Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-01 P & Z May 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 1, 2001 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on May 1, 2001, at 6:30 p. m. at City Hall, 1880 Main Street. PRESENT: Chair Brian Hanson CommissionerDavid Kilian Commissioner John McLean Commissioner Ray DeVine Commissioner Rob Sheppard ABSENT: CommissionerBarry Brainard COUNCIL: Liaison Broussard Vickers STAFF: City Administrator, Jim March I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING(S) nd 1.Preliminary Plat – Eagle Pass 2 Addition Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Mr. Quigley gave a brief overview of the proposed development. He then noted the developer intended to provide a berm and tree plantings to screen the development from the Parkview development. Mr. Rawlings, 7069 Dupre Road, stated that he was President of the Townhome Association and indicated the Association had some concerns they would like addressed. The first concern is Ojibway Drive being a private road. With two (2) Associations, he feels it would be difficult to come to an agreement as to maintenance and repair of the road. His second concern is that part of the driveway is on Association property and the Association takes exception to that. Mr. Rawlings then requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to Council that the street be made a public street, and to ensure that the City Council requires sufficient documentation is received from the developer and the builder to ensure they build what they are supposed to build. Page 1 of 12 Mr. Rawlings noted there are some inconsistencies in the construction of the units in the Association. The Association finds that unacceptable, but without documentation it is impossible to force the builder to rectify the situation. He noted there is one unit with a half brick front garage rather than full brick, one unit without bars on the patio door window, and one unit with a brass coach lamp rather than white. He then asked that the City require a landscaping plan which clearly indicates where and what type of plantings are to be used. Mr. Quigley explained that the developer platted the property and Swift Construction is the builder. The construction issues needed to be taken up with Swift Construction. Mr. March explained the City has no regulations in regards to siding color and Swift has allowed property owners to make choices as to how the units will look. Mr. Rawlings stated he did not feel it was right to allow the builder and developer to do whatever they wished. Mr. Quigley explained some of the issues Mr. Rawlings had raised should be covered in the covenants and conditions in the Townhome documents. He then noted those covenants and restrictions are between the buyer and the builder not the developer. Chairperson Hanson explained that the developer is looking to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of the building sites and road plans. He then noted that the City does not have much control over how the buildings are built. Mr. Rawlings stated he felt the City was the entity that could control the way the buildings should look, otherwise the only alternative is to settle the matter with litigation. He then noted he has sold townhomes for many years and in every City there has been a detailed landscaping plan required before the building permits are issued. Mr. Gerald Albrecht, 7071 Dupre Road, questioned whether the developer could go across the Association’s land with buildings one (1) and two (2). Mr. Quigley stated that, to the best of his knowledge, they are within the outlot area. Mr. Albrecht questioned what the lines on the map were that he thought was a driveway crossing the street. Mr. Quigley explained it was not the property line. Mr. Albrecht asked when Gor-Em would come and level the land behind their townhomes. Mrs. Albrecht explained they have ruts in their backyard that were never repaired. Chairperson Hanson requested that the civil issues be kept separate from the issues concerning the preliminary plat. Ms. Albrecht questioned the weight restriction on Ojibway Drive. Mr. March indicated the road could be posted at whatever the Association desired, however, the road was designed to be of seven (7) ton specifications. Mr. March noted it was up to the developer to work out with the Association how the road is going to be extended and Page 2 of 12 maintained. Mr. March noted there is an issue with a trail coming from Chauncy Barrot Gardens connecting to the subdivision between units 2 and 3. Mr. March noted there is also an issue with unit 3’s building pad encroaching into the easement. Mr. Rawlings noted the trail would connect to a private road. He then asked if the City has authorization to revert the road to a public road. Ms. Jean Davis, 1764 Ojibway Drive, stated she did not know when she bought her home that the road was private. She then explained that since the street is not on the map of Centerville it took the post office three weeks to find her. Whenever she receives deliveries they are delayed because they aren’t able to find her. Mr. Larry Boerner, 7014 Dupre Road, questioned why they are stuck with private roads. Mr. Quigley explained that private roads are quite common in townhome developments. He then noted the private road information was on the plat from the beginning, and on the plat in the sales office. Mrs. Peterson, 7065 Dupre Road, noted the original plat showed Ojibway Drive going through and exiting on Meadow Lane, not as a cul-de-sac. Mr. Quigley explained that it was requested at a previous meeting that Ojibway end in a cul-de-sac. Mrs. Peterson stated she did not want a cul-de-sac. Mr. Brian Carlson, 1771 Meadow Lane, questioned the type of trees to be planted as a screen from Parkview. He then noted the building with units 7 and 8 would be very close to his backyard and asked that the building be moved forward ten (10) or more feet to provide more privacy. Commissioner McLean noted the City Engineer had recommended the building be moved ten (10) or twenty (20) feet forward to provide more privacy to the home on Meadow Lane. Chairperson Hanson read the rest of the recommendations of the City Engineer nd concerning the preliminary plat for Eagle Pass 2 Addition. Mr. Quigley stated he would look at all the issues raised and noted the screening was done as a request during the sketch plan phase. Mr. Jim Juhl, 1825 Voyager Court, questioned if the density for the new development is the same as his Association. He noted that Lot 6, Block 2 is really close to the last unit on his street. Mr. Quigley stated he thought the density is less than the original development and noted there are fewer units than originally planned. Mr. March requested the developer’s response to the easement between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. Mr. Quigley stated he felt it was appropriate to plat over an easement line. Mr. March explained the edge of the house would be built adjacent to the easement, which is not a desirable situation. Page 3 of 12 Mr. March commented it was not crucial to have the plantings on the preliminary plat but stated the berming needed to be indicated so that the City Engineer could review it. Mr. March requested the developer’s response to the question of maintenance of Ojibway Drive. Mr. Quigley explained there should be a line item in the Townhome Association dues for street maintenance. Mrs. Peterson asked why they should have to pay to maintain streets for other people to use. Mr. Rawlings indicated it was his understanding, from the original plat, that the western side would be twin townhomes that would be in his Association. That would mean the Association would be expanded and would get revenues from all of those homes for street maintenance. He also commented that now there are two (2) Associations and, in his opinion, maintenance of the streets is going to be a big problem. He then stated that if the City wanted them to maintain their own roads they should get property tax relief. Mr. Bill Ingison, 1762 Ojibway Drive, stated it is almost impossible to receive any kind of delivery at his house because they cannot find the road. He then suggested turning the street back over to the City and providing an access for the residents at Chauncy Barrot Gardens to get to the sidewalk. Mr. Quigley explained the issue of the street is a Townhome Association problem. Mr. Ingison questioned if Ojibway Drive could be turned into a city street. Mr. March indicated the Townhome Association would need to petition the City to have the street become a city street. Chairperson Hanson asked Mr. March if the street would need to be widened if it were to revert to a City street. Mr. March indicated it would not need to be widened but stated it may need to be posted as no parking. Mr. Don Barrett, 1845 Pioneer Lane, questioned if fire and rescue trucks could get turned around in the proposed cul-de- sac. Mr. March indicated the City Engineer had expressed concern for the tight radius of the cul-de-sac as a primary concern is for fire engine access. Mr. Barrett stated he felt now is the time to get the road turned into a City street before the developer gets his approval. Mr. March explained that the final decision rests with Council as to whether the road stays private or becomes a public street. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers clarified that there were two (2) separate issues. One (1), being residents wishes to have the road become a City street rather than a private street. The other being issues with the preliminary plat. She then noted residents could petition the City Council concerning the road, and suggested they contact City Hall to learn the legal process for doing so. Page 4 of 12 Council Liaison Broussard Vickers then summarized the issues raised concerning the preliminary plat. Those issues are: The driveway crossing property of the current Townhome Association and concern for more detail for the buffering that will take place in the development. She then explained that the City has not gotten into a position of requiring exact details regarding the construction of the buildings as was suggested by a resident. Mrs. Albrecht stated they have no idea what the buildings will look like and said she is concerned that she will have to pay to maintain and repair Ojibway Drive after the construction truck traffic and the addition of twenty (20) more homes. She then noted she did not think it was fair to her Association, as construction trucks tear up roads. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned whether the residents were interested in expanding their Association to include the new townhomes, if the City does not make the street public. Ms. Peterson explained the by-laws of the Association specify 18 units. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers explained that the bylaws could be amended if the Association chose to do so. She then asked if the residents were fine with the basic design for the townhomes. Mr. Albrecht questioned if there was an alternative plan that the developer could come up with. Mr. Quigley stated he was at the meeting to seek input and take it back for consideration. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated she would like to review the Association by- laws. She then noted the plan was in the preliminary stages and agreed that the City needed to review the road issue. Mr. Norm Freeberg, 7025 Dupre Road, asked if the new development would have silt barriers included. He noted that the developer dumped ten (10) loads of dirt right next to his townhome. He feels about one load a week goes into the sewer which runs into the lake. He feels this should not be allowed. He noted there is mud running everywhere and asked how the developer is allowed to get by without providing silt fencing. He understands that the trucks have to get in and out of the area, but those trucks are dragging the dirt and mud into the streets. He thinks they or the developer should have to clean up the mess, not the City. Council Member Broussard Vickers explained that silt fencing was not a part of Developer’s Agreements at that time, but is required in all new Developer’s Agreements. Mr. Quigley explained that all the silt fence requirements were met during the time of construction. He then noted Centerville does not require silt fencing around the building site. Mr. March explained the City requires, in new subdivisions, barrier around the curb and river rock where the driveway would be. He then noted it is a constant problem trying to get developers to clean up after their subcontractors. Page 5 of 12 Mr. March gave some background concerning the private roads in the townhome development. He indicated that Council was presented with information that the roads would be narrower and, therefore, less expensive for the property owners to maintain through the Townhome Association. At the time, Council agreed that the argument made sense and felt that the City should not dictate when maintenance is done on the townhome streets. He noted that the City could probably get a much better cost for repairs and maintenance of the streets. He then noted that the City would consider a petition for making the streets public. Mr. Ingison questioned how to start a petition. Mr. March explained he was not sure of the exact process but stated he would check with the City Attorney and report back to the President of the Townhome Association. Mr. Ingison questioned if there would be enough time to petition the City before the developer received his approval. Mr. March explained the City is under statutory time requirements to provide a response to the developer. If the issues are not resolved, the City could request an extension of time to answer or deny the preliminary plat application. Mr. Ingison questioned if he could go to City Hall tomorrow to commence the process. Mr. March acknowledged that he could come to City Hall tomorrow and commence the process. Mr. Juhl stated that residents do not have many problems with Gor-Em but have many with Swift Construction. Mr. Albrecht questioned if Mr. Quigley would go back and see if there were some other way to design the development. He suggested giving up one house, coming in off of a different street, and dead-ending Ojibway Drive. Mr. Quigley stated he would go back and review the plan. He then noted there will be no unresolved issues as he would review the engineering comments and address the issues. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Kilian to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. 2. Comprehensive Plan & MUSA Swap Updates – Pheasant Marsh Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Terry Hannah, Ground Development, updated the Commission on the status of the MUSA swap request. Page 6 of 12 Mr. Hannah noted that he had spoken to Mr. March about the Developer’s Agreement, getting estimates from the City Engineer, reviewed 429 financing for the streets and talked about moving forward with the Comprehensive Plan process. He understands the City will be making changes to the Comprehensive Plan at the same time. He noted that during the month of April they had resolved the boundary issues with the Vickers to the south, and the driveways to the north. He then suggested the City approve the MUSA swap concept contingent on the work by the consultant, and the eventual review and approval by the Metropolitan Council and MUSA governing body. Mr. March explained the Planning Commission has seen the MUSA swap plan and Council has approved it, but a public hearing was not held at the Planning Commission level. He noted the MUSA swap is contingent upon final plat approval. Mr. March then indicated that the information has been forwarded to the consultant, and the consultant will forward it to Metropolitan Council for its response. Mr. March also noted that the consultant would be at the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Hanson questioned what year the second phase of the development came into the MUSA. Mr. March explained the top portion of the development is in the 2001 – 2005 timeframe and the bottom portion of the development is in the 2006 – 2011 timeframe. Commissioner DeVine questioned how much acreage was contained in Parcel A and how much acreage was contained in Parcel C. Mr. Hannah indicated Parcel A was 20.185 acres and Parcel C was 20 acres. Commissioner DeVine questioned what type of agreement was reached with the property owners to the north. Mr. Hannah explained the developer would be reconstructing the driveways as per the drawing that was agreed to and signed. He then noted there may be an issue with one of the driveways that would need City approval. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers noted there would need to be a public hearing on the other changes proposed. Mr. March explained the City is in the process of obtaining GIS data for maps that are needed as attachments to the Comprehensive Plan. He then noted the consultant hopes to have the maps done by the June Planning and Zoning meeting. Mr. Tom Wilharber, 6849 Centerville Road, explained that his property is to the west of Parcel C and that he wants to be sure he will not be assessed for City services, as he will not be serviced. He then noted there is drainage that comes from the west that flows through the Vickers’ property and then through the proposed development, and asked the developer to be sure that the drainage is not interrupted. 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 7:46 p.m. Page 7 of 12 3. Ordinance #4 Amendments Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to table the public hearing until Mr. March returns with information needed. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hanson reopened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Mr. March explained that he had not noticed Ordinance #4 for a public hearing for this meeting. Mr. March noted there were four items discussed at the last meeting and those were swimming pools, mini storage, therapeutic massage, and minimum and maximum setbacks. Mr. March explained that at the last Council meeting it was determined if, at this public hearing, no one was opposed to swimming pools being allowed, to be 50% of the rear yard. There would then be a telephone poll of Council to grant a permit for a resident who had requested her permit be released immediately to allow for construction of her pool. Mr. March explained that after the Council meeting he had additional questions and asked the City Attorney for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney determined that pools should not be considered accessory structures but are structures that should require a building permit and inspection. Due to this determination, the telephone poll of Council was cancelled and the permit will be released tomorrow. Mr. March explained that he had spoken to Terry Sager concerning mini-storage and was told his partner has been out of town. They hope to have something before the Planning Commission at the June meeting. He then noted he would notice for a public hearing concerning swimming pools, mini storage, and minimum and maximum setbacks for the next meeting. Mr. March explained that Teresa Bender had put together an ordinance based on the Minnetonka ordinance covering therapeutic massage. He noted that the Minnetonka ordinance regulates tattoos and body piercing as well. He then asked if the Commission wished to have language in the ordinance governing tattoos and body piercing. It was the consent of the Commission that Mr. March should research the matter and present an ordinance for consideration at the next meeting. III. APPEARANCES None. Page 8 of 12 IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS nd 1. Preliminary Plat – Eagle Pass 2 Addition Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated she felt it would be appropriate to table the matter for more information. Commissioner Kilian questioned if Ojibway Drive is not extended, would it still need to be made into a turn around? The Commission agreed that it would. Commissioner DeVine suggested tabling the matter for more information because the residents on Quebec may post the road as a one-ton road, thereby prohibiting construction traffic from entering the development. Chairperson Hanson asked if Mr. Quigley would be willing to sign an extension. Mr. Quigley indicated that he would. He then indicated that all City setbacks were checked and everything on the preliminary plat either meets or exceeds those setbacks. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to table this matter to allow Gor-Em to make the discussed changes and come back to Planning and Zoning with a new plan. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Comprehensive Plan & MUSA Swap Update – Pheasant Marsh Commissioner DeVine stated he felt it was evident that Mr. Hannah has been working with the property owners. He did not understand what was being asked of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. March explained the MUSA swap was already approved but a public hearing was not held. He then noted that it might be possible to ask the consultant to submit the MUSA swap to the Metropolitan Council prior to the completion of all the City changes. Commissioner DeVine stated he would like to see Mr. Hannah be able to move forward with his project while the City completes its changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to recommend Council allow Ground Development to move ahead with the MUSA swap prior to the completion of the other Comprehensive Plan amendments. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Page 9 of 12 Mr. March noted this action did not guarantee anything other than that the MUSA swap is contingent upon the final development plan. Mr. Wilharber commented that if the roads in the Eagle Pass development were made public versus private the City would be setting precedence and could expect that other developments with private roads would come in asking for the same consideration. He then suggested that residents have been paying into Swift Construction for road maintenance and the City may need to ask for a portion of those funds for street maintenance. He further stated he thinks the plan is a good plan but that the road issue is of major concern and should be carefully discussed and considered. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. March handed out surveys from the Communications Ad Hoc Committee and asked that they be filled out and turned in. Mr. Wilharber questioned what the closing date for the Planning and Zoning Commission opening was. He then noted he would go home and consider applying for the opening. Mr. Wilharber commented that the gentlemen who had asked that the City regulate construction materials and exact plantings for the developments, does not realize that the City does not have a committee to be in charge of those types of issues. This would require additional staff, which in turn would mean higher taxes. Commissioner McLean noted he had heard through the grapevine that Associations liked having private roads. At this meeting he had heard an entirely different story. Commissioner Kilian commented that the parking spaces in the development may need to be made public if the street were made public. Chairperson Hanson requested Mr. March have public works check into the culvert area on Center Street near Ivy Court as it is pushed up approximately two (2) feet. He feels it is a hazard for children playing in the area. Mr. March noted there are some other areas where the City has put asphalt on both sides to make it more of a ramp rather than a speed bump. He would ask Mr. Palzer to look at it. Commissioner McLean asked if public works could look at silt fencing in Eagle Pass to circumvent sewer issues down the road. Mr. March indicated he would ask public works to look into it. Mr. March noted that Rice Creek Watershed District has not had an inspector for approximately six (6) months, and anyone calling Rice Creek is having trouble getting their calls returned. Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Kilian handed out a plan for a 22x48 garage he would like to build and asked the Commission to review it. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned why Commissioner Kilian had not just applied for a building permit rather than discussing the garage at the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kilian indicated the building official had indicated he would only be able to build a garage that was two (2%) of the lot size. He then noted that he did not see a percentage of yard requirement in the ordinance for mixed use zoning areas. Mr. March explained there is a combined aggregate square footage of not greater than 200 square feet or two percent (2%) of the lot size whichever is greater in all zoning districts which would mean Commissioner Kilian would need a variance. Mr. March noted there is another gentlemen who wants to build a detached three (3) car garage in a mixed use district. Commissioner DeVine asked that the Kilian garage be put on the agenda for discussion and interpretation of the ordinance at the next meeting. Commissioner McLean noted if there was not a limit placed on accessory structure size, a person could build a structure that could take up the entire rest of the lot. Mr. March indicated he could publish a discussion of lot coverage for M-1 districts at the next meeting. Mr. March handed out a memorandum to the Commission listing current issues he is working on or expects to be working on in the near future. Mr. March noted there is a staffing shortage and with the busy season beginning, things are getting worse. He then noted he intended to ask Council to hire a planning intern to handle some of the work. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner McLean to recommend that Council approve the hiring of a planning intern. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.April 3, 2001 Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Kilian to approve the April 3, 2001 Meeting Minutes as presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Abstain – 1(Sheppard). Motion carried. Page 11 of 12 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Sheppard to adjourn the May 1, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting at 8:45 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 12 of 12