HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-05 P & Z Packet PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
terviffe MEETING AGENDA
CrA- T,1.N0.1W,- Tuesday, January 5, 2016
6:30 p.m. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO
I. CALL TO ORDER MAKE THIS MEETING,
1. Roll Call PLEASE LET US KNOW AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK
II. APPEARANCES/PRESENTATION(S) YOU!
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Proposed Parking Design—Centennial School District#12 (Centerville Elementary)
a. 1709 Main Street—Condemnation Proceedings
2. MN DNR Water Supply Planning& Conservation Meeting on November 24, 2015
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion on Met. Council System Statement
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. 2016 Fete des Lacs Festival Committee
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. December 1, 2015 Planning& Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Planning&Zoning Commission Meeting—January 5, 2016, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers)
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting— February 3, 2016, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers)
City Council Meeting—January 13, 2016, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers)
City Council Meeting—January 27, 2016, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers)
Parks & Recreation—January 9, 2016 - Family Skate Night, LaMotte Park(6:30 p.m. —9:00 p.m.)
Parks & Recreation—February 6, 2016 - Family Skate Night, LaMotte Park (Hayrides 6:30 p.m. — 8:30 p.m.,
popcorn, hot cocoa and bonfire(6:30 p.m. —9:00 p.m.)
Centerville Lions Ice Fishing Contest—February 20, 2016, Centerville Lake, Anoka County Boat Launch, 11:00
a.m. —2:00 p.m. (Weather Dependent)
Shake Your Shamrock 5K, 8K&Kid's 1/3K Walk/Runs—March 12, 2016, Kelly's Korner, 7:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m.
Out Run Homelessness 5K, 8K& Kids Run/Walk—October 1, 2016, LaMotte Park, 7:00 a.m. —9:30 a.m.
CENTERV4LLE3 ROAD
1p
Z
A
a j
Or
� d ! b b
m I
0j
PROGRESS ROAD
--OE-
(°
0
13
C/)
m
0
1-
all III
NO $ F 2
0
0
0z 0 11 BUS A W
AND PARENT CENTENNIAL Larson
00 15 1 g,
DROP-OFF EVALUATION PUBLIC SCHOOLS Englneerin
A241, %w inc.
CENTERVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4707 NORTH ROAD
CIRCLE PINES,MN 55014
Water Supply Planning and Conservation Meeting
Nov. 24, 2015
Shoreview City Center
Present:
Larry Bohrer—TKDA-Columbus Jason Bordewyk-Stantec
Dave Brown—Metropolitan Council Mark Burch-White Bear Lake
Brian Davis- Metropolitan Council Morgan Dawley—WSB&Associates-N. St. Paul
Kate Drewry—DNR Julie Ekman—DNR
Ali Elhassan- Metropolitan Council Ryan Goodman - Bolton Menk Engineering
Mike Grochela—Lino Lakes Erin Heydinger—WSB
Tom Hovey—DNR Barb Huberty—Legislative Water Commission
Rachel Juba—Hugo Jim Keinath—Circle Pines
Jay Kennedy—Mahtomedi Rachel Leitz- Hugo
Mark Maloney—Shoreview Scott Neilson—Mahtomedi
Carmelita Nelson—DNR Debra Neutkens—WB Press
Paul Palzer—Centerville Mark Peterson- Forest Lake
Bill Petracek-Lexington Paul Putzier—DNR
Dale Reed -White Bear Township Joe Richter—DNR
Bill Short—WB Township James Studenski—TKDA-WB Township
Jim Windingstad—City of Columbus Steve Winter—Lexington
Water Supply Plan Updates
• Folders were given to each city containing the information that is being distributed statewide to
water suppliers needing to complete their water supply plan by Dec. 31,2016.
• Carmelita provide a written summary from previous meetings of the philosophical ideas of why
the area must conserve water and why the 17%is reasonable (see last page)
• The requirement for effective water conservation measures in each community's water supply
plan is not due to the White Bear Lake settlement agreement; Minnesota statute requires us to
do so.Today we will discuss water conservation ideas,final decisions on water conservation will
be in each city's approved water supply plan in Part 3.
• Julie added that the settlement agreement states the percent reduction is a goal (and not a
mandate).We believe the goal is reasonable and attainable overtime.Water conservation is
everyone's responsibility regardless of a lawsuit or settlement agreement.Also, implementation
of effective water conservation measures is required in every community's water supply plan,
statewide.
Review of Water Conservation Goals
Paul Putzier noted that measuring the impact of water conservation measures will be challenging
because of the influence of the weather,climate,water loss through leaks,fluctuating needs of the
community among other things.This is one reason we greatly appreciate each communities' input at
these meetings—we hope that you all can help us figure out a meaningful way to measure the
effectiveness of various water conservation measures.
We know that the Table 2 exercises were hypothetical and won't be sharing numbers from
communities' "homework".We felt this exercise was a good way to "push" everyone to challenge
themselves to come up with ideas for reducing water use that could reach the goals in the worksheet. It
was meant to stimulate ideas.
1
Each community has a process it must go through in order to get to an adoptable water supply plan.We
are available to assist cities and want to continue to work with each community on water supply
planning over the next year as needed,so that your plan includes effective water conservation measures
and can be approved by DNR.
Paul also reported that of the cities that estimated their potential water conservation/reduction goals,
they ranged from Oho to 17%
Metropolitan Council Summer Water Savings
Brian Davis,from Met Council, provided individualized reports on potential water savings that could be
achieved by reducing the ratio of summer to winter water use. He had calculations for all the cities
except Columbus and Lexington. His calculations are based on water use reports from 1994-1998
compared to 2008-2012.
The summer to winter water use ration has gone up significantly. Just by going back to earlier summer
water use the combined cities could save 250 million gallons/years. We would 27%of the way to our
17%water reduction goal with just this one action. Reducing summer water use is cheaper too.
Small group discussion summary
At a meeting of 12 of the 13 communities(Vadnais Heights not present) participants compiled the
following draft list of actions. These commitments will be finalized as each community completes their
required Water Supply Plan by Dec.31,2016.
Goal
Cooperatively reduce our combined water use from 5.5 billion gal/yr.to 4.5 billion gal/yr. in the next ten
years,or less
Collaborative Efforts:
1. Develop a uniform brand for conservation messaging(DNR and MC)
2. Consistent water regulations and cooperative enforcement(the ordinance are currently a wide
gamut),this is a political issue, some people don't even know where they live
3. Education consortium to provide same message—maybe with SWCDs or watersheds—could be
in local movie theaters
4. Encourage grants for water reuse and aquifer recharge through DNR or Met Council
5. Need more grants/cooperative funding for water projects
6. How to deal with loss of revenue or shift of revenue
7. Support at city council meeting from DNR/MC to help educate the council members and answer
questions
8. Outreach through U of M Extension Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officers(NEMO)
Individual City Efforts
Centerville:
• Education—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Stormwater reuse
• Review hydrant flushing practices
Discussion: They will need to educate the wealthy residents that conservation is important. The current
ordinances are great, but enforcement is difficult. The city needs to figure out how to constructively
enforce water ordinances.
2
Circle Pines
• Smart Irrigation—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Monitor for leaks
• Landscaping and turf education
• Coordinated outreach(P.R.)
• Effective water rates
Discussion: Because they are in the Anoka Sand Plain smart irrigation will be essential. They would like
to participate in cooperative education efforts on landscaping.
Columbus
• Individual commercial water audits—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Conservation ordinance
• Education
Discussion: Columbus has a new water system that was just installed. They primarily serve commercial
and industrial users and only have 5 residential water users. Approximately 2131 of the water use is by
one user.
Hugo
• Stormwater reuse—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Aquifer Recharge
• Water efficiency rebates
• Consider ordinance and policies to encourage stormwater reuse in new developments
Discussion: It was noted that injection wells are illegal. Hugo is concerned that cities should get credit
for efforts that are new or were never pumped previously(new efficiency vs. conservation by existing
customers). The cities will be growing either way. There should also be flexibility between communities.
Cities can offer incentives to private industry. Hugo has a project started with a Homeowners Association
that will reduce water use by reusing Stormwater for irrigation. There will be no impact on surface
water.
Forest lake
• Education
• Water efficiency grants
• Ordinance changes
• Review flushing operations
• Enforcement—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Water meter replacements
• Storm/water projects
Discussion: They need for enforcement for lawn irrigation, but would like to do education first instead of
penalties. Forest Lake has 6,000 homes that need new water meters which will cost approximately$2.5
million. They are not sure how more accurate meters will impact their water use data. Forest Lakes also
has a lot of old infrastructure. They have convinced the city council to align water and sewer upgrades
with street project. Their greatest need is funding and education for officials. A lot has already been
done in the past 4-8 years and the DNR should compile a list.
3
Lexington
• Decrease system supply pressure to 60 psi (currently 65 psi)
• Well house upgrades
• Improve leak detection program—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Reevaluate effective rate structure
• Incentive programs/rebates
Discussion:Lexington is interested in exploring options for incentive programs
Lino Lakes
• Smart Irrigation promotion
• Stormwater reuse
• Cooperative education message with adjacent communities—likely the biggest source of water
conservation
Discussion:Lino Lakes will probably move to requiring moisture sensors. They would like to do more
stormwater reuse for irrigation of public parks. An idea for cooperative messaging is to provide water
conservation messages at the local movie theaters.
Mahtomedi
• Regional and local water reuse
• City conservation plan
• Water audits on largest users(committee in place already)
• Rate structure and rebates
• Groundwater recharge- Reclaimed water—wetlands or direct injection
• Reduce water pumped through reuse/reduce—likely the biggest source of water conservation
o St. Paul Regional Water System
0 3M and others
Discussion:Mahtomedi already has an Environmental Commission that is working on a conservation
plan, water audit, rebate program,and looking at directly modifying the rater structure. They know their
largest water users are the city,schools and multifamily housing units. They are looking at a
groundwater recharge system with reclaimed water like at East Bethel. If the cities could combine with
St. Paul and 3M they could reduce water use by 3 billion gallons by using more river water rather than
groundwater.
North St. Paul
• Understand unmetered and loss component—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Possible water audits
• May have higher potential
• Focus on unmetered city water—upgrade leaky pipes, improve flushing and maintenance
procedures
Discussion:North St. Paul still suffers from too much water at times. They need to do a better job of
tracking water loss and consider reuse in the future. They are not a growing community and there is not
much irrigation—only 21%of the users irrigate. Education may result in some conservation. They might
partner with the watershed. North St. Paul has committed$500,000 to$1 million/year to completing
upgrades their old infrastructure.
Shoreview
• Groundwater awareness project(LCCMR)
4
• Leak detection surveys
• Test/replace high capacity meters
• Better housekeeping e.g.measuring city uses
• Irrigation system at city parks—be the role model
Discussion: Shoreview wants to lead by example and plans to upgrade their city moisture sensors and do
more water reuse
White Bear Lake
• Joint public information campaigns—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Proper maintenance of irrigation systems(even after updating to efficient systems and
controllers)
• Enforcement of irrigation ordinances
• Supplemental funding sources
Discussion: White Bear Lake wants to go beyond current education and get the message out more about
smart irrigation systems, needed maintenance, and monitoring. A huge effort will be required. Either
the city or peer pressure will be needed for enforcement. They would like to see additional funding
sources for conservation.
White Bear Township
• Apply for water efficiency grant—rebate program
• Review top ten water users—likely the biggest source of water conservation
• Define conservation implementations
• Enhance communication
Discussion: They plan to work with the top users'one on one to promote water conservation. White Bear
Township also wants to see education across the board including to younger generations.
Vadnais Heights
No representatives were present at the meeting-TBD
General Water Conservation Thoughts:
• The more funding,the more results
• We need to balance the appearance of water conservation with the business of supplying water
• We want the real story; it may include an increase in water use because the new meters are
more accurate.
• The communities are committed to conservation, but there is not a strong sense of exact
percentages.
Next Meeting: It was decided to meet in 6 months.
Tentatively-Tuesday, May 17, 2016 from 9:00 to noon—location TBD
5
Philosophical ideas of why the area must Conserve Water and
Why the 17% is reasonable - compiled from previous meetings
1. All MN water suppliers, serving over 1,000 people are being asked to conserve water as
part of the Water Supply Planning process and as a result of the new demand reduction
law.
2. According to the agreement there needs to be a 17%total reduction from the eight year
average (down to a 4,539 MGY total for the 13 cities)
3. Each city needs to reduce their annual volume at least 10%.
4. Water conservation is on the right track in the area. Even just maintaining 2014 water
use gets us part way to our goal.
a. Looking at the Table 1, in 2014 there were four cities that already achieved more
than a 17% reduction from their 8 year average water appropriation (Lino Lakes,
Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Township)
b. Five more cities have achieved 10% reductions in 2014 (Circle Pines, Hugo,
Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, and White Bear Lake).
c. In 2014 three cities saw decline in water appropriations from their 8 year
average (Centerville, Columbus and Forest Lake)
d. Lexington water use varies considerably from year to year. In 2012, 2019, and
2008 they would have achieved a 10% reduction.
5. Since 1995 the groundwater elevation of the Prairie du Chien aquifer has decreased at
an average rate of 3.5" per year (DNR Well data)
6. Overconsumption of groundwater is contributing to a significant decrease in the level of
some Twin Cities lakes, including White Bear Lake.
Success Stories—Existing Water Efficiency Programs in WBL Area
• White Bear Lake (WBL) &Township have distributed faucet aerators using local money
and are also doing a variety of conservation education programs.
• Reconciliation of water use by auditing water to identify losses and leak detection.
• Cooperative energy reduction—these program help to reduce costs;they are not tied to
water directly.
• Shoreview has included neighbor water use comparisons in water bill and also send out
Leak Detection Postcards when they see water running 24 hours/day; however, there
have been some user concerns expressed (privacy)
• Remote meter reads—consumer awareness
• New meters—provide more detailed time/day. Consumers can request the breakdowns
of use to identify their peak use times.
• Shoreview—they are identifying pilot areas and 400 volunteers to participate in before
and after monitoring with technology performance that tracks water use trends and real
time use. They can have remote access to bills and usage. This pilot is to determine if
consumer use changes as a result of this program.
• Race 2 Reduce—Grant program that is providing curriculum for schools (1-120 for Life),
residential education and rebates and creating table top displays for events.
6
• New irrigation system with rain sensors on TH61
Future Opportunities (identified at the first meeting in June)
• Greater linkages with energy and water conservation efforts. Use their model with
water conservation.
• State/Met Council provide assistance regarding public data and water use information
that is collected
• Programs that promote rewards O are more effective than punishments O
• Examine the "Race 2 Reduce" results and how to apply the techniques in other areas.
• There is a huge opportunity in water reuse, especially for ball fields and golf courses
• The Interagency Water Reuse Group is working with the Plumbing Board to get the
plumbing codes revised
• Look at how communities charge for water—there may be opportunities to fund rebate
and education programs.
• Bring in watershed district into credits and reuse discussion
• Potential for state revolving fund
• Infrastructure efficiency grant funding opportunities
• Grants for education
• Speakers for public forums
• Materials that explain why the 17% reduction is needed
• More information about"gray water" use and its potential in NE metro.
• Funding for replacing exiting appliances with more efficient products is important
• Group discussions are very beneficial
• Enforcement of requirements/procedures
• Great idea on forming education/outreach groups. Met Council would love to support
• Good idea to work with community groups to jointly prepare/support water supply plan
completion. The Met Council would like to be integrally involved (just reinforcing,
hoping to maximize)
• Identify system loading 1) Irrigation; 2) Residential/commercial use. Then concentrate
on the specific area that is causing high use.
• Combine educational components with stormwater MS4 education for efficiency and
effectiveness.
• Water Reuse: Treating wastewater to use for irrigation, help with reducing peak water
demand, benefit to the waste water treatment facility, help reduce expansion, etc. at
the WWTF. This is costly though, but should continue to be something that is explored.
• The City of Lexington has not been doing any type of water conservation efforts outside
of the normal efforts. We are working on improving that in the future. We have
implemented conservation rates and rain gardens. Overall, we need to do better.
7
September 17, 2015
Mike Ericson, City Administrator
City Of Centerville
1880 Main St
Centerville, MN 55038
RE: 2015 System Statements
Dear Mr. Ericson:
The Metropolitan Council recently adopted Thrive MSP 2040 and updated regional system and
policies plans, including the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy
Plan, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, and the 2040 Housing Policy Plan. Accordingly,
the Council is now issuing system statements as required by state statute.
The system statement for your community, enclosed, shows how the changes to the Council's
regional system plans affect your community specifically. The distribution of System Statements
triggers the timeline for updating your local comprehensive plan, due to the Council by
December 31, 2018.
To help you with updating your plan; we are excited to introduce our updated Local Planning
Handbook (http://metrocouncii.org/handbook.aspx), which has transitioned into a web-based
guide. The updated Handbook provides clear and specific direction on the minimum
requirements for updating your plan, customized data and maps in the Community Pages
section, and an array of tools and resources to make it easier to complete your comprehensive
plan update and focus on value-added planning for your community.
You also find an electronic version of your system statement on your Community Page in the
online Local Planning Handbook. Additionally, system statements for all communities can be
found on our website at http://metrocouncil.orq/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-
Assistance/System-Statements.aspx.
If you have questions about your system statement or any of the materials at the links provided,
please contact Ryan Garcia, the Council sector representative from our Local Planning
Assistance staff assigned to work with your community, at 651-602-1832.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely;
Beth Reetz, Director
Community Development Division
INN aint Paul, MN 55101-1805
390 Robert Street North I S
P651.602.1000 1.1 - • • • • METROPOLITAN
C 0 U N C I L
} .
i
u
LO
tV
ItPll
' ,..4.__ ...
aim" (LS
aam to
� �kR
:
11
2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT FOR
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
September 17, 2015
Regional Development Plan Adoption
In May 2014, the Metropolitan Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040. Following adoption of Thrive, the
Council adopted the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2040
Water Resources Policy Plan, and the 2040 Housing Policy Plan. The Metropolitan Council is now
issuing system statements pursuant to State statute.
Receipt of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers a community's obligation
to review and, as necessary, amend its comprehensive plan within the next three years, by the end of
2018. The complete text of Thrive MSP 2040 as well as complete copies of the recently adopted
metropolitan system and policy plans are available for viewing and downloading
at http://www.metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning.aspx. Paper copies are available by calling the
Council's Data Center at 651-602-1140.
System Statement Definition
Metropolitan system plans are long-range comprehensive plans for the regional systems—transit,
highways, and airports; wastewater services; and parks and open space—along with the capital
budgets for metropolitan wastewater services, transportation, and regional recreation open space.
System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual community
in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communities prepare or update their comprehensive
plan, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act:
Within nine months after receiving a system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan
system plan, and within three years after receiving a system statement issued in conjunction
with the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivision 2, each affected local
governmental unit shall review its comprehensive plan to determine if an amendment is
necessary to ensure continued conformity with metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is
necessary, the governmental unit shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the council
for review.
Local comprehensive plans, and amendments thereto, will be reviewed by the Council for conformance
to metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies, and compatibility with adjacent and
affected governmental units. Updated local comprehensive plans are due to the Council for review by
December 31, 2018.
What is in this System Statement
The system statement includes information specific to your community, including:
• your community designation or designation(s);
• forecasted population, households, and employment through the year 2040;
• guidance on appropriate densities to ensure that regional services and costly regional
infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible.
• affordable housing need allocation;
Page- 1 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE INTRODUCTION
In the following sections, this system statement contains an overview of each of the system plan
updates and specific system changes that affect your community. The sections are:
• Transportation, including metropolitan highways, aviation, and transit
• Water Resources, including wastewater, surface water, and water supply planning
• Regional parks and trails
Dispute Process
If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions about this
system statement, please contact your Sector Representative, Ryan Garcia, at 651-602-1832, to review
and discuss potential issues or concerns.
The Council and local government units and districts have usually resolved issues relating to the
system statement through discussion.
Request for Hearing
If a local governmental unit and the Council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a
system statement, the unit or district may, by resolution, request that a hearing be conducted by the
Council's Land Use Advisory Committee or by the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the
purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes section
473.857, the request shall be made by the local governmental unit or school district within 60 days after
receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council within 60 days,
the statement becomes final.
Page-2 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE INTRODUCTION
Regional Development Guide
The Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040 as the new regional
development guide on May 28, 2014. Thrive identifies five outcomes
that set the policy direction for the region's system and policy plans. r204
-
Building on our region's history of effective stewardship of our
resources, Thrive envisions a prosperous, equitable, and livable 1%FOM
region that is sustainable for today and generations to come. The
Council is directing its operations, plans, policies, programs, and
resources toward achieving this shared long-term vision.
Three principles define the Council's approach to implementing regional policy: integration,
collaboration, and accountability. These principles reflect the Council's roles in integrating policy
areas, supporting local governments and regional partners, and promoting and implementing the
regional vision. The principles define the Council's approach to policy implementation and set
expectations for how the Council interacts with local governments.
Thrive also outlines seven land use policies and community designations important for local
comprehensive planning updates. The land use policies establish a series of commitments from the
Council for local governments and uses community designations to shape development policies for
communities. Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics based on Urban
or Rural character for the application of regional policies. Together, the land use policies and
community designations help to implement the region's vision by setting expectations for development
density and the character of development throughout the region.
Community Designation
Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics for the application of regional
policies. The Council uses community designations to guide regional growth and development;
establish land use expectations including overall development densities and patterns; and outline the
respective roles of the Council and individual communities, along with strategies for planning for
forecasted growth. If there are discrepancies between the Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations
Map and the Community Designation map contained herein because of adjustments and refinements
that occurred subsequent to the adoption of Thrive, communities should follow the specific guidance
contained in this System Statement.
Thrive identifies Centerville with the community designation of Emerging Suburban Edge (Figure 1).
Emerging Suburban Edge communities include cities, townships and portions of both that are in the
early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. Emerging Suburban Edge
communities are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities
of at least 3-5 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, Emerging Suburban
Edge communities are expected to target opportunities for more intensive development near regional
transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan.
Specific strategies for Emerging Suburban Edge communities can be found on Centerville's Community
Page in the Local Planninq Handbook.
Page-3 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE INTRODUCTION
Forecasts
The Council uses the forecasts developed as part of Thrive to plan for regional systems. Communities
should base their planning work on these forecasts. Given the nature of long-range forecasts and the
planning timeline undertaken by most communities, the Council will maintain on-going dialogue with
communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that
may have an impact on regional systems.
The Thrive forecasts for population, households, and employment for your community are:
2010 actual 2014 Jest.1 2020 2030 2040
Population 3,792 3,931 3,840 3,930 4,060
Households 1,315 1,330 1,400 1,450 1,500
Employment 409 530 540 560 590 '
Housing Policy
The Council adopted the Housing Policy Plan on December 10, 2014, and amended the plan on July 8,
2015. The purpose of the plan is to provide leadership and guidance on regional housing needs and
challenges and to support Thrive MSP 2040. The Housing Policy Plan provides an integrated policy
framework to address housing challenges greater than any one city or county can tackle alone.
Consistent with state statute (Minn. Stat. 473.859, subd. 2(c) and subd. 4), communities must include a
housing element and implementation program in their local comprehensive plans that address existing
and projected housing needs.
The Council has also determined the regional need for low and moderate income housing for the
decade of 2021-2030 (see Part III and Appendix B in the Housing Policy Plan).
Centerville's share of the region's need for low and moderate income housing is 14 new units
affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI) or below. Of these new units, the
need is for 9 affordable to households earning at or below 30% of AMI, 4 affordable to households
earning 31% to 50% of AMI, and 1 affordable to households earning 51% to 80% of AMI.
Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Centerville
At or below 30% AMI 9
31 to 50%AMI 4
51 to 80% AMI 1
Total Units 14
Specific requirements for the housing element and housing implementation programs of local
comprehensive plans can be found in the Local Planning Handbook.
Page-4 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.Centerville Community Designation
tr
Blaine
enterville
k
6t
nk
/INS ff
Shoreview
N
1 2
"A iteEgarta
Extent of Main Map
,jkNOKk
Community Designations
Outside Council planning authority Emerging Suburban Edge
Agricultural Suburban Edge
s
HENN Rural Residential Suburban
wasHINGTON Diversified Rural Urban
Rural Center Urban Center
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Lakes and Major Rivers
Page-5 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE INTRODUCTION
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
STATEMENT
City of Centerville
The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) is the metropolitan system plan for highways, transit, and
aviation to which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes
significant changes to these three systems, as well as other changes made to the Transportation Policy
Plan since the last 2030 TPP was adopted in 2010, and highlights those elements of the system plan
that apply specifically to your community. The TPP incorporates the policy direction and the new 2040
socio economic forecasts adopted by the Metropolitan Council in the Thrive MSP 2040, and extends
the planning horizon from 2030 to 2040.
Federal Requirements
The TPP must respond to requirements outlined in state statute, as well as federal law, such as some
new requirements included in the federal law known as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21St
Century Act (MAP-21). For instance, metropolitan transportation plans must now be performance
based, so the TPP now includes goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in chapter 2. In previous
versions of the TPP the strategies were known as policies; while some are new, the wording of many
strategies are similar to the wording of policies in previous plans. Performance measurements for this
plan are also discussed in Chapter 12, Federal Requirements.
Federal law requires the long range plan to identify regionally significant transportation investments
expected to be made over the next two decades, and to demonstrate that these planned investments
can be afforded under the plan's financial assumptions. Both costs and available revenues have
changed since the last plan was adopted in 2010, resulting in many changes in the plan. Federal law
does allow the plan to provide a vision for how an increased level of transportation revenue might be
spent if more resources become available, but the programs or projects identified in this scenario are
not considered part of the approved plan.
The TPP includes two funding scenarios for the metropolitan highway and transit systems: the "Current
Revenue Scenario" and the "Increased Revenue Scenario."
• The Current Revenue Scenario represents the fiscally constrained regional transportation
plan, which assumes revenues that the region can reasonably expect to be available based on
past experience and current laws and allocation formulas.
• The Increased Revenue Scenario represents an illustration of what be achieved with a
reasonable increase in revenues for transportation.
Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local comprehensive plans are expected to conform to the
Current Revenue Scenario, which is the official metropolitan system plan. Potential improvements in
the Increased Revenue Scenario can be identified separately in local plans as unfunded proposals. A
more detailed description of how to handle the various improvements in this category is included under
Other Plan Considerations.
In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire 2040
Transportation Policy Plan to ensure that your community's local comprehensive plan and plan
amendments conform to the metropolitan transportation system plan. Chapter 3, Land Use and Local
Planning, has been expanded and all communities should carefully review this chapter. A PDF file of
Page-6 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
the entire 2040 Transportation Policy Plan can be found at the Metropolitan Council's
website: http/lwww metrocouncil org/Transportation/Planning-2/Key-Transportation-Planning-
Documents✓Transportation-Policy-Plan-(1)aT e-Adopted-2040-TPP-(1).aspx. The format of the plan is
slightly different than past Transportation Policy Plans. An introductory Overview, Chapter 1: Existing
System and Chapter 10: Equity and Environmental Justice have been added to this version of the TPP,
in addition to the changes noted in the first paragraph. Please note some modifications have been
made to the appendices as well.
Key Changes in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan
Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January 2015, the revised 2040 Transportation Policy Plan
incorporates the following changes:
Metropolitan Highway System - Chapter 5
The Metropolitan Highway System is made up of principal arterials, shown in Fig 1-1 of the TPP and
also attached to this system statement. Although no new highways have been added to this system in
the 2040 TPP, the last incomplete segment of this system, TH 610, is now under construction in Maple
Grove.
• The TPP acknowledges that congestion cannot be eliminated or greatly reduced. The region's
mobility efforts will need to focus on managing congestion and working to provide alternatives.
The majority of resources available between now and 2040 will be needed for preservation,
management and operation of the existing highway system.
• Due to increased costs and decreased revenue expectations, many long-planned major projects
to add general purpose highway lanes are not in this fiscally constrained plan. While the
preservation, safety, and mobility needs of these corridors are recognized, investments in these
corridors will be focused on implementing traffic management strategies, lower cost-high benefit
spot mobility improvements, and implementing MnPASS lanes. Some specific projects have
been identified in this plan, but funding has primarily been allocated into various investment
categories rather than specific projects. The highway projects specifically identified in the
Current Revenue Scenario are shown in Figure 5-8 of the TPP which is also attached to this
system statement.
• Modifications were made to Appendix D- Functional Classification Criteria, and Appendix F—
Highway Interchange Requests. Appendix C— Project List is new and contains all of the transit
and highway projects that have been identified between 2014 and 2023.
Transit System - Chapter 6
The transit system plan provides an overview of the basic components of transit planning, Including
demographic factors, transit route and network design factors and urban design factors that support
transit usage. Local governments have the primary responsibility for planning transit-supportive land
use, through their comprehensive planning, and subdivision and zoning ordinances.
• The TPP includes updated Transit Market Areas (shown in TPP Figure 6-3, also attached) which
reflect 2010 Census information and an updated methodology that better aligns types and levels of
transit service to expected demand. These market areas identify the types of transit services that
are provided within each area.
• The TPP includes limited capital funding for transit expansion and modernization. Opportunities
primarily exist through competitive grant programs such as the regional solicitation for US DOT
Page-7 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
funding. These opportunities are guided by the strategies in the TPP and the various elements of
the Transit Investment Plan.
• The TPP includes an updated transitway system plan that more clearly articulates which projects
can be funded within reasonable revenue expectations through year 2040 (Current Revenue
Scenario as shown in TPP Figure 6-8, which is also attached). The plan includes five new or
expanded METRO lines, three new arterial bus rapid transit lines, and three corridors under study
for mode and alignment but identified in the Counties Transit Improvement Board's (CTIB) Phase I
Program of Projects. This system was developed in collaboration with CTIB, a major partner in
regional transitway expansion.
• The TPP does not include operating funding for transit service expansion beyond the existing
network of regular route bus, general public dial-a-ride, and Metro Vanpool.
• The Increased Revenue Scenario (shown TPP Figure 6-9, which is also attached) illustrates the
level of expansion for the bus and support system and transitway system that might be reasonable
if additional revenues were made available to accelerate construction of the transitway vision for the
region.
• The plan includes updated requirements and considerations for land use planning around the
region's transit system. This includes new residential density standards for areas near major
regional transit investments and an increased emphasis on proactive land use planning in
coordination with the planning of the transit system.
Aviation System - Chapter 9
The Metropolitan Aviation System is comprised of nine airports (shown in Figure 1-9 of the TPP and
also attached to this system statement) and off-airport navigational aids. There are no new airports or
navigational aids that have been added to the system in the 2040 TPP.
• The TPP discusses the regional airport classification system as well as providing an overview of
roles and responsibilities in aviation for our regional and national partners. The investment plan in
includes an overview of funding sources for projects, and an overview of projects proposed for the
local airports that will maintain and enhance the regional airport system.
• Modifications were made to Appendix I— Regional Airspace, Appendix J— Metropolitan Airports
Commission Capital Investment Review Process, Appendix K—Airport Long Term Comprehensive
Plans and Appendix L—Aviation Land Use Compatibility.
Other Plan Changes
Regional Bicycle Transportation Network - Chapter 7
The 2040 TPP encourages the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. To that end, the TPP
establishes for the first time a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN). The goal of the RBTN
is to establish an integrated seamless network of on-street bikeways and off-road trails that
complement each other to most effectively improve conditions for bicycle transportation at the regional
level. Cities, counties, and parks agencies are encouraged to plan for and implement future bikeways
within and along these designated corridors and alignments to support the RBTN vision.
Page-8 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Freight - Chapter 8
Most aspects of freight movement are controlled by the private sector, so unlike other sections of the
TPP, there is not a specific plan adopted for future public sector investment in freight facilities.
However, the discussion of the need for a safe and efficient multimodal freight system has been
updated and expanded in the TPP to recognize challenges and opportunities for freight movement as
well as the future direction of freight by mode. It acknowledges the closure of the Minneapolis Upper
Harbor in 2015, leaving St Paul and Shakopee as the region's major barge terminal areas in the future.
The plan also acknowledges the increase of trains since 2010 carrying oil from North Dakota on BNSF
and CP rail tracks, which is expected to continue into the future. Although railroad trackage in the
region was significantly decreased over the last 20 years to "right size" the system after federal
deregulation, communities should not expect much additional rail abandonment. Many tracks that
appear to be seldom used are owned by the smaller Class III railroads that serve local businesses by
providing direct rail connections from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution facilities to the major
national railroads. The major Class I railroads are approaching capacity and actually adding tracks in
some locations.
System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
Centerville should consult the complete 2040 Transportation Policy Plan in preparing its local
comprehensive plan. In addition, Centerville should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of
the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its
comprehensive plan. Specific system plan considerations affecting Centerville are detailed below.
Metropolitan Highways
There are no principal arterials located within Centerville.
Transit System
Centerville includes the following Transit Market Areas:
Iransit Market Varket Area 069cei0tion
Market Area IV Transit Market Area IV has lower concentrations of population and employment
and a higher rate of auto ownership. It is primarily composed of Suburban Edge
and Emerging Suburban Edge communities. This market can support peak-period
express bus services if a sufficient concentration of commuters likely to use
transit service is located along a corridor. The low-density development and
suburban form of development presents challenges to fixed-route transit. General
____ public dial-a-ride services are appropriate in Market Area IV. I
Centerville should identify and map existing transit services and facilities in the local comprehensive
plan. Centerville should also work with transit providers serving their community to identify potential
future transit service options and facilities that are consistent with the TPP and the applicable Transit
Market Areas. Communities can find further maps and guidance for transit planning in the
Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook.
Transitways
Current Revenue Scenario Transitways
The TPP's Transit Investment Plan does not show any transitway investments planned for Centerville in
the Current Revenue Scenario (TPP Figure 6-8).
Page-9 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Increased Revenue Scenario Transitways
The TPP Increased Revenue Scenario shows additional transitway corridors beyond the scope of the
plan's adopted and fiscally constrained Transit Investment Plan (the Current Revenue Scenario). These
corridors are listed on page 6.63 of the TPP, and TPP Figure 6-9, which is attached, shows the
complete transitway vision for the region.
If Centerville believes it might be directly impacted by transitways in the Increased Revenue Scenario
(for example, because they are participating in transitway corridor studies or feasibility analyses), the
transitways may be acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. These additional corridors are or will be
under study for mode and alignment recommendations, but they are not included in fiscally constrained
plan. However, they should be clearly identified as not funded within the currently expected resources
for transitways. The Council recognizes the important planning work that goes into a corridor prior to it
becoming part of the region's Transit Investment Plan, especially if increased revenues were to become
available.
Similar to Current Revenue Scenario Transitways, communities should identify known potential stations
along planned transitways and consider guiding land use policies, station area plans, and associated
zoning, infrastructure, and implementation tools that support future growth around transit stations.
These policies can also influence station siting in initial planning phases of transitway corridors and
influence the competitiveness of a transitway for funding. Communities can find further guidance for
station area planning in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook and the Transit
Oriented Development Guide.
Aviation
All communities must include an aviation element in the transportation sections of their comprehensive
plans. The degree of aviation planning and development considerations that need to be included in the
comprehensive plan varies by community. Even those communities not impacted directly by an airport
have a responsibility to include airspace protection in their comprehensive plan. The protection element
should include potential hazards to air navigation including electronic interference.
Centerville is not in an influence area of a regional airport. Airspace protection should be included in
local codes/ordinances to control height of structures.
Other Plan Considerations
Regional Bicycle Transportation Network
TPP Figure 7-1 shows the RBTN as established for the first time in the 2040 TPP. The network consists
of a series of prioritized Tier 1 and Tier 2 corridors and dedicated alignments (routes). The process
used to develop the RBTN, as well as the general principles and analysis factors used in its
development, can be found in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter of the TPP.
The RBTN corridors and alignments make up the "trunk arterials" of the overall system of bikeways that
connect to regional employment and activity centers. These are not intended to be the only bicycle
facilities in the region, and local units should also consider planning for any additional bike facilities
desired by their communities. RBTN corridors are shown where more specific alignments within those
corridors have not yet been designated, so local governments are encouraged to use their
comprehensive planning process to identify suitable alignments within the RBTN corridors for future
incorporation into the TPP.
In addition, agencies should plan their local on and off-road bikeway networks to connect to the
designated Tier 1 and Tier 2 alignments, as well as any new network alignments within RBTN corridors
Page- 10 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
to be proposed in local comprehensive plans. Bikeway projects that complete segments of, or connect
to, the RBTN are given priority for federal transportation funds through the Transportation Advisory
Board's biannual regional solicitation.
Figure 7-1 shows that your community currently has one or more RBTN corridors and alignments within
its jurisdiction. The Council encourages local governments to incorporate the RBTN map within their
local bicycle plan maps to show how the local and regional systems are planned to work together. An
on-line interactive RBTN map, which allows communities to view the RBTN links in their community at a
much more detailed scale than Figure 7-1, can be found in the Transportation section of the Local
Planninq Handbook. The handbook also includes best practices, references, and guidance for all local
bicycle planning.
A Minor System /Functional Classification
The TPP has always recognized the A minor arterial system as an important supplement to the regional
highway system, and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) continues to maintain the official
regional map of these roads. The 2040 TPP does include an updated functional classification map (Fig.
1-2 in Chapter 1) and a modified Appendix D- Functional Classification Criteria. Communities should
consult the Local Plan Handbook for more information on functional classification, how to reflect the A
minor arterial system in their plan, and how to request functional classification changes if necessary.
Freight
The Council encourages all local governments to plan for freight movement in their communities.
Trucks are the major mode of freight movement in the region and across the nation to distribute
consumer goods as well as move manufactured goods and commodities, and they operate in every
community.
Communities with special freight facilities shown on TPP Figure 8-1, Metropolitan Freight System,
(attached) should also include those additional modes and facilities in their local plan, and plan for
compatible adjacent land uses.
Page-11 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 1-1 of the TPP jj
Principal Arterials
0'+*.p Principal Arterial-Existing
'A
4
'Pkm Principal Arterial-Under Construction
Y
A
Reference Items
Lakes and Rivers
F, City Boundary
County Boundary
MUSA 2040
MPO Area 0 5 10 a 20 Miles Nov 2014
2040 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Figure 1-1
METROPOLITAN
C 0 U N 0 1 L
Page-12 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 1-2 of the TPP
Functional Class Roads
I
Reference Items - 5 {`
j,=, Lakes and Rivers
r_
City Boundary
County Boundary
Pnncipal Arterial Roads
MUSA 2040 J
MPO Area Y
m
S
�a
JIIN 1_rM1111igt� 1 t {
fl _ fffl
0 5 10 20 Miles ' Nov 2014
1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I j
i
Existing Planned Thrive Planning Areas
0*%./ Principal Arterial `a ' rn� Principal Arterial � Urban Core&Urban&Suburban
O'N.10 A-MinorAugmentor \1":,111•. A-MinorAugmentor Suburban Edge&
Emerging Suburban Edge
,j A-Minor Reliever 1\14% A-Minor Reliever
't11` Rural Service Areas
A-Minor Expander •A-Minor Expander MPO Area outside the
Seven County Area
0-%*.,r A-Minor Connector A-Minor Connector
`nn•
0"S,o Other Minor Arterial Other Minor Arterial
Page-13 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 5-8 of the TPP
Identified Projects* in Highway Current Revenue Scenario
Sherburne }
Reference Items
'1.PrineipelArterial Hlghways Anoka
�i Other Trunk Highways .' ^. _,....._ _,_.pi_�_f:... "_. •O t
• Rivers -
Wright (/�
I-' City Boundary i "—' `V --- - - - { •' {
r-
County Boundary
3' r
2040 Urban Service Area +- - - _ •Q-: -- # - �•••
MPO Area
'Not intended to represent J - A
all projects unfit 2040. I ` •`Ramsey- 3
includes only those projects
identified by May 2014. '
Subject to change and .
amendment.
S-f VT
Ca
r Ca rver `(�J
——r-- -- i _ ----T-"
4. Scott !
Dakota 1
0 5 10 20 Miles 4 i l - Nov 2014
1 r r r I r r r
..3.
0 2015-2018 TIP Bridges 00*40 Strategic Capacity #'%/2019-2024 Pavement Projects
0 2019-2024 Bridges Roadside Infrastructure I1%m,#2015-2018 Pavement/MnPass
Ow%,o Roadside Infrastructure/Safety Ow%,o 2015-2018 Pavement/Safety
e" 2015-2018 TIP Pavement Tier 1 MnPASS Expansion
Page- 14 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 6-3 of the TPP
Transit Market Areas
Sherburne
I V1� �
Anoka
Wright__-!._j---a
� f t
Henn e I e
- O
ca
I
.=J ' Carver
Scott 1
� � f
! Dakota `-
0 5 10 20 Miles � f --{'-i---
Nov 2014
iMarket Area I Emerging Market Area I I I
Market Area 11 Market Area IV
rEmerging Market Area II Market Area V
Market Area III • Freestanding Town Center
Page- 15 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 6-8 of the TPP
Current Revenue Scenario Transitways
and CTIB Phase I Program of Projects
Sherburne
YOF
Y Anoka
Wright ;- --
to
Reference Items
PrindpalArterial Highways
Other Trunk Hlghways ?- .T �. - _ - - ` - cai• E �.
Lakes and Rivers - -. `---' tix - .• - �_ _-_
_ City Boundary
"t S's r-�-n: ,, � �'° •` " Ramsey°'
93 County Boundary ( Hennepin°p=
4N,
2040 urban Service Area �t'MPOArea
vt
-
' i -�; '_,fit ¢.-�. «-a.-r _ .F �r�.=-.`-.'�°- '- .:�, i+f •
"F 3�` 'T4s•; � _T-'"+N'id.. - - `c�, �' - �• �-," -
co,
' . _ I:
Carver -t
I-�
t_I
! Scott
I Dakota
Nov 2014
0 5 10 20 Miles *
l t r r 1 r r r 1
Northstar Line 04%0 Red Line , Arterial BRT
,,�,CTIB Phase I Program of Projects under study
��/ Blue Line Orange Line mode and alignment not yet specified
^�Green Line Gold Line * Regional Multimodal Hub
Page-16 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 6-9 of the TPP
Increased Revenue Scenario Transitways
Building an Accelerated Transitway Vision
y
"
Sherburne77
{
Anoka
Wright =
Reference Items
Principal Arterial fthways
\i Other Trunk Highways ! j
Lakes and Rivers I. v uVNN' gso 'i±r i - p Fii
'
City Boundary
Ramgey
13 County
Boundary i »Fie. n �`n
2040 urban Service Area "s i p
MPO Area
ca
Carver _
Al
:I Scott,
t
.. Dakota I
0 5 10 20 Wes I ,I Nov 2014
f r r r I r r r 1
' r Northstar Line /n*Accelerated
Arterial BRT
Blue Line
Accelerated Transitways
Green Line under study Increased Revenue Scenario would
mode and alignment also include at least 1%average
/**4.#Red Line not yet specified annual bus expansion.
*0`%%0 Orange Line
Gold Line * Regional Multimodal Hub
Page-17 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 7-1 of the TPP
Regional Bicycle Transportation Network Vision
Sherburne
Anoka
Wright-1 +
Reference Items
0—,—,Pruicipal Arterial Roads
Lakes and Rivers
City Boundary Hennepin Rams ax;i
County Boundary
2040 Urban Servioe Area I
WOAnaa
0
Carver
Scott.
'unl
Dakota
0 5 10 20 Wes Nov 2014
RBTN Alignments Regional Destinations Other Trail Systems
#'**.#Tier I Alignments 0 Metropolitan Job Centers Regional Trails
(Regional Parks Policy Plan)
#"%.o Tier 2 Alignments 0 Regional Job Centers Mississippi River Trail
0 Subregional Job Centers (US Route 45)
RBTN Corridors(Alignments Undefined) A Large High Schools State Trails(DNR)
PNTier I Priority Regional Bicycle A Colleges&Universities
. Transportation Corridor
Tier 2 Regional Bicycle Highly Visited Regional Parks
Transportation Corridors • Major Sport&Entertainment Centers
Page- 18 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 8-1 of the TPP
Metropolitan Freight System
Sherburne
'A .7
;
L -A
An6
s
Wright
L
Reference Items 1 X
Lakes and Piven; T
5
Cfty Boundaryik", A
nna imm
County Boundary
2040 Urban Service Area
MPOArea
77
0
N
6
F
Nov 2014
Carver 7
Aff
Scott
Dakota-
a,
0 5 10 20 Wes
IN,,Principal Arterial Highways
1 Railroads(Functional and Abandoned)
Freight Terminals
0 Air Truck
0 Barge Truck
0 Rail/Truck IT60t,
Page-19 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
Figure 9-1 of the TPP
Airport Service Areas
ISA TI ,"?' i CISA�GO
G SHERBURN �"�
r
WRi-G-H- AN I FA
tJ
I
,d
t �t-:y ;,MI ° ° �e a se. fT C O
H N E P W E LM
I R
MSP
•
w
our-
C AR V E
°'
'- PIERCE
/ -
SCbTT 11014KOT
41
SI JLEY -
D H UE
rNr
LE SUEUR ICE
.4 I
E Miles
0 5 I 10 0
Public Owned Public Use Airport ♦ Privately Owned O Minneapolis Cass-B
Airport Compatibility Area Public Use Airport Airspace Boundary
I r 3 NMs-Nois,Zonln, Surf-SidePennNEed Seaplane
�( g SFS Seaplane Bas Surface waters
(6 NM's-La eture)andlfflA (Rete Lake) (within 7 CcuMYA"only)
Wnd Towers) WPL Wipllne Seaplane Bas C', VOR Pirotectlon Zone
MSP Minneapolis-SL Paul MIC CrystalAirpot (ea'River)
International Airport TallTower Areas
(H6fd-Chamberisin Field) SGS South St.Paul Airport
(Rerning Fit" Aviation Facility
STP St Paul Dowrnown Airport
(Holman Front) ELM Lake EknoAerport Located In Community
Community Directly
ANE Anoka County-BlahsAlrpon LVN AirtakeAlrport Affected by Facility(s)
(Janes Field)
FOR Forest Lake Airport General Airspace
FCM Flying Cloud Airport Notltication/Protectlon
Page-20 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE TRANSPORTATION
WATER RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS/
WASTEWATER SYSTEM STATEMENT
City of Centerville
The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to achieve the following goal:
To protect, conserve, and utilize the region's groundwater and surface water in ways that protect
public health, support economical growth and development, maintain habitat and ecosystem health,
and provide for recreational opportunities, which are essential to our region's quality of life.
The Policy Plan takes an integrated approach to water supply, water quality, and wastewater issues.
This approach moves beyond managing wastewater and stormwater only to meet regulatory
requirements by viewing wastewater and stormwater as resources, with the goal of protecting the
quantity and quality of water our region needs now and for future generations.
The Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to:
• Maximize regional benefits from regional investments in the areas of wastewater, water supply
and surface water.
• Pursue reuse of wastewater and stormwater to offset demands on groundwater supplies.
• Promote greater collaboration, financial support, and technical support in working with partners
to address wastewater, water quality, water quantity and water supply issues.
• Implement environmental stewardship in operating the regional wastewater system by reusing
wastewater, reducing energy use and air pollutant emissions, and reducing, reusing, and
recycling solid waste.
Key Concepts in the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan
Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in May 2015, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan is the
metropolitan system plan for metropolitan wastewater services with which local comprehensive plans
must conform. The Policy Plan incorporates the following changes:
• Centers on and around an integrated approach to water supply, wastewater, and surface water
planning.
• Promotes the investigation of the issues and challenges in furthering our work in water conservation,
wastewater and stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a
more sustainable region.
• Promotes the concept of sustainable water resources where, through collaboration and cooperation,
the region will take steps to manage its water resources in a sustainable way aimed at:
o Providing an adequate water supply for the region
o Promoting and implementing best management practices that protect the quality and quantity of
our resources
o Providing efficient and cost effective wastewater services to the region
o Efficiently addressing nonpoint and point sources pollution issues and solutions, and,
o Assessing and monitoring lakes, rivers, and streams so that we can adequately manage, protect,
and restore our valued resources.
• Continues the Council's position that communities that permit the construction and operation of
subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems are
Page-21 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed and regulated
consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080-7083.
• Includes requirements in Appendix C for comprehensive sewer plans, local water plans, and local
water supply plans.
• Establishes inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional wastewater
system and requires all communities to include their inflow and infiltration mitigation programs in
their comprehensive sewer plan.
• Works with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration mitigation, and
(2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation.
Centerville should consult the complete Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In
addition, Centerville should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the Local Planning Handbook for specific
information needed in its comprehensive plan.
System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
Metropolitan Sewer Service
Under state law (Minn. Stat. 473.513) local governments are required to submit both a wastewater plan
element to their comprehensive plan as well as a comprehensive sewer plan describing service needs
from the Council. Specific requirements for the sewer element of your comprehensive plan can be
found in the Water Resources section of the Local Planning Handbook.
Forecasts
The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Centerville as
contained in the adopted 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan can be found
at: http-//www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/2040-Water-Resources-Policy-Plan.aspx
and on your Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook. These forecasts are for sewered
development. The sewered housing forecasts were estimated using SAC data, annual city reports,
current trends, existing and future local wastewater service areas and other information relating to your
community. The wastewater flows are based on historical wastewater flow data, future projected
wastewater generation rates, and the projected sewered population and employment data.
The Council will use these growth and wastewater flow forecasts to plan future interceptor and
treatment works improvements needed to serve your community. The Council will not design future
interceptor improvements or treatment facilities to handle peak hourly flows in excess of the allowable
rate for your community. Centerville, through its comprehensive planning process, must decide the
location and staging of development, and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to
serve this development. The Council will use its judgment as to where to assign growth within your
community to determine regional system capacity adequacy. If Centerville wishes to identify specific
areas within the community to concentrate its growth, it should do so within its Comprehensive Sewer
Plan.
You should also note that urban development at overall densities that are substantially lower than those
identified for your community in the Community Designation Section of this Systems Statement will also
be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the cost of providing metropolitan
sewer service.
Description of the Metropolitan Disposal System Serving Your Community
Figure 1 shows the location of the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) serving your community.
Wastewater flow from Centerville is treated at the Metropolitan WWTP.
Page-22 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
Description of the Regional Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Program
The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan states that the Council will establish 1/1 goals for all
communities discharging wastewater to the MDS. Communities that have excessive 1/1 in their sanitary
sewer systems will be required to eliminate excessive 1/1. The Council will continue the implementation
of its on-going 1/1 reduction program. Communities identified through the program as needing to
eliminate excessive 1/1 will be required to submit a work plan that details work activities to identify and
eliminate sources of 1/I. The Council can limit increases in service within those communities having
excess 1/1 that do not demonstrate progress in reducing their excess 1/1. The Council will meet with the
community and discuss this alternative before it is implemented.
It is required that those communities that have been identified as contributors of excessive 1/I, and that
have not already addressed private property sources, do so as part of their 1/1 program. Significant work
has been accomplished on the public infrastructure portion of the wastewater system. The Council will
pursue making funds available through the State for 1/1 mitigation, and promote statutes, rules and
regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation.
Management of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) and Private
Systems
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires the sewer element of the local comprehensive plan to
describe the standards and conditions under which the installation of subsurface sewage treatment
systems and other private wastewater treatment systems will be permitted and to the extent
practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private systems.
The appropriate density for development with subsurface sewage treatment systems depends on the
suitability of the soils to treat wastewater and whether space is available for a primary and back up
drainfield. It is the Council's position that all municipalities and counties allowing subsurface sewage
treatment systems should incorporate current MPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapter 7080-7083) as
part of a program for managing subsurface sewage treatment systems in the sewer element of their
local comprehensive plan and implement the standards in issuing permits.
Centerville should adopt a management program consistent with state rules. An overview of
Centerville's management program must be included in the community's local comprehensive plan
update. If adequate information on the management program is not included; the comprehensive plan
will be found incomplete for review until the required information is provided to the Council. Specific
requirements for the local comprehensive plan can be found in the Local Planning Handbook.
Small private treatment plants are located throughout the Metropolitan Area serving such developments
as individual industries, mobile home parks, and other urban type uses. The Council's position is that
such private wastewater treatment plants should be permitted only if they are in areas not programmed
for metropolitan sewer service in the future and they are provided for in a community's comprehensive
plan that the Council has approved. Furthermore, the community is responsible for permitting all
community or cluster wastewater treatment systems consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080-
7083 and MPCA standards. The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these
systems fail.
Centerville should include in the sewer element of its local comprehensive plan the conditions under
which private treatment plants or municipal treatments would be allowed, and include appropriate
management techniques sufficiently detailed to ensure that the facilities conform to permit conditions.
Centerville is responsible for ensuring that permit conditions for private treatment plants are met and
financial resources to manage these facilities are available.
Page-23 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
Surface Water Management
In 1995, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.859, subd. 2 was amended to make the local water plan
(often referred to as local surface water management plans) required by section 103B. 235 a part of the
land use plan of the local comprehensive plan. Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, updated in July of 2015,
includes the requirements for local water management plans. The main change that you need to be
aware of is that all communities in the metropolitan area must update their local water plan between
January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. This means that Centerville must update its local water plan
as part of the comprehensive plan update. The community's updated local water plan should be
submitted to the Council for its review concurrent with the review by the Watershed Management
Organization(s) within whose watershed(s) the community is located. Failure to have an updated
local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found incomplete for review until
the required plan is provided to the Council.
Local water plans must meet the requirements for local water plans in Minnesota Statutes, section
10313.235 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. In general, local surface water plans need to include a
summary of the priorities and problems in the community; structural, nonstructural and programmatic
actions to take to address the priorities and problems; and clearly identified funding mechanisms to fix
the problems.
More detailed guidance for the local water plans can be found in Appendix C of the Council's 2040
Water Resources Policy Plan and in the Council's current Local Planning Handbook.
In addition, the Council has also updated its priority lake list that was first developed in the 1980s as
part of the Water Resources Policy Plan update. Figure 2 shows the priority lakes for Centerville. The
Council uses the priority lake list to focus its limited resources The list is also used in the environmental
review process. Where a proposed development may impact a priority lake, the project proposer must
complete a nutrient budget analysis for the lake as part of the environmental review process.
Also included on Figure 2 is the watershed organization(s) that Centerville is part of and a list of
impaired waters in the community for use in development of your local water plans.
Other Plan Considerations
Water Supply
Local comprehensive plans also address water supply (Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859). For communities in
the metropolitan area with municipal water supply systems, this local comprehensive plan requirement
is met by completing the local water supply plan template, which was jointly developed by the
Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR).
FOR COMMUNITIES WHO OWN/OPERATE A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM:
Because your community owns/operates a municipal community public water supply system (PWS),
the local water supply plan must be updated as part of the local comprehensive plan (Minn. Stat., Sec.
103G.291).
The updated local water supply plan should include information about your community along
with information about any neighboring communities served by your system.
You should update your local water supply plan upon notification by DNR. Local water supply plan due
dates will be staggered between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Your updated local water
supply plan should be submitted to the DNR. DNR will share the plan with the Council, and it will be
Page-24 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
reviewed concurrently by both agencies. This schedule allows the local water supply plans to be
completed and included in the local comprehensive plan.
Failure to have an updated local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found
incomplete for review until the required plan is provided to the Council.
The water supply plan template fulfills multiple statutory obligations including:
• Minn. Stat., Sec. 103G.291 to complete a water supply plan including demand reduction
• Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859 to address water supply in local comprehensive plans
• Minn. Administrative Rules 4720.5280 to address contingency planning for water supply
interruption
The plan must be officially adopted by your community, and if applicable the utility board, as part of the
local comprehensive plan.
At a minimum, the updated local water supply plan must use the joint DNR and Metropolitan Council
template and include water demand projections that are consistent with the community's population
forecast provided in the introductory section of this system statement. Potential water supply issues
should be acknowledged, monitoring and conservation programs should be developed, and
approaches to resolve any issues should be identified.
Guidance and information for water supply planning can be found in the Appendix C of the 2040 Water
Resources Policy Plan, the Local Planning Handbook, and the Council's Master Water Supply Plan.
The Council's Master Water Supply Plan provides communities in the region with planning assistance
for water supply in a way that:
• Recognizes local control and responsibility for owning, maintaining and operating water systems
• Is developed in cooperation and consultation with municipal water suppliers, regional
stakeholders and state agencies
• Protects critical habitat and water resources over the long term
• Meets regional needs for a reliable, secure water supply
• Highlights the benefits of integrated planning for stormwater, wastewater and water supply
• Emphasizes and supports conservation and inter-jurisdictional cooperation
• Provides clear guidance by identifying key challenges/issues/considerations in the region and
available approaches without dictating solutions
Figures 3-5 illustrate some water supply considerations that the community may consider as they
develop their local water supply plans, such as: aquifer water levels, groundwater and surface water
interactions, areas where aquifer tests or monitoring may be needed to reduce uncertainty, regulatory
and management areas, and emergency interconnections.
Page-25 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
Figure 1.MCES Sanitary Sewer Meter Service Areas
City of Centerville, Anoka County
i
ro�e�r
-denterviiie ._ okulo
1118 I --
i
-��
0 05 1 112!2015
Y IANs
Interceptors by Type — Outfall # Meters
— Gravity — Low Head Crossing Litt Stations
— Foreemain -- Bypass
— Siphon ® MCES Wastewater Treatment Plants
IRWMaptor Meter 9eNt*AreaY
k - TOpfltetlrNlOt)- Areas Not Served
Areas of Unmetered Flow County Boundaries Park.Recreational or Preserve
Into the Community r--j City and Township Boundaries Golf Course
Rural Center WWrP
Service Areas ► Lakes and Rivers
2040 MUSA NCompass Street Centerlines
Page-26 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
Figure 2.Surface Water Resources
Centerville, Anoka County
:"` `3t:.-_ a�n :sk`:mi "eP �'=s'..- �)ry, i!k�' -•'J
" - .:i�,die~ r`-Ii'��`'6 R"R]'. .',dir:m.`s.... n•� - .} r{y�~5_ -
- - r�tenrllle�'"";- •-
'A�Y'�" ?KYS F9tF:6 „�e6 �,�•YT•'- � :.�� -..-_ �`
-
''- ,,� _, '• =�., 4 � .'int: � � '
>,.6.3.q' ..1•~ . ,-?YxYt`.�ald, ��� -.6 - _ _" - 6 � �, _ t" ����:,.,�Y'`t�a 4v A.r
� - '.,r�•" ••,{< :�'1'` - .v.�?:�+,�•• I•A - -_ - y..s3;�a,;'� 'j-r`y -'%e.�_:'.e s".,<ry�w x•;45: ;•�....'«• tr.�
' :d-.aE%'r;�j�� ..,��`. _ �. -�3:�.'r K:•T}, `+K��'..'i§i �` 4 �� y�4.r�� _.ix- u-�'� �.
�`�`��n- S= � '�_a -.rY`a}."z.4Y...^',aft'„ +-�r�b Sri `-rya•y- -w€ v'Mi'�'� _
- `^t3`:-6=-�t� _ 1F1Y- �Y• '-9'' �_.� - 4:» :. -'r'v''ba `Y 'r .:�\
'Es•i
'� - - - .=z �,�'-` "_:'-4°'.°� riw?;=�r:u� -s••.�--�°� `=,x a �zFF-�,c`:y`r'+''y��,.. �.
i r^ • y r
,ti"^Y.�„�s - _e - •#• _ --', - -_ ����-ffi„�'�7,�{:�,y s:8iratr�'�� � � '�?s��r'�-; -t .o'�.•?'":y=.�,;;:.-`�-di'N`d"�?:;'as,� .t=
�,Li.- - -- �;$ `r- ;��.___._- - - has iY. i �• �` }ty.' ,F�'w:G'"
'�i--cam � _ - .=„rt,t-:�:i .,.'-�,� 'iei�gb a.'� v^•ro ,,��: •• ��,_o -
- � ""6 - -- - -'Y� " -sJ-,- ;'�� -s ;dk -�'4.0=s�' '�}-' •��'au t'a�T d'n .0
`ice•': . a.�.: u`'�.�.;��;�:, - •.'�=�';�3:s�.��`$; �,,, �r� - yt;='��=;:�;'�`r'=s''g` ';� �
PE
VVVY Mlles
Watershed Management Organization Boundaries Impaired Lakes(2014 Draft MPCA 303(d)List)
Watershed Management Organization Type -Ao"Impaired Rivers&Streams(2014 Draft MPCA 303(d)List)
County 'f r 2014 Priority Lakes
Watershed District
Watershed Management Organization County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
" Other Lakes and Major Rivers
-+u--Other Streams
NCompass Street Centerlines
Page-27 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
Figure 3.Surface water features and interaction with the regional groundwater system,and state-protected surface water features
Centerville
r
� M ?
1
,a
-- GenterviNe =
o os +
MA96
Lakes and Moja Rivers
- Spring(DNR) surface water type(regional screening by Met council)
• Disconnected tram the regional groundwater system Calcareous Fen(DNR) Disconnected
agW(ers
_Trout Stream(DNR) =Receives and discherges groundwater
• Karst Feature(DNR) -Supported by upwelling groundwater
Page-28 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
Figure 4.Availability of MN Department of Natural Resources groundwater level and MN Department of Health aquifer test data
Centerville
%77-"
t
I
- - A-
-; Centervip,a
Lino Lekes
p OS
PRIM
Lakes and Mala Rivers
•Observation well showing no trend in annual minimum values(DNR)
iObservation well showing an Www trend in annual mk*num values(DNR)
0 observation well showing a downward trend in annual minimum values(DNR)
0 Observailon well with inwflicient data to evaluate a trend in annual minimum values(DNR)
• Aquifer Ted(MDM)
Page-29 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
Figure 5.Municipal public water supply system interconnections and regulatory management areas
Centerville
Lino Lakt�r
Miles
Lakes and Mayor Rivers
The community's most recent local water supply plan reports that the public water supply system has no interconnections
The communitVs most recent local water supply plan reports thatthe public water supply system has one or more interconnections
Special Well and Boning Construction Area(MOH)
North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area(DNR)
Moderate to Highly Vulnerable Drinking Water Supply Management Area(MDH)
Dnnwng Water Supply Management Area for Minneapolis/St Paul
Page-30 12015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE WATER RESOURCES
REGIONAL PARKS SYSTEM
STATEMENT
City of Centerville
The Regional Parks System includes 62 regional parks, park reserves, and special recreation features,
plus more than 340 miles of regional trails that showcase the unique landscapes of the region and
provide year-round recreation. The Regional Parks System is well-loved by our region's residents and
attracted over 48 million annual visits in 2014.
The organizational structure of the Regional Parks System is unique, built upon a strong partnership
between the Council and the ten regional park implementing agencies that own and operate Regional
Parks System units. The regional park implementing agencies are:
Anoka County Ramsey County
City of Bloomington City of Saint Paul
Carver County Scott County
Dakota County Three Rivers Park District
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Washington County
The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan was developed based on furthering the Thrive MSP 2040
outcomes of Stewardship, Prosperity, Equity, Livability, and Sustainability. Thrive MSP 2040 states that
the Council will collaborate with the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, the regional park
agencies, and state partners to:
• Expand the Regional Parks System to conserve, maintain, and connect natural resources
identified as being of high quality or having regional importance, as identified in the 2040
Regional Parks Policy Plan.
• Provide a comprehensive regional park and trail system that preserves high-quality natural
resources, increases climate resiliency, fosters healthy outcomes, connects communities, and
enhances quality of life in the region.
• Promote expanded multimodal access to regional parks, regional trails, and the transit network,
where appropriate.
• Strengthen equitable usage of regional parks and trails by all our region's residents, such as
across age, race, ethnicity, income, national origin, and ability.
Key Concepts in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan
The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes the following policies, each with specific associated
strategies:
• Recreation Activities and Facilities Policy: Provide a regional system of recreation
opportunities for all residents, while maintaining the integrity of the natural resource base within
the Regional Parks System.
Page-31 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE REGIONAL PARKS
• Siting and Acquisition Policy: Identify lands with high-quality natural resources that are
desirable for Regional Parks System activities and put these lands in a protected status so they
will be available for recreational uses and conservation purposes in perpetuity.
• Planning Policy: Promote master planning and help provide integrated resource planning
across jurisdictions.
• Finance Policy: Provide adequate and equitable funding for the Regional Parks System units
and facilities in a manner that provides the greatest possible benefits to the people of the region.
• System Protection Policy: Protect public investment in acquisition and development by
assuring that every component in the system is able to fully carry out its designated role as long
as a need for it can be demonstrated.
The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open
space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement highlights the
elements of the system plan which apply specifically to your community. Find the complete text of the
2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan on the Council's website.
2040 Regional Parks System Facilities
The Regional Parks System is comprised of four main types of facilities: regional parks, park reserves,
special recreation features and regional trails.
Regional Parks
Regional parks most notably contain a diversity of nature-based resources, either naturally occurring or
human-built, and are typically 200-500 acres in size. Regional parks accommodate a variety of passive
recreation activities.
Park Reserves
Park reserves, like regional parks, provide for a diversity of outdoor recreation activities. One major
feature that distinguishes a park reserve from a regional park is its size. The minimum size for a park
reserve is 1,000 acres. An additional characteristic of park reserves is that up to 20 percent of the park
reserve can be developed for recreational use, with at least 80 percent of the park reserve to be
managed as natural lands that protect the ecological functions of the native landscape.
Special Recreation Features
Special recreation features are defined as Regional Parks System opportunities not generally found in
the regional parks, park reserves or trail corridors. Special recreation features often require a unique
managing or programming effort.
Regional Trails
Regional trails are classified as 1) destination or greenway trails and 2) linking trails. Destination or
greenway trails typically follow along routes with high-quality natural resources that make the trail itself
a destination. Linking trails are predominately intended to provide connections between various
Regional Parks System facilities, most notably regional parks or park reserves.
Page-32 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE REGIONAL PARKS
2040 Regional Parks System Components
The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies six components which together comprise the vision for
the Regional Parks System in 2040, as described below.
Existing Regional Parks System Facilities: include Regional Parks System Facilities that are
open for public use. These facilities include land that is owned by regional park implementing agencies,
and may include inholding parcels within the boundaries of these parks and trail corridors that have not
yet been acquired. Existing regional trails may include planned segments that will be developed in the
future.
Planned Regional Parks System Facilities (not yet open to the public): include Regional
Parks System Facilities that have a Council-approved master plan and may be in stages of acquisition
and development, but are not yet open for public use.
Regional Parks System Boundary Adjustments: include general areas identified as potential
additions to existing Regional Parks System Facilities to add recreational opportunities or protect
natural resources. Specific adjustments to park or trail corridor boundaries have not yet been planned.
Regional Park Search Areas: include general areas for future regional parks to meet the
recreational needs of the region by 2040 where the regional park boundary has not yet been planned.
Regional Trail Search Corridors: include proposed regional trails to provide connections between
Regional Parks System facilities where the trail alignment has not yet been planned.
2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor System Additions: include regional trail search corridors
that were added to the Regional Parks System as part of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan.
Key Changes in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan
Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in February 2015, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan
incorporates the following changes:
Identify all proposed regional trails as regional trail search corridors
All proposed regional trails that are not yet open to the public and do not have a Metropolitan Council
approved master plan are represented as a general regional trail search corridor. The 2030 Regional
Parks Policy Plan depicted these trails with a proposed alignment. The alignment of these regional
trails will be determined in the future through a planning process led by the regional park implementing
agency. The alignment of these trails is subject to Metropolitan Council approval of a regional trail
master plan.
Acquire and develop ten new regional trails or trail extensions to meet the needs of the
region in 2040. The 2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor Additions include:
Carver County:
• County Road 61
• Highway 41
Page-33 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE REGIONAL PARKS
Three Rivers Park District:
• CP Rail Extension
• Dakota Rail Extension
• Lake Independence Extension
• Lake Sarah Extension
• Minnetrista Extension
• North-South 1
• North-South 2
• West Mississippi River
The 2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map is depicted in Figure 1. Centerville should consult the
complete 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition,
Centerville should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of the Metropolitan Council's Local
Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan.
System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
Regional Parks System Components in your community
The following Regional Parks System Components within Centerville as identified in the 2040 Regional
Parks Policy Plan are listed below.
Regional Parks, Park Reserves, and Special Recreation Features
Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve: This is an existing park reserve with an established
boundary. The park reserve boundary as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the
comprehensive plan.
Regional Trails
Bunker Hills-Chain of Lakes Regional Trail: This is a regional trail that includes segments that are
open to the public as well as planned segments that will be developed in the future. The regional trail
travels through Blaine and Lino Lakes as it connects Bunker Hills Regional Park, Rice Creek North
Regional Trail and Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve. The regional trail alignment as shown in
Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan.
Central Anoka Regional Trail: This is a regional trail that includes segments that are open to the
public as well as planned segments that will be developed in the future. The regional trail travels
through Ramsey, Andover, Ham Lake, Blaine, Lino Lakes, and Centerville as it connects Mississippi
West Regional Park, Rum River Regional Trail, Bunker Hills Regional Park, East Anoka County
Regional Trail and Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve. The regional trail alignment as shown in
Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan.
Chain of Lakes-Otter Lake Regional Trail Search Corridor: The regional trail search corridor travels
through Centerville and Lino Lakes as it connects Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve and Bald
Eagle-Otter Lake Regional Park in White Bear Township. A master plan identifying the alignment of the
Chain of Lakes-Otter Lake Regional Trail has been approved since adoption of the 2040 Regional
Parks Policy Plan. The alignment of the regional trail should be acknowledged in the local
comprehensive plan. Anoka County will lead a planning process in the future to determine the
alignment of the regional trail. When preparing its comprehensive plan, Centerville should verify
whether a master plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council. If a master plan has been
Page-34 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE REGIONAL PARKS
approved, the planned regional trail alignment should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan.
Otherwise, the general search corridor as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the
comprehensive plan.
Please contact Anoka County for more information regarding Regional Parks System Components in
Centerville.
Page-35 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE REGIONAL PARKS
Figure 1.2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map
Regional Parks System
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
Idu
St
f
J-
f"J'A
----- - -----
0 2.5 5 10 15 20
WC
Miles
Regional Parks Regional Park Search Areas and Existing State Trails
Regional Parks Regional Trail Search Corridors Lakes and Major Rivers
Park Reserves • Boundary Adjustments Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Special Recreation Features State Parks
Planned Units • Search Areas State Wildlife Management Areas
Regional Trail Corridor Land (PuNdyAcceWbie)
Regional Trails
Scientific and Natural Areas(SNA)
Regional Trail Search Corridors
Existing Other Parks and Preserves
Planned Regional Trails-2040 System Additions
Page-36 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE REGIONAL PARKS
Figure 2.Regional Parks System Facilities in and adjacent to Centerville
Regional.Parks System
City of Centerville, Anoka County
i
Certtervgle'
I - .
CerwratAraka Q07$�y'
I
in
0 0.5 1
wypc
ry AAOn
Regional Parks Regional Park Search Areas and Existing state Traft
i Regional Parks Regional Trail Search Corridors -- Street centerlines(NCompass)
Park Reserves ! Boundary Adjustments Lakes and Major Rivers
Special Recreation Features Minnesota Vahey National AWKe Refiige
f� Planned Units , Search Areas State Parks
Regional Trall Corridor Land State Wildlife Management Areas
Regional Trails Regional Trail Search corridors (Publicly Accessible)
Existing ' Sclentifie and Natural Areas(SNA)
...,. Planned Regional Trails-2040 System Additions
Other Parks and Preserves
Page-37 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—CENTERVILLE REGIONAL PARKS
AGENDA
2016 CENTERVILLE FETE DES LACS FESTIVAL COMMITTEE
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015 - 6:30 PM
Centerville City Hall
6:30 pm 1. Welcome and Introductions—Mike Ericson
6:40 pm 2. Review Charge from Centerville Lions and Businesses
"Fun Family Event That Builds Community"
• Recap of 2015 Festival
• Action Items from Parks and Recreation Commission
7:05 pm 3. 2016 Committees
• Publicity-
• Food—
• Music-
• Volunteers—
• Sponsors-
• Parade-
• Security-
• 5K& 8K Fun Run Race Director-
• Thank You's-
7:45 pm 4. Community/Student Volunteers
• Centennial High NHS,ROTC, Student Council
• Centerville Elementary PTA Committee Council
• Main Street Business Association
• Parks and Recreation Commission
• St. Gen's Catholic Church
• St. John's The Baptist Catholic Church
7:50 pm 5. Discussion on Major Sponsors:
Petting Zoo ($500)-Inflatables ($575)
7:55 pm 7. Schedule Next Meeting
8:00 pm 8. Adjournment
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held its regular
meeting on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
'A
PRESENT: Chairperson Darrin Mosher
is i
Commissioner Russ Koski
Commissioner Matthew Montain
Commissioner Mark Haiden
Commissioner Nick Twohy
ABSENT: None
STAFF: City Administrator Mike Ericson
OTHERS PRESENT: Council Member D. Love
I. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson
Mosher.
1. Roll Call
11. APPEARANCES
1. None.
111. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. None.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion on Downtown Master Plan & Development Guidelines (M-1 & M-2 Mixed
Use Zoning)
The Commission had lengthy discussion on the current plan and determined that it was in the best
interest of the City to retain the Master Plan and Development Guidelines (M-1 & M-2 Mixed Use
Zoning) for future needs.
Motion by Commission Member Haiden, seconded by Commission Member Montain to
retain the current Downtown Master Plan & Development Guidelines (M-1 & M-2 Mixed
Use Zoning) as presented. All in favor. Motion carried.
2. Discussion on Proposed City Policy for Municipal Lighted Board @ City Hall
Page 1 of 3
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1,2015
The Commission had a brief discussion on the presented policy, Administrator Ericson stated that
the proposed policy is similar to surrounding communities' policies and that staff is eager to
institute it.
Motion by Commission Member Koski, seconded by Commission Member Montain to
Recommend to Council the policy for the Municipal Lighted Board A City Hall as
presented. All in favor. Motion carried.
3. Ruffridge Johnson,2065 Commerce Drive—Notification from Owner
Administrator Ericson stated that the City recently received notification from the owner of
Ruffridge Johnson that the sale of their existing building in Minneapolis fell through and it was a
condition of the purchase of the property at 2065 Commerce Drive. The City has not received an
official letter yet. Administrator Ericson stated that the owner was less than happy and he was
disappointed because he was looking forward to his move to Centerville.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed Parking Design—Centennial School District#12 (Centerville Elementary)
a. 1709 Main Street—Condemnation Proceedings
Administrator Ericson stated that the Centennial School District #12 has commenced
condemnation proceedings with regard to the property located at 1709 Main Street, owned by Mr.
Paul Steffel. City staff met with ISD #12 officials on the purchase of City owned property located
at 1737 Main Street. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the new parking lot design
as per the plan presented by the District. Administrator Ericson stated that discussion by the City
Council wast they would rather have the City owned property remain tax generating and that the
School District could be more open to utilizing their existing property for parking lot expansion
rather than utilizing prime real estate. Administrator Ericson and staff have been instructed to
meet with School District staff, arrange meetings with Council and provide alternatives and
possible duel use of parking with the Downtown Master Plan and Design Guidelines. The
Planning & Zoning Commission had a lengthy discussion on the use of school property on the
north side and that the City should work with school officials.
Administrator Ericson stated that he would keep the Commission abreast of the details regarding
this item.
2. Commissioner Tom Wood's Resignation
Administrator Ericson reported that he had received a letter of resignation from Commissioner
Woods via email. There are now two (2) openings on the web site and reminded members that
they can speak with individuals that they believe are fitted for the position.
3. 7281 Main Street—(Waterworks Site)
Page 2of3
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1,2015
Administrator Ericson updated the Commission on the potential for a purchase agreement for the
property stating that the potential buyer is interested in constructing a 3-4 story apartment/condo
building.
Administrator Ericson also stated that the would keep the Commission abreast of the details
regarding this item.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Commissioner Koski stated that he recently attended a Beyond the Basics of Planning&Zoning:
Variances and More session provided by Government Training Services which was enlightening
and occasionally emotional.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. November 2, 2015 Planning& Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Motion by Commissioner Mosher seconded by Commissioner Montain to approve minutes
from the November 2, 2015,meeting as presented. All in favor. Motion carried
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Twohy to adiourn the
meetinp,at 8:20 p.m. Allin favor. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Ericson
City Administrator
Page 3 of 3