HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-06 Packet
tervi{{e
'LiWbli.4icd 18:;:-
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDA Y, JUNE 6, 2006
6:30 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
n. APPEARANCESIPRESENTA TION(S)
1. Mr. Keith 1. McDonald, Shingobee Builders, Inc. - Review Transportation Issues
m. PUBLIC HEARING (S)
1. Conditional Use Permit Request, Anoka County - Realignment of Clearwater
Creek
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Proposed Ordinance Regard Pennissible Encroachments into Front Yards
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Transfer of Use Permit (Performance Auto to Launderville's Auto Repair) -7139
- 20th Avenue North
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
VIL CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. May 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
VDI. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 1
Teresa Bender
From: Dallas Larson [dlarson@centervUlemn.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12,200610:51 AM
To: Teresa Bender
Subject: FW: CSAH 54
Please put this gentleman on the P&Z agenda new business. "Developer to review transportation issues relating
to Hardwood Creek Project."
Vaffas Larson) JIciministrator
City of Centerville
651-429-3232
-----Qriginal Message-----
From: Keith Mcdonald [mailto:kmcdonald@shingobee.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 200611:37 AM
To: dlarson@centervillernn.com
SUbject: CSAH 54
I understand you had a good conversation with Mike yesterday about the proposed reaUgnment. We want to
make sure that we make it a positive solution for everybody. After in-depth traffic analysis by Westwood
engineering the current plans seem to be a strain on everyone. Mike suggested that we get on the Centerville
June 6th paz agenda and review it. Please let me know if that is possible and what formal requirements must be
met. I would be happy to meet with you in advance of this to hear what your concems are so we can address
them prior to the paz meeting. Let me know what works for you.
Keith J. McDonald
President
Shingobee Builders, Inc.
25 Years - and Building
www.shingobee.com
p 763--479-1300
f 763--479-3267
5/12/2006
6a
'''.~,.~.J
. .~:~ '1:~~~:,~!lr~
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST PIN's #R.2J..31-22-21-0056 -1751 Main
Street, #R23-31-22-21-0014 -1759 Main Street, #R23-31-22-21-0013 -1781 Main
Street &, #R23-31-22-21-0028 - 7128 Progress Road
ANOKA COUNTY REQUESTS TO REALIGN CLEARWATER CREEK IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE CSAH14 WIDENING PROJECT.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE PLANNING AND
WNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Centerville will consider the requested conditional use permit submitted by Mr. Doug
Fischer, P.E., Anoka County Highway Department to allow realignment of Clearwater
Creek with the following PIN #'s being affected:
. PIN #R23-31-22-21-0056 - 1751 Main Street
. PIN #R23-31-22-21-0014 - 1759 Main Street
. PIN #R23-31-22-21-0013 - 1781 Main Street
. PIN #R23-31-22-21-0028 -7128 Progress Road
Anoka County requests the conditional use permit in order to realign Clearwater Creek in
conjunction with the CSAH 14 widening project. Anoka County believes that the
realignment is required to accommodate a stormwater treatment pond and meet
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Rice Creek Watershed District water quality
requirements. The specific pond location is necessary due to grade and utilities
constraints. The proposed channel grade matches the existing channel and contains
greater cross-sectional area, providing for equal or greater hydraulic capacity than the
existing channel.
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2006 commencing at 6:30 p.m. or shortly
thereafter. The purpose of the meeting is to ascertain public input regarding the above
request and the possibility of granting the condition use permit as requested. The public
hearing will be held in Council Chambers located at 1880 Main Street, Centerville,
Minnesota 55038.
The City Hall is ADA accessible. Requests for hearing assisted devices or a sign
language interpreter must be received before 4:00 p.m. June 2, 2006. All persons
interested are invited to attend and to be heard.
.\l:
You may contact the City Clerk's office at (651) 429-3232 or by facsimile (651) 429-
8629 if you need additional information. If you desire, you may email:
dlaC~!l@centervillemlLcom or lbender(cu.centeryjlkm!l,-~orn with questions or concerns.
This notice is also available on the Citys web site: ~::'.Y}:V Q~Dlervill~DJR~QJ]}.
May 10, 2006
Teresa Bender, City Clerk-CMC
Published in the Quad Community Press on May 23, and May 30, 2006
\'
~
~:m7
~~
" () eft->:
e./)
NAME:
COMPANY:
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Mr. Douglas Fischer. P.E. FEE: $250.00 (+$300.00 deposit)
Anoka County
PAID: $550.00
ADDRESS: 1440 Bunker Lake Boulevard. Andover. MN 55304
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 763-862-4237
STREET LOCATION OF PROPERTY: North side ofCSAH 14 between Dupre ROi;l..Q
and Mill Road at the Clearwater Creek crossing.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 23-31-22-21-0056;
23-31-22-21-0014; 23-31-22-21-0013; 23-31-22-21-0028
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
SIZE OF PARCEL(S): 23-31-22-21-0056 (0.59 Ac); //;",!:/ //f~ Y
0.29 Ac . 23-31-22-21-0013 5.81 Ac . 23-31-22-21-00 8 0.20 Ac _ /J /I
/154 ff/aJ/I/1f'/ mtd~ 11ff ,~,-~~,1:4',
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Anoka County requests the CUP irf
order to realign Clearwater Creek. Clearwater Creek realignment is required to
accommodate a stormwater treatment pond and meet Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and Rice Creek Watershed District water quality requirements. The
specific pond location is necessary due to grade and utilities constraints. The
proposed channel grade matches the existing channel and contains greater cross-
sectional area, providing for equal or greater hydraulic capacity than the existing
channel.
(Office Use Only Below This Line)
PLANNING & ZONING ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
I have read the attached City Code, Section 155.157: Conditional Uses.
eofA
4lzrlDI/P
I ,
Date
Signature of Property Owner
.
. ...
.~
April 26, 2006
SRF No. 0044994 3040
Mr. Dallas Larson
City Administrator
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55308
Dear Mr. Larson:
SUBJECT:
CSAH 14/ CSAH 21 / CSAH 54 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SP 02-614-14
On behalf of Anoka County and in accordance with Centerville's Ordinance 155.57 CONDTIONAL
USES, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is submitting the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) Application for
the proposed realignment of Clearwater Creek. In addition to the C.U.P. Application, please find three
plan sheets showing the proposed grading and details for the creek realignment. Based upon our
previous discussion, Anoka County will submit a check in the amount of $550.00 made payable to the
City ofCenterville to cover the fee of$250.00 and the $300.00 deposit required for the C.U.P. The
check will be submitted to the City during the week of April 30, 2006.
We are requesting on behalf of Anoka County that the C.U.P. Application be included on the agenda
for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled on May 2, 2006. It is our understanding that a public
hearing on the C.U.P could be set to occur at the City Council meeting on June 6, 2006.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information.
Sincerely,
SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
Nathen A. Will, P.E.
Associate
NA W ibIs
Enclosures
cc: Lyndon Robjent, Anoka County
SRF. VoI3H: \Projects\4994-FIHI-MU\DOC\LetterCenterville CUP 42606.doc
.................A......................
............
",-,,',' .::.::-:.;:::,:;:::
.. .
........................................ ..................
. .
". ".
',", -', '....
A:NIDKA
. <.;QI.JNTY
CHECK NO. 1034001
COUNTY OF ANOKA
g~oo l'~!RQ4,YE"NVE;.......
~O!}A;MIN~SQT~5~303....
Five Hundred Fifty DoJ/ars And 00 Cents * ************* *************
... -- .
":.":'-':":':'::.:'..':-":'- ::'.' '--.' -'
.... - . -. .,-----....... .....
.... . . ..
"',-."- ,-.'. '-'- '-'
'-" "..--" ",","
';-',' '. , -. ....,- ','
. ".,-. '.- ' -, -,-..:." -',:-:"
. " ., , , , .
SJTYOfCENTERVU..I..E ........
1$80 M411\IST i\
....-.- ,. -.. ....
c;EN&~~VI~LE, M&
U~it!'!dsjates
. ......,..-.-...-- --,","
.,.:...::.... "",..-,.
U.s,._P~T.E!'fT ii~/4;<27,m;4.Jl0,~il~'
. ...... WELLS. FARGO BANKIVIIIIINESOTAN,A..ANOKA,M1NNESOTA
ANOKA COUNTY
,,- ~ 0 :l ... 0 0 ~ ,,- I: 0 ~ ~ 0 0 00 . ~ I: 00.00 0 ~ . 00"-
REMITTANCE ADVICE
DATE 01-MAY-06
..........................,......
..................................
.....................................................'.............
CHECK NO. 1034001
.:.:.:';.:.;.;.;.;.;.;...........;....'...;;;...;......'::::::::.. ::::;:;::::::::. ............................... ........, .................................. ..................,.....
..NYg~2€i:i.i.:i:iiJJij.I=::I.:J.:ig~Ig .JJJ...JJJ....::..:.:i:JJ......i.:.i:J.i..i.J.I~g~~~~!!=~~~J..:..l:=:i:.l:. ............ ..::.
02-614-24 27-APR-06 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FEE
.... '\ "'- 00
'-~"'NO
~ ~ ~g(
~ "'\0
.N 't:l~"?
~ ~;;;:i?;'
~.:::I - 't
!- ~~-.....
~~<.::::::::,....,
~ S '~~
."< ~ '"'
~ \:Y ~~
~- ~
:- '"
~ NO
V).
" cr-.
.- '"
" 't
~?
'"
0\0
oo~
~
0.00
.............................................. .........
:}:;:;f::::::::!:==:::!=:::::?:=::: ..... :. :::::::::m..:tHsc6DNf:mr:::.:::::::: ... ................:.:..:....N.:..::...:.E.:........:.T::...:.:.:...::.....P:..........:.A:....:.:::...:.y::.:..:..:A.:.::.~....l.:.s.:.:..:..:..:..:.::
:;:::;:::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::: .... ...................... .:::::::::::::::::::::::::;;:::::;:::::::;:;::::::;:::::;::::::::::;:::::::
550.00
e
l- e
2: c:i
::) 1.0
1.0
0 ~ ti
:a: "l::l
<( 5
...... i:q
0 l:l
0 ~
v
C') <( ti
0
...... Z ~
M W >- co
...... (]) e
~ (9 e
N 0:: C'l
'*I: <(
~ I
0 0
W 0::
I ::::)
0 (/)
N
>-
I Cll
g ...... ~
'w
<( ~
......
'~ Q)
0
Q) 0
U- 0... 0
0 m Q) c:i
~
0 1/1 0
0 C ::::) C')
W <( - Yi>
> '>- :g +
0 00
jjj .?: it: +:#0
U C :gc:i
W ::J 0 01.0
0
0:: 0 u. O~
TOTAL
r:......:..:..:...:....I.:.~....:..:..:@Q;QQ.::
Cti
(J)
Q.)
s::::
'-
(J)
~
.Q
.....
~
~ M
.....
-2 --
~ ~
~ N
'*I:
~ 0..,
s:::: .w
CO u
~ (j)
n::
@:..=:.::..~.:..:::.:::::..@.......~$.Q~Qp.
DRAFT
Planning & ZoDing Commission Report aod ReeommeDdation.
The Planning & Zoning Commission met on June 6, 2006, to hold a public hearing to
consider a request of Anoka County for a conditional use permit (CUP) to excavate and
fill in the floodway for the purpose of relocating a portion of Clearwater Creek.
Findings:
1) The applicant provided evidence that the CUP would be needed to avoid a hardship
and practical difficulty.
2) The applicant provided evidence that public safety would be compromised if the
variance were not granted, specifically that the proposed safety improvements to
County State Aid Highway 14 could not be constructed without the proposed CUP.
3) The Commission determined that no permanent adverse impacts to adjoining
properties would be caused by granting the CUP.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be
granted, finding specifically that the applicant has satisfied the necessary criteria to
qualify; however, subject to the following conditions:
1) The project may be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications
submitted with the application provided Grantee's engineer submits a certificate
indicating that the expected water velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment
transport for the completed segment of the creek will not exceed that of the
portion of Clearwater Creek that the project replaces.
2) Grantee will follow the standards and requirements of the City of Centerville,
Rice Creek Watershed District, Army Corp of Engineers, FEMA Minnesota DNR
and any other agency having jurisdiction over the project or the waters of
Clearwater Creek.
3) At the completion of the project grantee's engineer shall submit a certificate that
the project as-constructed was completed in conformance with the plan filed with
the application.
4) Grantee will secure a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) from Federal
Emergency Management Agency subsequent to the completion of the project.
Dallas Larson, Administrator
CITY OF CENTERVH..J..E
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE#_
SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 154 OF THE
CENTERVILLE CITY CODE BY AMENDING LANGUAGE RELATING TO
PERMISSmLE ENCROACHMENTS INTO FRONT YARDS
TIIE CITY OF CENTERVILLE ORDAINS:
Section 1. Code Section 154.130, (B) 2, shall be amended to read as follows:
(2) A covered or uncovered landing place, steps,.orstoopmay.extend intothe . .{ Deleled:p<rch ________~
required front yard to a distance not exceeding six feet, if its floor is no higher
than the entrance floor of the building. An open railing no higher than three feet
may be placed around the structure. Such permitted encroachment shall not be
enclosed with walls, screens, windows, etc. but must be completely open and if
covered, the cover may be cantilevered or supported with columns and must be
constructed in similar quality and appearance as the building and may not be
constructed with metal roofs or metal columns;
~ion ~. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage
and publication according to law.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this _ day of
Council of the City of Centerville.
, 2006 by the City
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
BY:
Mary Capra, Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2, 2006
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on May 2, 2006, at 6:30 p. m.
PRESENT:
COUNCIL:
Chairperson Brian Hanson
Commissioner Jennefer Klennert Hunt
Commissioner Jeff Hanzal
Commissioner Bob Wright
Commissioner Mark Pangell
Commissioner Tom.......l...l~.....o. Od....l..........: ii.....
D Love ~.............. ......................0....0.......... .....
.. ,.. ........ ... .. .....
... ....... ... ... .....
... ............ ..... .... ......
... ....... ... .. ....
....... .... ... ....
. ...... .." ... ...
... .......... ............. .....
.. ...... ......
. "... ....
.... ........ ......
.. ..... ....
Council Member erway
ABSENT:
STAFF:
Mr. Larson, City Administrator
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
II. APPEARANCES / PRESENT A TION(S)
None.
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Rezoning / Comprehensive Plan Amendment of Certain Parcels within the
Downtown Area
Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Larson gave a brief review of the downtown redevelopment plan and the new zoning
categories. He explained that the M1 zoning is commercial on the first floor with the
possibility of residential or commercial on the second and third floors. He explained that
M2 zoning a higher density level of housing than is currently allowed. Mr. Larson stated
that affected property owners have been mailed notices and also the text of the M1 and
M2 districts so they more fully understand what the new regulations would allow if they
Page 1 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
are adopted. He stated that amending the Comprehensive Plan would go hand in hand
with this zoning change.
Donald Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that he would like to know the difference
between Ml, M2 and R2.
Mr. Larson reiterated the differences between Ml and M2 and noted that R2 is a single
family residential district.
Mr. Opp stated that the building he owns has always been a multiple dwelling unit and
doesn't understand how this has changed.
Mr. Larson stated that R2 is single family and R2A is multiple dwelling. He stated that
there will be some non-conforming uses created by this change that can continue in their
present form, but cannot be expanded.
Bryce Wysloski, 1688 Heritage Street, stated that his property has been split between Ml
and M2 zoning.
Mr. Larson explained that the City had tried to find property lines that fit into a logical
place for this plan.
Mr. Wysloski stated that that the way the lines are drawn, his detached garage is in M2
and his home and attached garage are in Ml and wondered if a distinction would be made
between the two zones for possible expansion.
Mr. Larson stated that the way the guidelines are drafted right now, a change in usage
will need to be within the master plan for the redevelopment.
Wendy Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, stated that her home is current zoned residential and
expressed concern about what this possible zoning change would do to her taxes and
value of her home. Ms. Brilowski stated that she had no idea when she purchased her
home that it would be rezoned to M2.
Mr. Larson stated that the use can continue as residential as a non-conforming use.
Ms. Brilowski stated that she would like to protest this zoning change for her property
because she feels the "rules of the game" have changed.
Commissioner Pangell asked Ms. Brilowski to show the location of her property on the
aerial map.
Mr. Larson asked if her property was part of the County acquisition plan.
Ms. Brilowski stated that the County will buy five feet of her property. She stated that
she does not see the purpose in rezoning her property because she cannot imagine any
Page 2 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
businesses relocating to her property because there is only a school and one other home
in the area right now with no direct access to the property. She stated that she
understands the rezoning along the main corridor, but not on her home site. She stated
that she sees the rezoning as devaluing her home.
Commissioner Hanzal explained what the M2 zoning guidelines are and noted that it is
not necessarily for commercial or business use.
Ms. Brilowski stated that she is not planning on selling to an apartment complex but to
another single family. She stated that she is also concerned that her taxes will increase as
a result of this zoning change.
Chair Hanson stated that her taxes should not increase because taxes are based on current
usage.
Ms. Brilowski stated that she will have to disclose that the property is no longer zoned
residential when she tries to sell the property.
Chair Hanson stated that it is still zoned residential, but just a higher density residential
than currently.
Ms. Brilowski stated that she does not think a developer will be interested in her property
because there is no access to where she lives.
Chair Hanson stated that a developer would need to establish access because property
cannot be landlocked.
Ms. Brilowski reiterated that she would like to remain zoned as single family residential.
Mr. Larson reminded Ms. Brilowski that even if the zoning is changed, she can continue
to use the property as a single family residential use. He stated that the zoning change
may actually increase the value of her property in the long run.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt noted that although the master plan needs to be followed,
there is room for the City to "tweak" the boundaries a bit. She noted that the City is
holding the public hearing to get feedback before we make our final recommendation to
the City Council.
Don Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that he was sure the building he owned has been
zoned multiple dwelling and that it must have been changed at some point without his
knowledge. Mr. Opp confirmed that he will be "grandfathered in" under his old usage.
Commissioner Woods confirmed that the property can continue under its current usage.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt reiterated that it is allowed although it will officially be a
non-conforming use.
Page 3 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
John Ferwerda, 1716 Heritage Street, asked if his taxes will change with the zoning
change.
Mr. Larson stated that zoning changes do not generally impact taxes until properties
begin to sell which could drive up the property values, but noted that it will not happen
immediately.
Mr. Ferwerda noted that his taxes have risen quite a bit in the last few years.
Commissioner Hanzal stated that he did not feel the two issues are related because
everyone's taxes have risen. He stated that when developers come in and start buying
property, the value of the property will go up and at that time, the taxes will begin to
reflect this value.
Mr. Ferwerda asked ifhe would be able to build a garage as he has been planning.
Mr. Larson stated that expansion of a non-conforming use is not permitted, so the
Planning Commission would have to consider this when it arose.
Mr. Ferwerda stated that he did not think his property was originally part of the
redevelopment plan and thought it ended on the north side of Heritage Street.
Mr. Larson stated that the Ml zoning ended on the north side of Heritage Street but not
the entire redevelopment plan.
Randy Gnadke, 1751 Main Street, asked if there was anything proposed in the master
plan for his property.
Mr. Larson stated that the master plan envisions a public building component, which at
one time was thought to be a County library. He stated that this is a difficult block
because of the value of the existing buildings.
Mr. Gnadke stated that if his property is rezoned, then his hands will be tied for
expansion. He stated that he had been planning on building a four season porch. He
stated that he built this home about five years ago and since the expansion of County 14,
many of the nearby houses have begun disappearing, so he may also decide to build
elsewhere. He stated that he would like to request that the City hold off on rezoning his
property for a while and noted that he property" value" will be affected if he cannot do
the things he would like to do with the property.
Mr. Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that if this is a "difficult block" he doesn't
understand why the City is including it in the redevelopment plan.
Mr. Larson stated that looking at the map, this seemed to be a logical boundary.
Page 4 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Ms. Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, stated that they are also considering home
improvements such as new roof, siding, windows and adding a porch and asked if these
projects could move forward with the zoning change.
Mr. Larson stated that the maintenance items such as residing, re-roofing and new
windows, would not be a problem.
Ms. Brilowski stated that they had also planned to expand the kitchen in conjunction with
adding on the new porch, when they purchased the home. She asked if the property is
rezoned, would they be able to complete these projects as they had planned since they
bought the home.
Chair Hanson stated that the projects would be considered on a case by case basis and
that the Planning Commission cannot answer her questions tonight.
Ms. Brilowski stated that she has only lived in this home for one year and noted that they
bought the home with the plan of fixing it up. She stated that if she knew this rezoning
was coming, she would not have purchased the house.
Bryce Wysloski, 1688 Heritage Street, stated that he is new to the area and only found
out about this issue last week. He stated that his father-in-law had previously owned this
house and recently passed away. He stated that at that time, he and his wife, who was
raised in this house, moved into the house and planned to make their life there. He stated
that his wife has been very upset about the possible rezoning and he would like to know
what they do now. He asked if a developer would be coming to them and making an
offer for the property.
Mr. Larson noted that the redevelopment plan is a long term plan and there is no way to
know how quickly or slowly the process will move. He reminded Mr. Wysloski that he
and his wife can continue to live in the house but if they decide to sell to a developer,
they could.
Chair Hanson stated that there have been concerns raised because of recent eminent
domain procedures in the City of Champlin. Chair Hanson assured those present that he
does not see the City of Centerville acquiring property in this manner.
Mr. Larson agreed and noted that the eminent domain powers are being restricted, so it is
a very unlikely outcome for the City to use to acquire property.
Randy Gnadke, 1751 Main Street, asked if any developers had been contacted about the
viability of this master plan.
Mr. Larson stated that a mailing was sent to a number of developers and there have been
a few inquiries wanting to know more about the project so the City is trying to get a
handle on the viability of the plan.
Page 5 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Mr. Gnadke asked if it was true that the Council wanted to have the rezoning process
completed by the end of May.
Mr. Larson stated that the rezoning is a pretty important piece of the puzzle for the
redevelopment plan because developers will want to make sure the zoning matches the
potential use for the property.
Mr. Gnadke asked that the City take more consideration before making a decision and
talk with more developers about the viability of the master plan rather than rezoning this
and lurching forward for the project may not begin for 5 or 10 years.
Eric Marshall, stated that he lives on the lake and purchased nearby property last year
with the thought of splitting it into two lots, one of which would house his shop. He
stated that the City has now "hamstrung" him in his process because of the rezoning and
the moratorium they passed. He stated that he does not understand the logic in rezoning
this to M2 as a residential area when it was rezoned to M 1 last summer. He stated that he
would like to know what the 10 year plan is, so he can plan accordingly.
Mr. Larson stated that the information presented tonight is the plan and noted that the
plans shows a drainage pond on his property, but nothing specific was planned for the
type of housing.
Mr. Marshall stated that he is frustrated because he bought the property, the City imposed
a moratorium and now he is paying $1,000 a month which has affected his lifestyle. He
stated that he followed the laws that were in place last year and now with the changes he
has been hamstrung by the City. He stated that he would like some protection on his
investment.
Kevin Marios, 1740 Main Street, stated that his property is not really affected by these
plans, but was concerned about the lack of adequate parking for the multiple housing
units nearby.
Mr. Larson stated that these units will be required to have underground parking III
addition to the surface parking.
Harold Rivard, 7046 Centerville Road, asked when his property was switched to MI.
Mr. Larson stated that the plan was formed when they looked at properties that would
have potential for commercial traffic and so all comers in Mr. Rivard's area would be
commercial use.
Donald Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that he thinks people will be hurt if the City
makes these changes. He stated that he would like the City to consider the people's good
and not just the city's good.
Page 6 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Randy Gnadke, 1751 Main Street, asked whether any consideration had been given to the
development happening along 35E in Lino Lakes because he thinks that will have an
impact on Centerville. He stated that he thinks developers may be pulled more toward
Lino Lakes than Centerville. He stated that he would like to urge the City to consider the
people and not just "string them along" for ten years and then find out this was not a
viable option. He reiterated that he feels the project should be researched for viability
before it is pursued any further.
Wendy Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, stated that she has attended all of the meetings for
this redevelopment plan and does see some value to the plan and appreciates the City
having foresight to get things in place, but questions some of the rezoning on the outlying
areas. She stated that she feels the outlying areas may have changed from the original
proposal. She stated that it is also unclear how Centerville Road will be improved and
asked if the County had given a commitment to improve the roadway.
Steve King, 1724 Sorel Street, stated that he had come late to the meeting and would like
a clarification of the differences between Ml and M2.
Mr. Larson reiterated the differences between Ml and M2 zoning.
Mr. King stated that he was concerned with parking for the multiple unit structures.
Mr. Larson reiterated that these buildings will be required to have underground parking in
addition to surface parking.
Mr. King asked if this project was considered a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Larson stated that this will probably be developed as a Planned Unit Development
with a contract between the developer and the City.
Mr. King asked if there would be a package deal with the developer that would allow
them certain variances that will not be allowed to residents.
Mr. Larson stated that there would not necessarily be variances involved, but would look
at the whole development as a package.
Mr. King asked if they would have to follow City ordinances such as the noise ordinance.
Chair Hanson stated that they would be held to the same standards and noted that zoning
does not determine what type of ordinance should apply.
Mr. King noted that there has been a lot problems with enforcing the noise ordinance.
Mr. King noted that he does not think housing should be included in this redevelopment
and feels the whole area should be zoned commercial.
Page 7 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Eric Marshall stated that he is concerned that zoning his property M2 will devalue his
property in five or ten years. He stated that he invested in this property with the idea that
he could do something with it and now the rules have been changed. He reminded the
Commission that although, in the big picture, what he is paying on the property is not a
lot of money, but it is real money to him.
Donald Opp, 7124 Progress Road, stated that some people are being hurt by this plan and
that while he understands the City's position that they need to develop something in the
downtown area, he feels it would be fair to put a time frame on it. He stated that, for
example, if something doesn't happen in seven years, the properties can revert back to
their old zoning.
Mr. Larson stated that he feels it may be appropriate to look at the plan in five years to
see if it is still viable, but cautioned against an automatic default to the prior zoning.
Harold Rivard, 7046 Centerville Road, asked if the County had any plans to improve
Centerville Road.
Mr. Larson stated that they have not expressed anything in the near term plans for
Centerville Road. He stated that there was discussion about bringing road improvements
down Centerville Road to Sorel Street for water and sewer improvements, but the plan
never involved any funding from the County. He stated that the master plan suggests
that the right of way move from 50 feet to 80 feet.
Wendy Brilowski, 7124 Main Street, asked whether the financial constraints have been
considered in the plans in case the road cannot be widened.
Mr. Larson stated that the road will be widened, but it is just a matter of who will pay for
it.
Mr. King stated that if only his property was sold to the developer, would they just put in
a portion of the multiple housing units.
Mr. Larson stated that it would make sense for the developer to acquire the whole area
for the development and not develop it piecemeal.
Mr. Marshall asked if there would be any tax assistance for the developers.
Mr. Larson stated that is uncertain because there are a lot of potential public costs for
things like parking lots, sewer, water, and road improvements.
Chair Hanson asked ifthere would be any grants available for these projects.
Mr. Larson stated that he expected there may be grants that the City would qualify for.
Mr. Marshall asked if the City was looking for a specific type of building on his property.
Page 8 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Mr. Larson showed an example of the streetscape the City would like to see. He stated
that he can share development standards and the market study of what type of businesses
that may find this an attractive marketplace with Mr. Marshall. He stated that the master
plan does not specify what businesses should be there, just goals on what the City would
like it to look like. He stated that he will provide a copy to Mr. Marshall of this
information in addition to posting on the website.
Mr. King asked what valuation the City would like for the condo units.
Commissioner Woods stated that the City is looking for high quality units, but the price
will be set by the market. He stated that he would estimate that it would be somewhere in
the $200,000 range.
Motion by Commissioner Hanzal, seconded by Commissioner Woods to close the
public hearillfZ. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m.
Mr. Larson stated that the discussion covered both item one and two from the public
hearing calendar but the Commission still needed to have a public hearing on item three.
Chair Hanson stated that we had not officially opened the public hearing for item two and
stated that he felt we should.
2. Proposed Ordinance #3, Second Series - ModifYing M-l District Requirements
and Adding the M - 2 District
Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Pan2ell to
close the public hearin2. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
3. Proposed Ordinance #5, Second Series - Modifying Definitions and Changing
Regulations Related to Accessory Structures
Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Commissioner Hanzalleft the meeting at 7:56 p.m.
Mr. Larson gave a brief overview of the ordinance information.
Chair Hanson asked if this would affect the lot in the redevelopment plan that is both Ml
and M2.
Page 9 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Mr. Larson stated that this does not have any bearing on what the property owner can or
cannot do.
Bryce Wysloski, 1688 Heritage Street, asked if Chair Hanson was referring to his
property and whether this ordinance change was only referring to new buildings.
Mr. Larson stated that the ordinance does not impact existing structures only new
structures.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt stated that this ordinance will apply to the entire
community and not just the redevelopment plan area.
Motion bv Commissioner Klennert Hunt. seconded bv Commissioner Pan2ell to
close the public hearin2. All present in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Hanson stated that he would like to have discussion on the first item from tonight's
public hearing. He stated that he understands this effects a number of individuals but he
believes this will help revitalize Centerville and feels the City needs to do something to
work towards getting a downtown area. He stated that there has been a lot of research
and planning to put this plan together.
Commissioner Woods stated that he has been a part of the process in putting together a
master plan for the downtown area. He stated that right now we are a community of
homes and he feels it would be nice to have a community with a presence other than
residential. He stated that he sees a commercial presence bringing in convenience and a
tax base, but also a downtown as a gathering place. He stated that he grew up in a small
town in rural Wisconsin and likes the comfortable feeling of knowing the shop owners
and people in the community. He stated that a downtown brings a community that is
circled around itself.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt asked questions about some of the outlying parcels of the
master plan which are not directly part of redevelopment but encompassed with the
rezonmg.
Mr. Larson stated that some of the parcels do not need to be included, but were included
as a way of squaring up the area in a logical sense.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt stated that she is concerned that the City is "biting off more
than it can chew". She stated that she understands many of the concerns expressed
during the public hearing and was unaware that residents would not be able to build any
accessory structures as part of the rezoning process. She stated that she is concerned that,
in the outlying areas, such as Ms. Brilowski's property, the City is messing a little too
much with people's lives. She understands that the boundaries made sense, but many of
these structures are older homes that the residents need to do something, such as adding
on or building accessory structures, to make them workable. She stated that she feels
Page 10 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
some of the boundaries should be changed and then the City should continue to look at
this and see what happens. She stated that she does not want to see people left hanging.
Mr. Larson stated that the boundaries can be modified, but cautioned that he feels the
City needs to give the project a chance to succeed. He stated that once the boundaries are
determined, the City should be pretty strict about what is allowed to happen on these
parcels. He stated this type of process has taken other cities four or five years to get up
and running and stated that we should give the plan time to develop.
Commissioner Woods stated that in order to get developers involved, the City needs to
have guidelines and districts in place or they will not come.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt stated that she doesn't disagree but feels the City needs to
be cognizant of other things that are happening. She stated that she feels the City needs to
be up front with people in letting them know what they can and cannot do on their
property.
Commissioner Wright stated that he agrees that it may not make sense to include Ms.
Brilowski's property in the rezoning plan.
Commissioner Pangell stated that he likes the current usage of the property in this area.
Commissioner Woods stated that he does not feel excluding this parcel would hurt the
master plan, but would like to stick with the rest of the proposed plan.
Commissioner Pangell stated that he has mixed feelings about this project. He stated that
on one hand he would like to be optimistic about the master plan, but on the other hand,
the plan effects many long term residents. He stated that he thinks this is a good vision
for the future, but is a hard decision for him to make.
Mr. Larson reiterated that once the decision is made, it is important that we give it a
reasonable amount of time to develop and happen.
Chair Hanson asked if the City was being proactive and trying to find developers.
Mr. Larson stated that the Council may schedule a work session and invite the Planning
Commission to work with them on how to bring developers into the process. He stated
that we need to figure out how to market this project.
Councilmember Terway stated that this plan will affect everyone in the City and
Centerville will change. He stated that he feels this will have a positive effect on the City
and we need to give it a chance to succeed. He stated that the City Council has put a lot
of time and effort into this plan and will continue to do so. He stated that he felt it was
important not to start "what iffing" ourselves and move backwards.
Motion bv Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded bv Commissioner Woods to
recommend Council approval of the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan
Page 11 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Amendment of Certain Parcels Within the Downtown Area and exclude lots 7
throue:h 10 as discussed. All present in favor. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Wrh~ht. seconded by Commissioner Pane:ell to
recommend Council approval of Ordinance #3. Second Series. Modifvine: M-l
District Requirements and Addinl! the M-2 District. All present in favor. Motion
carried.
Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt. seconded by Commissioner Woods to
recommend Council approval of Ordinance #5. Second Series. Modifvinl!
Definitions and Chane:ine: Ree:ulations Related to Accessory Structures. All present
in favor. Motion carried.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Calling for a Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (Realign Clearwater
Creek) (SRF - Anoka County CSAH 14 Proiect)
Mr. Larson gave an overview of the possibility of moving the creek to make room for the
planned pond as part of the redevelopment plan. He stated that this will require a
Conditional Use Permit in addition to a public hearing because it is part of the flood
plain.
Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt. seconded by Commissioner Woods. to
schedule a public hearine: at the June meetine: for discussion of the Conditional Use
Permit (Realie:n Clearwater Creek) (SRF - Anoka County CSAH 14 Proiect). All
present in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Mr. Steve Hulback. 1736 Center Street Covered Porch Request (Ordinance
Amendment)
Mr. Larson explained that this is an informal request for some sort of cover over his
porch to keep rain off his head as he enters and exits his home. He stated that allowing
this type of porch would require an ordinance amendment. He noted information he had
gathered from other cities on allowing this type of building addition.
Chair Hanson stated that he feels if this is allowed, the City would need to create specific
stipulations about such things as width, height and roof pitch.
Commissioner Wright stated that he feels anything allowed should not have walls but be
open on the sides.
Page 12 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
Mr. Larson noted that he feels the ordinance from Brooklyn Park may be the closest to
tonight's discussion.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt noted that the porch type of architecture is making a come
back.
Commissioner Woods stated that he supports allowing a type of porch that has a roof, but
no walls.
The Commissioner discussed different architectural styles and continuity within
neighborhoods.
Commissioner Pangell asked if there was a way for the Planning Commission to see all
the plans before they were approved.
Mr. Larson stated that it could be made a Conditional Use Permit which would create
more of a burden on the property owner. He cautioned that if the reason to see the plans
was to approve architectural styles, then he suggests it not be a Conditional Use Permit
because then you are trying to impose the Planning Commission's design taste onto
individuals.
The Commission discussed possible setback issues and materials allowed.
Mr. Larson stated that he will draft an ordinance amendment that incorporates the
Brooklyn Park language and also that no metal or tin roofs are allowed on the structure.
He stated that he will E-mail this information to the Commissioners and suggested
scheduling a public hearing for the June meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Pan2;ell. seconded bv Commissioner Wri2;ht. to direct the
City Administrator to draft an ordinance amendment to allow covered porches and
schedule a public hearin2; for the June meetin2;. All present in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. April 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt. seconded by Commissioner Pan2;ell to
approve the Minutes of April 4. 2006. as presented. Commissioners Pan2;ell.
Wri2;ht. Klennert Hunt and Woods in favor. Chair Hanson abstained. Motion
carried.
Page 13 of 14
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2006
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Woods. seconded by Commissioner KIennert Hunt to
Adiourn the May 2. 2006 Plannin2 Commission meetin2 at 8:58 p.m. All present in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Kayla Atkins-Rokosz, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 14 of 14