HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-04 P & Z
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006
6:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
1.Roll Call
II.APPEARANCES/PRESENTATION(S)
III.PUBLIC HEARING (S)
1.St. Genevieve’s Church – Requested Variance for Driveway – 6995 Centerville
Road (Recessed from March 7, 2006 Meeting)
IV.OLD BUSINESS
1. Proposed Ordinance #92 – Modifying M-1 District Requirements and Adding the
M-2 District
2. Proposed Ordinance #93 – Modifying Definitions and Changing Regulations
Related to Accessory Structures
V.NEW BUSINESS
1.Mr. Shaun O’Keefe, Purchase Agreement on 1605 Peltier Lake Drive – Request
Decrease in Minimum Lot Requirements for Lake Lots
2.Site Plans – 2044 Gateway Circle (Royal Excavating)
VI.DISCUSSION ITEMS
VII.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1.March 14, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
ervif{e
~JB57.
J 0:> v~~ os- PETITION FOR VARIANCE
-'t't} r &~
Date: ~ 0 Fee: $ + Legal Fees Zoning:
Applicant: S T Ce&i~ LI't?..i~ 6.m4.'~ eJ.lu~~J.l
Street Address:' l' <1 !.- '-'6 i' 7 Cb' 'p).'Gid\) Rei Phone: ,\ -) tI ~ 'I - 793 7
City/StatelZip: {lfS~ Tu'vl tit-, /1A-...J S~b} r
Status of Applicant: Owner Lease Holder Other -';(J \ ,~ €" fi-.. 5-;-
Legal Description of Property: ~ J - 31 -cJ~ - ;)J-6l>~3
Street Address (subject property): 6,f'rS- CtJ.....1i,.. Vi Ll.e E!.( J ~e....,Tf, VI II,
A variance is a use that is not generally permitted by the City's zoning ordinances but which is
allowed in special cases only. A request for a variance from the City's zoning ordinances will be
granted upon a showing of undue hardship by a property owner who is determined to have a unique
situation. "Undue hardship" means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use if the
conditions of the zoning ordinances are followed, that the property owner's particular circumstances
are unique and not self-created, and that granting a variance will not alter the essential character of
the locality or neighborhood. Economic hardship alone will not constitute undue hardship if some
reasonable use currently exists under the terms of the City's zoning ordinance. If the property
owner purchased the property knowing that the City's zoning ordinances prohibited a use, the
property owner's circumstances are self-created.
Minnesota Statutes (MS 462.357, Subd. 6) and City Ordinances (Ord. #4, Division 180) require that
the following conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these
conditions using additional sheets of paper ifnecessary.
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue
hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable
ordinance be strictly enforced.
signature ofAppJi&': ./ ~~
*By paying the above stated fee, I tbat no refunds will be issued in full, in part, or at any time, even
though the outcome of Council's action is denial of the request.
APPLICANTS, PLEAsE NOTE:
All developers or property owners must submit the following information to the City of
Centerville by the Tuesday that is 30 days PRIOR to the meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the City Council meeting at which the request will be heard at a public hearing.
1. Complete the application for the specific request and pay the fee.
2. Submit a complete survey and site plans (including measurements, dimensions),
showing lot lines and building footprint, driveways, sidewalks, curb cuts, ingress,
egress, etc. on the property and its relation to adjacent properties.
3. Explanation of materials that will be used and plans for screening, landscaping,
fencing and dumpster enclosures.
4. Drawings of completed buildings, if appropriate to the project, and materials used.
5. Storm water retention and drainage plans. The Rice Creek Watershed District
and/or other water management organizations may need to be notified of the
project.
6. A letter explaining the reason for the variance request. The letter must also
demonstrate the variance will not impact the surrounding properties nor impact
the characteristic of the neighborhood in any manner.
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OR REZONING
VARIANCE
)(
*FEE
REZONING
DATE PAID
STREET LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Coiff'tJ,J Rti -J- /,kj't.';rAGf$ Sf
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: k") I~ ~ I4tJ,J,iTirl.. S,;JJ,..j ,.... II L)~
~3'" 31- J.J -- ~ 3- t)()J3 (11J1'l.(;t.t, It) Jt I)()J'i-(j~l) 6}~7JJ 73
SIZE OF PARCEL(S) /'1 SS At.If..tJ~
PROPERTY OWNER: sr CitUe,VI e, iJ" t1.1M l'L ~ ~IILJ#'t "'- 'PHONE ,C!..J. -I t( J 9 - 7? '3 -;
FEE OWNER: S7 Ce,.J~v}itv~!j ([.It, 1TI~Lie
ADDRESS: t'o~1!'- t!.t'!...,r~\I,l.u tJ IV' 71>1/ 7 C6/ rt'~..J ,cJ J et..,..T.nl\li Lh /~ ~
APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY:
><
FEE OWNER
CONTRACT PURCHASER
* Plus any additional costs
incurred for engineering,
~ Ad~ -~-,; legal fees, publication
~ e%) bM JrJ Ill/ JtJeJw'or other requirements.
Signature of property owner
y ~er ~t>~~
i~ 17B{., Date
1
'-..
-~
-
.~~
'-'-~
,~
~qDY[JJ L
MAIN ST. IHWY. 14
CENTERVIfLE
LAKE
Q
G:)
C::J
\
\\
,\,
~0~
....... I I
__________________________________________::..~,,-------___________________________J
,"-
c.,J
fj
~
I
D
SOUTH OPTION
ffi
AREA MAP
t ,
o so' 100' 200'
~50
f'''' "Q
, I'" \ 't"... 1<1 ~Q6 , c;.:
... r'" ,I ' ".. "'.. '''''''''1''\ -0 ,.... , I'" ' .....
~ r tot .. ' ::t ":0, 9'-- 0 ... r'" ,I '. ".. "..
r.. ",\ ' t"..'''' g) A~.~> ~\'t , .-t" c;.. tot, ·
,.. t-- " " \ ,:! ~.r", . gq\'" ...Cl r" "" \ .....'
, ~ ~ .uw _f)~~ ,.... -'..'
...,.... ,;:s .,~ ~'t I~O . '.., toO' INTERSECTION POINT OF
69~sP'tlO f..1 ~~,,~ ~ 0 /1.J ~~22- ~~~"'2.\1'2.9 THE NORTH UNE OF LOT .. ~~~
_Ii!!!: - -I-IERITAGE&TREE1 (0 &TREETJt!..-: ,*,,0 ~~'... - ~,'fL- --fI#JJ ~&t~g.~A~J-~,
NORTH UNE OF LOT 15 AND 0 rei ~ '\'lO~. 'tC ~~~t 1/4. 'f/p 'tC 0 CENTERVlLLE ROAD \
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY __.JQ____ ~19 It" A'" '\. 81190"6 37!:, ~~_.... II) 0 49 (S89-48'30-E DEED) :
UNE OF HERITAGE STREET '. ----...... (j . .-' ~ d'" ~.-- ~"'''l 0,,""'" '.~' (569... DEED)
! ~ _P~!!!!G~UMENTATlON o\.'}.\ ;.... \. ..........:. .... '" . ....... 't _ _ J!,16.57 MEAS) _ _ _ _ _ ~
. 7 ~........ 7 :2B . ....:~ . "~ ..... -n:::~ 100 JI ~ 342.02 r- 100 -1
INlERSECTlON POINT OF THE ............ -60. ~~ \ ,~i9 ..~~ f f ') .....~ . ~\~"'I'"l I'
THEASlERlY RIGHT-Of-WAY OF ------7-... ~. ~ .o~\~. \u~~ .,,~~~ . ....." fA~t~ , WESTERI.:YJ~IGHT-OF-WAY .
LaMOTIE DRIVE AND THE SOUTH ~ ~ 1~ l?:..... ...... .... ~. ..... ...... \',~ UN~F "-1:fTERVlLLE ROAD ---...,
-OF-WAY OF HERITAGE STREET ' . \ i '('. ...~D..... ". \. {.". .... I~': \
"I .If).39 \~,2.9 '..:~ ...... ...... l ( ....... ~, , <D () I '3' l&I ~
: / . ~ · _.._...~.~. \,\ \ \ ( . W ~ I ~ \ , 'ii I \:!J ~~
\ -gO\~ ......... .... : \ ~ (" I 0 . \ \ ~ i~
/ \."''' , 29: - i'~~ ~IGS '\ . . I -I
/ '. \ ~0 ,{~ ~
/ .... \ I ..'.i 'dA:,.1;,'\o L~' 100:1: 100
90.~Q'1. ........... ..90\, \, \ ~ ~ cr - - - - - -;:;;e
. ~ .~ , .' '. ". ' gQ~~96 9of1,~~~O\".r:, ~ ~~.
: ~ ....... ...... ~ -..... \'.."'. , V!'r~~ "~:1 "...s1 601.:!Cf-~ I
. : I'l. : ...... ......,..\.>-... ". ~ I' ".. ',!) SOu \. ~ "'(i'W"Q'
_.: ~...~ 1 .,. 90"'&4 'tJ i /1.'$6 !!I=.... .~\~;._.l'.~ ,0, I ,~
~ v i II - _..').. ....;~
...... : 0 't: "'" .... f' 'Sl
... : /1. Q.Q JQ~ ,~r1~ ii,
.... : .,.10 e .~ ft... /; ......, 0
. . ..- .oJ . "'" ." ,p'. 10)
. .... : .....- .,' ~ 9) ........~1 II '.. ~
76. ( " e\.Q ~\!S.............. A~'?1~ ..' ~ g../: ~......~........... ...:> \ ",
. ......"..,... . : ~::. ~Olo\C ~',o.1t~1 .... : ' ~..~f{ .,. 104-'''...\..... gait.,,'
..... er!.k~ -~ .... ..': ..' ,. .. gOIt-f16> .
..::,;:/fft.........~~~. _ IQ'!.16 ..........t~o'!J!.. " . ..,.:\~ i
lL ~ .............. ~ .... CE 1
....... ........................... ........ -" J'
...... . ......... ......
..'
..' l 11 8 67-._
..' -...., "..::' . CE.""';
904-"'~/ ~...........
....... ..... ASr
......... ........ .. .. ...... ....
..... A....... ............................................................... ....
-"d. p'tJvt .~.... ._. -........-.............. .
II ....~ ._................... ................ .....Jl.. rJ Q6
.... ...... -.1 ...........ii01t.a1t.......... .- 01 JfjS'~ .....9OT......................;1'90 .
.... pit' ,~... _ OQ\r.:ro........ .,. v ......"..........................1.. ..... .,. ....
. .,.go&.~..............g;6...........................:.n;._~................ ................ AREA. ............. ............
\;1 ~ l(Q ........ ............... · .' ....
.,.gCi ..... ..................... 643 5......6........2.........+... ......S Q
-, ........... .......... -' " ,,'
.......... ...................... ,,- . ..... " .....
....0907................. ....... ....... - ·
":1\ .................................................... 1 A 7.....7........~........... ACR ES
"\ ~ g01. _ 991..&'$....... , .,. IQ8.19 . Q&.61t ........ ....fr:j! ..........
................0908.............. .,. 9 ........ 90li. .......... .. 9 .......9 . ....... .. . M06 i1.&4- &4-
.......... .' ". .. ...... .. 90 ' .,. g01.
... r,::" ............ ..' .... ......
........ ........... _ .__ _ _,..... "'_ _ ,.....,... / I r--,-",,...... .......r.:'\.....j'(.'I...,.,.........
UN
A
-r- AN~
FT.
l
10F'
,-
FOR:' . ST.
NE CORNER
OF LOT 15
,.-- AUD SUB JLUl
( . REVISED rrn.o
I
I
@
,,: i Jl~~
~ ':
q~' .
~ tJ8S021f.-It"
t : 389.92 i1.1tO
"l~~ j342.oo
~.()> ;
~/
{' .,.901.~''
...
'.
.......~~v.fG
.....
........
...................
e5
~Ii:
s-
~fj
~~
.,~;
~~
~6
~~
I-~
B~
i2c
1&.1'"
i5~
_ g01 :J.6
901......
.....F '" ~.
........... l
....... !
(~~\ pl-
...... - :
..... 2'
...... i
...:~> .,. gO&3-' 1 f
......- i
.... 908' :
.... i
.... It ;
~'JD,.I 9~,!.k:k
" ,..r.,,,,,,,,,.\iV
Centennial Lakes Police Department
200 Civil: Heights Circle, Circle Pines, MN 55014 (763) 784-2501 Fax (763) 784-0082
l'ECE!v~ED
JAN 0 9 2005
Dallas Larson, Administrator
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
. Centervilie, MN 55038
Re: Proposed entrance drive
Dear Mr. Larson:
I have been asked to comment on the proposal of St. Genevieve Parish to construct an
entrance drive from Heritage Street. The issue as I understand it is whether the City
should grant a variance to permit the entrance drive to line up exactly with Goifon Road
or require a property line setback that would result in the two sides of the intersection not
to line up.
It is not my place to judge a variance request, but I can say that most road authorities will
not only encourage, but in fact require, that intersections with roadways line up with
drives across the street. This creates a better flow of traffic and reduces the number of
intersecting points on the roadway. Anything that can be done to reduce conflicts and
confusion for drivers will serve to reduce the number of vehicle accidents, thus ma1cing
for a safer roadway.
Thank you for soliciting my comments. Good luck in your deliberations.
Yours truly,
~~
Robert A Makela
Chief of Police
Page 1 of2
Teresa Bender
From: DaDas Larson [dlarson@centervillemn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:41 AM
To: Teresa Bender
Subject: FW: St. Genevieve's site plan
For Agenda Packet
(j)affas Larson, jlaminirtrator
City of Centerville
651429-3232
-Qriginal Message--
From: Brian Hanson [mailto:bhanson@brockwhite.com]
Sent: Wedne$day, ianuary 11, 2006 7:34 AM
To: Dallas Larson (E-maIl)
Subject: FW: St.Genevleve's site plan
Dallas,
could you please make sure that a copy of this emaills put into everyone's P&Z packets for February. I also
received a phone call, as well, from Mrs. Highland in regards to the variance and how they were portrayed. I
reassured them that the planning and zoning committee has not made up their mind in regaiTJs to a variance and
their voice will be heard along with everyone else. They will be at the February meeting to discuss their concerns
about the variance and why they are opposed to it.
Thank you,
Brian Hanson
-Qriglnal Message--
From: joe@securitycomputer.com [mallto:joe@Securitycomputer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:47 PM
To: Brian Hanson
Subject: St. Genevieve's site plan
Mr. Hanson,
My name Is Joe Highland and I live at 1680 Heritage st, which Is the ajoining property to where St. Genevieve's
is asking to a variance for their driveway. I understand that a publiC hearing wiD be held in February regarding
this. Reading the minutes of the January 4th meeting, I feel I have to comment on what was said there. I am not
going to make arguments at this time about the setback requinnents, but I need to say that I feel,Mr. Wilharber
has unfairly portrayed me. The reason that I called the mayor at one point ~ that Sl Genevieve's started
construction on the driveway without getting a variance from the city on a Saturday morning and she was the only
person I could get a hold of at that time. Had I waited until the following Monday it Is Dkely that most of the
construction would have been finished. I have not at any time refused to disCU$S matters with the Church.. nor
have I ever been unsupportlve of how they are using thier site. I do not want the planning and zoning .
commission to have an unfavorable Impression of me before they get a chance to even meet me. I know that Mr.
Wilharber has been very involved with the city, and that the member of the city council and planning and zoning
commission know him very well. However, I would ask you not to get an Image of me based on his comments at
the January 4th meeting. Thank you, and I look forward to meeting with you in the future.
Thank You,
1/11/2006
Page 2 of2
Joe Highland
Security Computer Sales
2595 Falrview Ave North
RoseviDe.MN 55113
(P)651-653-5200
(F)651-653-4300
joe@Securitycomputer.com
1/11/2006
Centennial Fire District
7741 Lake Drive
Lino Lakes MN 55014
651-784-7472
December 22, 2005
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville MN 55038
Ref: St Genevieve new building site
To whom it may concern,
After reviewing the site plan for this site I believe that a driveway that loops
from Heritage Street to Centerville Road would make it easier for the
Centennial Fire District to access this property especially if there was an
incident that required multiple fire vehicles.
With a site as large as this site, it would be easy to get the one driveway
plugged with an emergency vehicle making it hard to get additional vehicles
to the building.
Sincerely
J1Utf~
Milo Bennett
Fire Chief
March 27,2006
City of Centerville
Planning & Zoning Commission
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Dear Commission Members,
At the last meeting of the P & Z Commission, members of St. Genevieve's Parish came before
the commission to apply for a variance in order to construct a driveway to our new community
center. Joe and Christy Highland also appeared before the commission with some concerns
about St. Genevieve's application. The commission listened to both parties and then suggested
that St. Genevieve's and the Highlands meet to agree on a common solution. Joe and Christy
Highland and Fr. Tom Fitzgerald met on March 18th and 26th and worked out a plan acceptable to
both parties. Below is our agreement:
1. St. Genevieve's would construct a 6 ft high alternating board cedar fence. The fence
would start as far north as allowed by city ordinances and would continue along the entire
western and southern property boundaries of 1680 Heritage Street and the church
property. The church can choose which company they would like to install the fence.
2. The fence would start 3 ft west of the northern property marker and continue
perpendicular to Heritage Street. At the southern property marker the fence will then be
approximately 5 to 6 ft off of the property line.
3. The fence on the southern property boundary would be 2 ft south of the property line.
4. There is a row of young treeslbushes planted lining up with the northern property marker
that would remain where they are now that would provide an extra barrier for sound as
well as blocking the view of the road from the Highland house.
5. St. Genevieve's will maintain the fence in accordance to city ordinances regarding
privacy fencing.
6. The Highlands understand that the road will need to be built prior to the building ofthe
fence. The road will not be open to traffic until the fence is built.
7. The Highlands will have the right to "tie in" to the privacy fence if they choose to add
other fencing to their property.
Thank you for considering this proposal.
Sincerely,
~)~ filii ;.di;.,1--!.j/JJ..4
Joe & Christy Hig~:n~-v 0
1681erilage Si\"el 1-1::
~ I .i:,rrjl-&
Fr. Thomas P. Fitzgerald!
Church of St. Genevieve
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE #92
SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 154 OF THE
CENTERVILLE CITY CODE BY MODIFYING M-1 DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
AND ADDING M-2 DISTRICT
THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE ORDAINS:
Section 1.
Code Section 154.090 shall be amended to read as follows:
154.090 MIXED USE DISTRICT (M-1).
(A) Purpose. It is intended that the M-1 District implement the “Master Plan and
Development Guidelines for Downtown Centerville,” adopted by the City Council on
January 11, 2006 (the “Redevelopment Plan”), and provide for the unique layout and
character of a traditional central business district with retail, professional office,
accessory residential and other mixed uses.
(B) Permitted uses.
(1) Retail sales conducted within structures, but excluding automobile and
motorized equipment sales, truck stops, gasoline and fuel sales and drive-through
restaurants;
(2) Repair and service conducted within structures, but excluding automobile
and motorized equipment repair;
(3) Professional, business, and health care offices;
(4) Residences above the first floor;
(5) Theaters and recreational businesses conducted within structures; and
(6) Public parks and buildings.
(C) Special requirements. The following special requirements are intended to
implement the Redevelopment Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference.
(1) Existing uses that are not in conformance with this section may not be
expanded, but may continue as nonconforming uses. These nonconforming uses may be
repaired and maintained and are allowed minor improvements that do not expand the use.
(2) In making decisions about land use compatibility and dimensional criteria
for uses and structures, the City shall have broad discretion to protect the public health,
safety and welfare; and to protect the integrity of the M-1 District and surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Redevelopment of any parcel shall be accomplished by
submitting application as a Planned Unit Development.
(3) Driveway access to any use shall not be permitted from Centerville Road or
Main Street but rather planned side streets and alleys must be used for such access.
(4) The Redevelopment Plan establishes a shared parking plan. Applicants for
permits shall indicate how they will conform to the parking plan, including potential
dedication of property for shared parking or public parking lots. The City shall have
broad discretion in determining whether to accept ownership and maintenance of shared
parking facilities. Maintenance of public parking and other public facilities may be
accomplished through creation of a Downtown Service District and may include
maintenance assessments or user fees.
(5) The architectural design and exterior building materials used in connection
with any new or expanded use or structure shall be consistent with any architectural
design or aesthetic control requirements established by the Redevelopment Plan. The
City will engage the services of a consultant architect to assist with the review. The cost
of such services may be charged to the applicant.
(6) Stormwater management will be accomplished through regional stormwater
facilities. Construction of the stormwater facilities may be accomplished through
coordinated private improvements and public improvements, and maintenance of the
stormwater facilities may be accomplished through district-wide assessments and user
fees. Individual stormwater improvements that are not part of the planned regional
stormwater management facilities are not permitted in the M-1 District.
Section 2.
A new Code Section 154.091 shall be inserted to read as follows:
154.090 MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (M-2).
(A) Purpose. It is intended that the M-2 District implement the “Master Plan and
Development Guidelines for Downtown Centerville,” adopted by the City Council on
January 11, 2006 (the “Redevelopment Plan”), and provide for higher density residential
uses and accessory retail and office uses to complement the adjoining M-1 District and
existing neighborhoods.
(B) Permitted uses.
(1) Residential uses with a density between 12 and 30 units per acre.
(2) Ground level retail or offices up to 25% of a structure, provided that the use
is on a corner lot.
(3) Public parks and buildings.
(C) Special requirements. The following special requirements are intended to
implement the Redevelopment Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference.
(1) Existing uses that are not in conformance with this section may not be
expanded, but may continue as nonconforming uses. These nonconforming uses may be
repaired and maintained and are allowed minor improvements that do not expand the use.
(2) In making decisions about land use compatibility and dimensional criteria
for uses and structures, the City shall have broad discretion to protect the public health,
safety and welfare; and to protect the integrity of the M-2 District, adjacent M-1 District
and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Redevelopment of any parcel shall be
accomplished by submitting application as a Planned Unit Development.
(3) Driveway access to any use shall not be permitted from Centerville Road or
Main Street but rather planned side streets and alleys must be used for such access.
(4) The architectural design and exterior building materials used in connection
with any new or expanded use or structure shall be consistent with any architectural
design or aesthetic control requirements established by the Redevelopment Plan. The
city will engage the services of a consultant architect to assist with the review. The cost
of such services may be charged to the applicant.
(5) Stormwater management will be accomplished through regional stormwater
facilities. Construction of the stormwater facilities may be accomplished through
coordinated private improvements and public improvements, and maintenance of the
stormwater facilities may be accomplished through district-wide assessments and user
fees. Individual stormwater improvements that are not part of the planned regional
stormwater management facilities are not permitted in the M-2 District.
Section 3.Effective Date
. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage
and publication according to law.
ADOPTED
this ______ day of ____________, 2006 by the City Council of the
City of Centerville.
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
BY:
Mary Capra, Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE #93
SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 154 OF THE
CENTERVILLE CITY CODE BY MODIFYING DEFINITIONS AND CHANGING
REGULATIONS RELATED TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE ORDAINS:
Section 1.
Code Section 154.006 Definitions. The definition of “Yard, Front” shall be
amended to read as follows:
YARD, FRONT.
A yard extending across the full with of the front lot between the side lot lines
and extending from the front property line to the depth required in the yard regulations of the
district in which the lot is located. On a corner lot, both street frontages shall be considered the
front.
Section 2.
Code Section 154.022 shall be amended to read as follows:
§ 154.022 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES.
(1) Accessory Structures-Residential Uses
(A)No more than two accessory buildings are permitted on any single-family, detached
dwelling parcel located in any district except R-1. Combined aggregate square footage
for accessory structures shall not exceed 200 square feet or 2% of the lot area,
whichever is greater.
(B) In no event may the combined square footage of accessory buildings exceed the square
footage of the main level of the principal structure, except in the R-1 District.
(C)No accessory structure may be constructed on a parcel without a principal structure.
(D)
No accessory structure shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear
yard.
(E)Accessory structures must have a minimum of a 5-foot interior side setback and a 10-
foot rear setback. Where a rear or side yard abuts a street, an accessory building shall be
set back a minimum of 20 feet from the street property line. No structure may be
placed in an easement except bridges by written permit approved by the City Council.
(F)In case an accessory structure is attached to the main building, it shall be made
structurally a part of the main building and shall comply in all respects with the
requirements of this chapter applicable to the main building.
(G)An accessory building, unless attached to and made a part of the main building, shall
not be closer than 6 feet to the main building, except as otherwise provided in this
section.
1
(H)The total area of an attached accessory building (garage) shall be no greater than 1,500
square feet per level, but in no event may the garage space exceed the square footage of
the main floor of the dwelling
(I)Swimming pools may exceed the size requirements for accessory structures, but shall
not exceed 50% of the rear yard.
.
The side walls of an accessory building shall not exceed 10 feet in height and the
(J)
overall height of the structure shall not exceed fifteen feet, except to match the roof
slope of the principal structure. This provision shall not apply to
farm buildings located in
a R-1 district.
(K) Arbors, trellises, balconies, breezeways, open porches, detached outdoor living rooms, and
heating equipment may be placed in a rear yard if it is at least fifteen feet from the rear lot line
and five feet from a side lot line, but may not be closer to a side street property line than the
principal structure.
(L)Neither buildings with metal roofs and exterior walls and covering a total (exterior) area
in excess of l20 square feet, nor any other buildings with metal roofs shall be permitted
in any residential or mixed use districts. Pole-type buildings and rigid frame structures
with membrane roof or sides, are also prohibited all zoning districts.
(M)Buildings exceeding 120 square feet shall be anchored to a concrete floating slab
foundation.
(N)The exterior color and design of an accessory structure shall be similar to the principal
structure.
(2) Accessory structures, non-residential uses. The following standards shall regulate the
construction and maintenance of non-residential accessory structures:
(A) All accessory structures shall be subject to the same setback, height and exterior
finish regulations as a principal structure for the district in which it is located.
(3) Permits. All accessory structures shall require a building or zoning permit from the city.
Section 3.
Code Section 154.060, Subd. G shall be amended to read as follows:
(G) Accessory Structures. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls, buildings and exposed
areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure.
The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the principal structure.
Section 4.Effective Date
. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage
and publication according to law.
2
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED
this ______ day of ____________, 2006 by the City
Council of the City of Centerville.
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
BY:
Mary Capra, Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
3
y~ "
:;;;..... ....:
~
/\
<' \,
\
\
Y
(7J')
/
~5"
//6./..2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
~ .
~\9 !
!~ ~~
.~ "
'I)' CIa
~~ Q
h.. ~
~\$ i
. .
~ :
t\l
l
i.
< .
f ,.
:
TRACT
E
,
i
~;
!l
I
.... ...
f '\.
I \
\ \
\ I
\ I
\ I
" - ..I
2 (It,)
Q;: ';9
PI)
I(,
, .
\s. ./
. I
. ,-
/3(11) ~
~
~
-/
!
,
65
.//'- 71'
.--
-
LLJ
-I
,I
..' -J # c9..9-,e"e-#W-:
. ..... /1J.1o.gs:....
......J5.9..?r.;;''<.-.~ .'.-:'
......
(I')
I
\
\
~.. \
\
,
\
\
~. .' \
- ,-.' \
~~.....y
6
~.,.)
I
. .&'~
/14"
I/S
~ '.'
'.-: I
.r. dI..9-,?.I_ 44&:
- ...
. ... ~
.
.
~ .
t~
~\
~~v
Q\
""
~
:-
,
~
~
~
~
~
"-
~
~
,
~
,
'9,
, , tJ.-'o
I. :
I. :
. .
,,' .
. .
Q:
. ....
IY)~
~ 1'1')
,~
I :
\ t ~
i i :
, . .
i : :
I :
. :
,: .
\9 ,:
f'..l ru...":
A~ c.i\J!o..
: woK~'
i l";:'\$ t
! ~~~
i ~~~
.
.
.
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 14, 2006
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on March 14, 2006, at 6:30 p. m.
PRESENT:
Jennefer Klennert Hunt
Jeff Hanzal
Bob Wright
Mark Pangell
D. Love
Tom Wood
ABSENT:
Brian Hanson
COUNCIL:
None
STAFF:
Mr. Larson
I. CALL TO ORDER
1.Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m.
II. APPEARANCES - None
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. St. Genevieve’s Church – Requested Variance for Driveway –6995 Centerville
Road (Recessed from February 7, 2006 Meeting)
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m.
Mr. Larson stated that this public hearing was recessed from February 7, 2006 because
the church was asked to look at the alternative of keeping the driveway to the west until it
passed the back of the residence before aligning with Goiffon Street.
Mr. Brian Barrett of 6538 Deerwood Lane in Lino Lakes stated that he is on the
building committee for St. Genevieve’s and the plans before the Commission are not the
latest version and he is not sure where the City got these plans. Mr. Barrett stated that the
Page 1 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
driveway already aligns with Goiffon Street, so to change the alignment would cause
them to “bow” out the driveway.
Mr. Larson stated that the City did not craft this paperwork. He stated that he assumed
these plans came from Mr. Wilharber.
Mr. Barrett stated that he feels these are an earlier plan of what they had proposed to do.
Mr. Barrett explained the history of this project and that the church thought that they had
the necessary land to locate the roadway and align it with Goiffon Street. He stated that
by the time the additional research and surveying was done to determine the property
line, the building and parking lot were already completed. He stated that the church did
not intend to build the building in its present location and just get an easement later. He
stated that a mistake was made and a Quit Claim deed was not recorded properly. He
stated that the church would like to run the road straight and align with Goiffon Street as
a matter of safety at both the intersection and for the people who will be walking back
and forth between the church and the new facility. Mr. Barrett reiterated that the church
did not know it would need the variance when they began the construction.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that the Commission was under the impression that the
plans in the packet were the revisions asked for at the last meeting.
Mr. Barrett passed around a copy of the latest plans that showed what the church was
actually requesting. He stated that they may need to go back before the Rice Creek
Watershed District with the plans. Mr. Barrett stated that he was concerned with site
lines if the roadway is curved. He stated that to move away from the corner of the house,
it will take an additional 75 to 100 feet to align, so a variance will still be needed.
Commissioner Woods asked how much it would cost to change the roadway.
Mr. Barrett stated that he was unsure what the costs would be as well as what the Rice
Creek Watershed District would say because of draining and ponding issues.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that as part of the variance process, the applicant needs
to have a hardship in order to qualify for a variance. She asked Mr. Barrett to explain
what the church’s hardship would be in this case.
Mr. Barrett stated that the hardship would be they had originally planned for the
driveway to be straight to ease traffic issues, site line issues and other safety concerns.
He stated that the potential safety concerns are the main reason because he is unsure if the
cost will increase greatly.
Mr. Spitzmueller of 6521 Lino Lakes Road stated that he was also on the Building
Committee with Mr. Barrett. He stated that there will be additional costs incurred
because the road bed has already been prepped for paving. He stated that there will be
additional engineering costs incurred as well.
Page 2 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
Commissioner Wright stated that the Commission needs to think of the nearby residents.
He stated that he had originally thought a berm could be put in, but that may not be
possible because of drainage issues.
Commissioner Woods asked if the church has met with the property owners to try and
come up with a compromise for a win/win situation.
Mr. Barrett stated that he has not spoken with them personally, but Mr. Wilharber has
spoken with them but there has not been any resolution.
Ms. Christy Highland of 1680 Heritage Street stated that Mr. Wilharber has “stopped
over” a few times when they have been outside to tell them what was happening with the
project, but they have never been asked to sit down and talk about the issue. She stated
that the church has never asked for a meeting to say “look, we know this road is going to
be close to your property, let’s talk”. She stated that the variance they are asking for is
very large and not just a few feet. She stated that she has a two year old and they are
concerned about having a driveway so close to the property line. She stated that she
agrees that safety should be considered, but feels making the driveway straight will
encourage cars to drive faster, so if people were walking between the two buildings, this
would be a safety issue. She stated that she felt most of the traffic from the church would
exit onto Centerville Road.
Mr. Spitzmueller asked if the setback is different for commercial versus residential.
Mr. Larson stated that for this use the setback is 20 feet.
Mr. Barrett reiterated that the church fully thought that they owned this land. He stated
that they wanted to get the sand roadbed laid before the weather turned and so Mr.
Wilharber called the City to begin the process and felt that the road could be moved if it
had to.
Commissioner Love asked what was meant when it was stated that “the road could be
moved if it had to be.” He stated that he did not think the biggest issue has been
addressed, which is the closeness of the residential lot to the driveway.
Mr. Barrett stated that if the roadway is moved it will not align with Goiffon Road.
Commissioner Woods asked how much traffic will be using this driveway and whether it
would only be used during weekend services.
Mr. Barrett stated that the only time the new building is used is for 10:00 a.m. mass on
Sundays which would have about 100 cars. He stated that the other services are held at
the old church building. He stated that there may be a few small meetings during the
week at the new facility.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked what the homeowner’s were looking for in this situation.
Page 3 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
Ms. Highland stated that the driveway is just so close to their yard. She stated that
perhaps a fence could be erected so there is a barrier between the property and the
driveway. She stated that they are not totally against the driveway, but they are very
worried about the safety of their child.
Commissioner Woods asked if the Highlands would be willing to sit down and talk with
the church and discuss options such as fencing.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt cautioned that a variance would still be needed for the
driveway.
Commissioner Woods stated that he understands a variance would still be needed but
would like to see a win/win situation between the church and the property owners.
Mr. Barrett stated that he would have no problem meeting with the Highlands to discuss
the issue.
Mr. Joel Highland of 1680 Heritage Street stated that he did not feel the additional costs
the church will incur as a valid hardship because they caused this situation by beginning
the project before the property boundaries were established. He stated that their property
slopes towards the road and there is no room for either a berm or trees.
Commissioner Hanzal asked if Mr. Highland was willing to sit down and discuss the
situation with the church.
Mr. Highland stated that he was willing to sit down and talk with the church.
Dennis Caterhenry of 4114 Oakview Lane in White Bear Lake stated that he is Christie’s
dad and grandpa to their 2 year old. Mr. Caterhenry stated that he feels it makes sense to
have a curve in the driveway to slow down traffic. He stated that at a prior meeting there
was discussion to swing the driveway a different way and he does not feel the church has
presented those plans. He stated that the plans presented tonight were from last year. He
stated that he feels there has been a lot of miscommunication which has not been the fault
of his daughter and son-in-law. He stated that he does not see a hardship for granting this
variance. He stated that he feels constructing a fence should be a last resort and that the
road should be moved further away from their property. He stated that the church made
mistakes and now is asking the City to go from a 20 foot setback to 8.5 foot setback.
Mr. Barrett stated that he wanted to make it clear that the church could not find the
correct lot line. He stated that he feels not lining up this driveway with Goiffon Road is a
bad idea. He stated that the County has also requested that this driveway align with
Goiffon Road.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked if the property was surveyed before the building was
constructed.
Page 4 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
Mr. Barrett stated that it was surveyed and they thought that they had an additional 13
feet and then when additional research was completed, the Quit Claim Deed was found
that had been granted to the LaMotte family.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked why they went ahead with constructing the road before
this issue was clarified.
Mr. Barrett stated that the driveway was not constructed, only the sand base was put in.
He stated that it was felt that the road could always be moved if it needed to, but they
wanted to get this completed before the weather changed. He stated that working out the
property lines has been a very confusing process, but they are willing to sit down and
work with the Highland’s to try to resolve this issue.
Mr. Spitzmueller stated that the ponding has already been engineered with their current
plans so if they are changed there could be significant watershed issues.
Commissioner Hanzal asked if the Rice Creek Watershed had been contacted about this
potential revision in the plans.
Mr. Barrett stated that they have not yet contacted the Rice Creek Watershed.
Mr. Larson stated that he is in agreement with the church that the driveway should align
with Goiffon Road.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt noted the letters received from the Police and Fire
Departments also agreeing with this alignment.
Tom Fitzgerald of 7087 Goiffon Road stated that he also would like to talk with the
Highlands and work something out. He stated that they can come up with a Plan B if
necessary, but they would like to have the road go straight. He stated that he does not
want to endanger any children. He stated that this is still a work in progress and the
church is not trying to push anything over onto the Highlands.
Mr. Larson asked if the church was willing grant an extension to the City to allow time to
discuss this with the Highlands.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he felt an extension was fine.
Mr. Highland stated that they will be out of town for the next meeting.
Commissioner Hanzal asked if the Highlands would have any problems with the meeting
going on as planned if they had come to an agreement with the church by that time.
Ms. Highland stated that if there was a signed agreement with the church, they would not
need to attend the meeting.
Page 5 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that the goal of the City is to make everyone happy with
the outcome.
Motion by Commissioner Love, seconded by Commissioner Woods to continue the
public hearing for St. Genevieve’s Church and their request for a variance for a
driveway to allow time to reach an understanding regarding the property line
issues. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. David Fisher – 7072 Centerville Road – Request to Construct an Accessory
Structure and Variance (Moratorium and Oversized)
Mr. David Fisher of 7072 Centerville Road stated that the way the ordinance is written is
very confusing to him. He stated that if he follows the ordinance, he can basically build a
garage big enough for a Yugo and nothing else. He stated that he began this process in
2003 and thought it could be 4% of his lot size and not the 2% as it currently states in the
ordinance.
Commissioner Love asked if Mr. Fisher was willing to match the exterior of the garage to
his home.
Mr. Fisher stated that he will match the exterior and stressed that he was not trying to put
in a shed or pole barn next to his home.
Mr. Larson read from the codified version of the zoning ordinance in section 154.132.
Commissioner Hanzal assured Mr. Fisher that the City wants to work with him to get his
garage erected. He asked whether constructing the garage with a breezeway between the
home and garage would be a solution.
Mr. Fisher stated that he wants to build a detached garage because he does not want to
put in a lot of money into frost footings because they may not stay in the home.
Beth Fisher of 7072 Centerville Road stated that part of their frustration has been the
potential redevelopment plans for the downtown area. She stated that they feel stuck
because they really cannot sell their home without disclosing the potential redevelopment
plans. She stated that they have questioned whether they should stay and put money into
this with the hope that the redevelopment is far away. She stated that they would like to
make it decent and livable while they are there. She stated that if it is redeveloped for
commercial use, they do not want to sink a lot of money into this because they will not
get that money back.
Commissioner Love stated that the more value your home has, the more money you can
sell it for.
Page 6 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
Ms. Fisher stated that will not be the case if it is sold commercially.
Mr. Larson stated that discussion of the Accessory Structures and Uses as well as M1 and
M2 is on the agenda for discussion later tonight. He stated that the City needs to figure
out where it is going and get the moratorium lifted as soon as possible.
Mr. Fisher stated that he originally had a larger garage in mind, but he has scaled it back
because of the potential downtown development. He stated that with the moratorium in
place, he cannot do anything right now. He stated that the Mayor asked him to work with
the Planning Commission to try to resolve the issue.
Commissioner Love asked if the moratorium can be removed for an individual case.
Mr. Larson stated that it cannot be removed for an individual case.
Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to begin constructing his garage in July.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated that Mr. Larson will communicate with Mr. Fisher about
our discussion on districts and rezoning. She thanked Mr. Fisher for explaining his
situation as it helps put the percentage issues into perspective.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Draft Section 154.022 – Accessory Structures and Uses
Mr. Larson presented the revised draft of 154.022 and noted that the 2% language
regarding structure size is included. He stated that the ordinance is geared towards
encouraging attached garages and allowing small accessory structures. He noted that the
Commission needs to consider item D) which does not allow any accessory structure to
be erected anywhere other than the rear yard. He showed some examples of where
current accessory structures are located in the City. He stated that he had removed the
special dispensation for the M1 district because he did not feel there should be a more
liberal standard for commercial developments.
The Commission discussed the structure not exceeding 2% of the lot size.
Commissioner Love stated that he did not feel our ordinance fits Mr. Fisher’s situation.
Commissioner Hanzal stated that he feels the City should look at possible height
restrictions to prevent two story accessory buildings.
Commissioner Pangell suggested taking a look at what other cities have in their
ordinance for these types of structures.
Page 7 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
The Commission discussed attached versus detached structures and limiting the height of
the structures.
Mr. Larson suggested that the wording be changed to state “not to exceed 15 feet in
height, other than to match the roof pitch of the existing structure”.
Commissioner Hanzal stated that he thinks “slope” is the more correct terminology in
place of “roof pitch”.
The Commission discussed needs for accessory buildings in industrial areas of the City.
Commissioner Woods stated that he feels commercial and industrial should be separated.
The Commission discussed moving this information into the commercial areas of the
ordinance. They discussed that there could be different rules for commercial to keep
height restrictions in place, but it is not as important in the industrial section.
There was a consensus to amend section 154-060 to make changes stating that the
accessory structure in commercial areas are not to exceed the height of the principle
structure.
Mr. Larson stated that he will work on other language changes for this section to discuss
at the next meeting.
2. Draft Section 154.090 – Mixed Use District (M-1)
Mr. Larson stated that we are proposing to create two districts downtown, M-1 and M-2.
He stated that M-1 would be limited to first floor commercial use with residential above.
Mr. Larson read the draft section of 154.090 and noted that he feels it is important to be
fairly rigid about what is allowed in this area of the City with our ultimate redevelopment
plan in mind
3. Draft Section 154.091 – Mixed use Neighborhood District (M-2)
Mr. Larson read through the draft of 154.091 which relies on the redevelopment plan to
give guidelines in how to proceed.
Mr. Larson stated that the language changes for the Accessory Structures should be
ready for discussion at the next meeting. He suggested that a public hearing on the entire
section could be scheduled in May.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Ordinance Codification
Page 8 of 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2006
Mr. Larson stated that the Council has adopted the code, including the reorganized
Chapter 154. He stated that they are planning not to distribute too many copies until the
three segments discussed tonight are finalized and can be included.
The Commission discussed the landscaping issues of the BNR plan discussed at a past
meeting. Mr. Larson stated that he will send a letter to the applicant stating that the
Commission is satisfied with the existing landscaping but reserves the right to reopen the
issue in the future.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. February 7, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
Motion by Commissioner Hanzal, seconded by Commissioner Wright to approve
the Minutes of February 7, 2006, as presented. Commissioners Hanzal, Wright,
Love and Woods in favor. Commissioners Klennert Hunt and Pangell abstained.
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Woods, seconded by Commissioner Love to Adjourn the
March 14, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting at 9:13 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Kayla Atkins-Rokosz, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 9 of 9