natural disaster. Mr. Dave Luke, 7026 Brian Court, questioned whether the pole building conformed to the requirements of an industrial building. Commissioner LaMotte indicated the building did not conform to Industrial requirements and was being “grandfathered in” under Commercial requirements. Mr. March explained the building did not comply with any requirements at this point and is classified as non-conforming under City code. Mr. Don Moe, 7480 Brian Court, addressed the Commission and indicated that at the time he and his neighbors decided to build their homes, they researched the City’s Page 3 of 10 Comprehensive Plan to confirm the area was zoned Residential. The City has a responsibility to follow the Comprehensive developed. The City also has a responsibility to the community at large to regulate zoning to protect property values. The City has a designated industrial area and this area is not included in same. Mr. Stevens indicated he thought the parcel was zoned Industrial just as the rest of the th property along 20 Avenue. th Chairperson Hanson explained the east side of 20 Avenue is zoned Industrial and the th west side of 20 Avenue is zoned Commercial. Commissioner Kilian stated that a small portion of the property appears to be Industrial and the remainder Residential. Ms. Swenson indicated residents did research the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the entire area is zoned Residential and she would like it to remain that way. Mr. March explained due to the shape and size of the property, and the floodway issues a business owner looking for a piece of industrial property would not consider this parcel when it would be easier to build in the industrial park. Mr. March explained even if the rezone is granted it would be highly unlikely the use of the property would change. Mr. Luke explained he used to live behind the Buckbee’s and had a nice natural view and would never have purchased this current property if he knew it could possibly have a view of a piece of property zoned Industrial. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers explained that even though the City has a Comprehensive Plan as residents have mentioned the potential is always there that a property owner can request to have their property zoning designation modified. This request has come from the property owner not the City. The City does not control requests or zoning modifications and the property owners are entitled to the public hearing concerning the request. Ms. Swenson indicated she believed she was building next to property zoned Residential not Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan is the reason she believed that. She also noted if the property owners request the rezone, again she will be back to contest it. Mr. Moe stated, with due respect, to Council Liaison Broussard Vickers, the City does have a responsibility to follow its Comprehensive Plan which sets out the vision for the community. He stated he understood that a portion of the property can be rezoned but feels the City Comprehensive Plan and resident input indicate the parcel should remain residential. Mr. Moe then inquired as to the motivation for the request. Is the business owner planning on expanding the asphalt company? Ms. Maska expressed displeasure with the comments of Council Liaison Broussard Vickers, indicating she felt she was reprimanded for opposing the rezone, which she did not feel was appropriate. Ms. Maska stated that several residents wishes were to deny the request to rezone this parcel and felt that due to same, the City should deny the request. Page 4 of 10 Council Liaison Broussard Vickers clarified her comments indicating she was simply trying to clarify for residents that this rezone request did not come from the City and that any property owner is entitled to request a rezoning of their property. Mr. Radley stated residents oppose the current use of the property but if the property is rezoned to Industrial, it would pose a problem for the neighborhood. Mr. Lloyd Drilling, 7185 Mound Trail, stated that since it appears no one is directly adjacent to the pole building perhaps a 50/50 split zoning would be appropriate. Mrs. Yaeger indicated the home she is building will be facing the pole building. Mr. Yaeger questioned the rezoning since the buyer has indicated he does not intend to change the use of the property. Mrs. Stevens indicated she would like at least the part of the property she is paying Commercial taxes on rezoned to Commercial. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. 2.Lloyd Drilling (Site Plan) Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Drilling gave a brief overview of the proposed 10,000 square foot strip mall to be located at 1873 Main Street. Mr. Drilling provided a blueprint drawing for review. Mr. Jeff Turner, 7151 Peterson Trail, expressed concern for increased traffic onto Peterson Trail and said he would prefer to split the traffic by adding a driveway onto the Shad Avenue side of the strip mall. Commissioner Kilian explained at the public hearing for the rezoning of the property, many residents from the Shad Avenue expressed concern for traffic and lights shining into a residential windows if there was an entrance on Shad Avenue. Mr. Turner stated he believed adding the potential for 100 more cars onto Peterson Trail is a safety hazard as there are no stop signs. Commissioner Kilian stated that he felt there was no way to accommodate a driveway onto Shad Avenue. Mrs. Yaeger questioned whether a wider entrance/exit onto Main Street would alleviate some of the traffic problems. Mr. Drilling indicated the County has specific requirements for width of access onto a County road. He also explained there needs to be an driveway on Peterson Trail to move traffic from one strip mall to the other without having people exit onto Main Street to move between shopping areas. Page 5 of 10 Mr. Drilling sympathized with Mr. Turner’s concern for increased traffic, but indicated he did not believe the present strip mall had negatively impacted the neighborhood as it does not generate that much traffic. The proposed strip mall would generate additional traffic minimally. Mr. Turner stated that currently one (1) stop sign is installed at the intersection of Peterson Trail and Main Street. Mr. Turner felt that it would not take people long to figure out that they can go up Peterson Trail to avoid tie ups at Main Street and Peterson Trail. Mr. Turner stated he did not have a problem with tearing the old house down and zoning it Commercial but he does have a problem with increased traffic on Peterson Trail. It appears to him that a plan is developed and then changed at the last minute. Mr. Drilling indicated there was a public hearing to take resident input held at a previous meeting, which is where it was learned there would be a problem putting a driveway on the Shad Avenue side. Mr. Turner indicated he did not have notice of that public hearing. Mr. Turner thanked Mr. Drilling for his efforts to appease the neighborhood during the construction of his first building. Mr. Turner again expressed concern for increased traffic on Peterson Trail and requested an alternative. Mr. Turner requested that the County be contacted to ascertain the possibility of a wider access onto Main Street rather than the option proposed. Mr. March stated there may be a trail crossing the property and a wider access onto Main Street with an island of some sort between the entrance and exit lanes would be a nice safety feature for bikers and walkers. Mr. Turner questioned whether Mr. Drilling intended to have fencing or some type of screening from neighboring homes. Mr. March asked Chairperson Hanson to have Mr. Drilling explain some of the comments and suggestions that came out of the previous public hearing and have been incorporate into his plan. Mr. Drilling indicated there would be a berm along the backside of the property with a six (6) or eight (8) foot fence that would effectively screen the building. Mr. Turner questioned whether the building would be set back off the property line far enough to allow for maintenance to the building without having to trespass onto neighboring properties. Mr. Drilling concurred. Motion by Commissioner Kilian, seconded by Commissioner DeVine to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. 3.Ordinance #39 - Sign Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Page 6 of 10 Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Council had received a request for clarification to the sign ordinance. There was no opposition expressed except clarification to the commercial business section being too restrictive. Chairperson Hanson explained the Planning and Zoning Commission held several workshops where modifications to the sign ordinance were discussed. Height, overall signs, type of construction, and lighting were all taken into consideration. Motion by Commissioner Sheppard, seconded by Commissioner Kilian to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. 4.Proposed Amendments to Ordinance #4 Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. March explained the need for the public hearing to discuss amendments to Ordinance #4. Ordinance #4 currently does not allow for specific home styles due to minimum footprint requirements. There is a new definition for front yards and a recommendation to set a minimum footprint or minimum finished square footage of 1,650 square feet. Mr. Turner inquired if under current code someone would be allowed to build a split level home with 1,000 finished square feet on the main level and 440 finished square feet over the garage, but leave the basement unfinished. Mr. March indicated that would not be allowed. Mr. Turner expressed concern for requiring 1,650 finished square feet as that seemed like a large amount and may be cost prohibitive for the average person. Mr. March explained this requirement would be for new construction in new development areas, not current neighborhoods. Mr. Palzer stated he believed a lot of people were having trouble meeting the 900 – 1,200 square foot minimum footprint and the changes to the ordinance would be less restrictive than current requirements. Commissioner DeVine explained the City is attempting to protect property values by controlling finished square footage. This will keep a small house from being built next to a large house. Mr. Turner questioned if there was a minimum house price based on lot size. Mr. March explained the City does not regulate house price based on lot size, however, some subdivisions have their own requirements. Mr. March explained the City is attempting to maintain equitable property values. Mr. Don Anderson, 9313 Deer Pass, explained he has a purchase agreement to build a home and the type of home he wants to build is not allowed. He would be allowed to build a 1,200 square foot house on a slab but not a 2,400 finished square foot, modified two-story. He thanked the Commission for their consideration of this matter. Mr. March stated the current ordinance was passed when the City was being inundated with the two-level, split. Page 7 of 10 Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. III. APPEARANCES None. IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS th 1.Joyce A. Stevens – Rezone from R2 to I1 Request 7007 – 20 Avenue Commissioner Kilian stated he did not feel a rezone to Industrial would be appropriate due to the fact the property is surrounded by residential property. Commissioner McLean stated it was discussed earlier that the business owner could continue to operate without rezoning to Industrial. This may affect the sale but perhaps something could be worked out between buyer and seller. Chairperson Hanson expressed concern that the City use caution to avoid spot zoning. The current use of the property works within the residential neighborhood but a rezone to industrial could bring another type of use. Motion by Commissioner Sheppard, seconded by Commissioner McLean to deny the requested rezone. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 2.Lloyd Drilling – Site Plan Chairperson Hanson questioned whether there would be grass or asphalt behind the building in the northwest corner. Mr. Drilling indicated there may be overflow parking and grass it has not yet been decided. Commissioner Kilian expressed concern for the location of the dumpsters as that was a concern raised by residents at the public hearing. Mr. Drilling indicated the exact location has not been determined and he is open to City input. Commissioner Sheppard questioned the length of the current strip mall comparative to the proposed strip mall. Mr. Drilling indicated the current strip mall is 220 feet long and 55 feet wide and the proposed strip mall is 250 feet long and 40 feet wide. Commissioner Kilian questioned the type of exterior building materials. Mr. Drilling indicated the building would be brick and/or cut block and siding. The building is quite long and he is attempting to make it more appealing. Page 8 of 10 Chairperson Hanson questioned whether there has been a traffic study on Peterson Trail lately. Mr. March indicated there has not. The procedure is residents need to request a traffic study before one is conducted. Mr. Drilling indicated there was a definite need for a driveway on the Peterson Trail side of the building and said the entrance onto Main Street can be as wide as allowed by the Anoka County. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked Commissioner DeVine how he gets home if he is traveling west on Main Street. Commissioner DeVine indicated he uses Peterson Trail. Mr. Drilling noted Peterson Trail was designed as a collector street. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated she did not believe traffic would increase by a large amount due to an addition of another strip mall as it seems many people are already using it to travel north because it is a straight road with no stop signs. Commissioner DeVine questioned whether the site plan could be approved with contingencies. Mr. March noted the site plan would not be approved at the Council level without Mr. Drilling providing much more detail concerning the building. Mr. March indicated the Planning and Zoning Commission may want to consider tabling this item until its next meeting. Mr. Drilling indicated that tabling the matter would hinder the anticipated timeframe as there were many changes at the Council level last time. He noted he would not be at the next Council meeting as he needed time to prepare and provide details to Council for review. Motion by Commissioner Kilian, seconded by Commissioner DeVine to recommend to Council approval of the site plan as presented. All in favor. Motion carried. 3.Chicilo Homes – Industrial Building (Lot 5, Royal Industrial Park) Mr. March explained that there was not time to properly notice for a public hearing on this matter for this evenings meeting so this is informational for the Commission. Chairperson Hanson questioned the type of building Mr. Chicilo is proposing. Mr. Chicilo indicated he is a residential homebuilder and intends to build an office/ warehouse type building. His business would occupy one fourth (1/4) of the building for office and storage of miscellaneous items and lease the remaining three fourths (3/4). Mr. Chicilo indicated he would like to break ground as soon as subsequent to obtaining City approval. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner McLean to recommend to Council approval of the proposed building as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 4.Amendments to Ordinance #4 Page 9 of 10 Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner LaMotte to approve the amendments to Ordinance #4 as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 5.Ordinance #39 – Sign Motion by Commissioner Kilian, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to approve Ordinance #39 – the Sign Ordinance as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.December 5, 2000 Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Sheppard, seconded by Commissioner Kilian to approve the December 5, 2000 Meeting Minutes as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner McLean to adjourn the January 2, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting at 8:35 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Proofed by: Teresa Bender, Clerk Treasurer Staff Page 10 of 10