Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-03 P & Z Packet CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 3, 2024 6:30p.m. Meeting Live Streamed at: https://northmetrotv.com/centerville-stream/ MEETING (6:30 PM) I.CALL TO ORDER 1.Roll Call II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III.APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV.PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:30 PM or shortly thereafter) 1.None V.AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPEARANCES 1.None VI.OLD BUSINESS 1.Call for a Public Hearing –Downtown Redevelopment Documents VII.NEW BUSINESS 1.Proposed Building Material Review –Texturewall Panel System 2.Concept Sketch Review –Design House Greetings 3.Site Plan Review –Iron Valley Equipment VIII.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.June 4, 2024, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 2.July 9, 2024,Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes IX.ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES 1.Council Member Liaison 2.Administrator’s Report X.ADJOURNMENT INFORMATION None CITY OF CENTERVILLEREQUEST FOR ACTION Agenda Item # Department: RequestedMeetingDate: September 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning VI.1 TITLE OF ISSUE: Call for a Public Hearing - Downtown Redevelopment Documents BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: At the August 14 City Council meeting, the Council adopted a Resolution to clear up misalignment of the city's guiding planning documents. The initial step involves clearing up inconsistencies between City Code and the Downtown Master Plan. These changes will aim to clarify, but not reinvent either document. A broader review of the Downtown Master Plan will begin soon, with the guidance of a planning firm and ask force of community stakeholders. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission call for a public hearing to be held at their October 1 meeting to provide input on proposed changes to the Downtown Master Plan and City Code Chapter 156, related to the M-1 and M-2 districts, aimed at aligning the two documents. COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING: Minor Publication Costs - General Fund REQUESTED ACTION: Motion to call for a public hearing on proposed changes to the Downtown Master Plan and City Code Chapter 156, related to the M-1 and M-2 districts, aimed at aligning the two documents. For ClerkÓs Use: SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Motion By: ____________________________________ Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map Second By: ____________________________________ Vote Record: Aye Nay _____ Public Hearnin gNotice Other (specify) ____________ ______________________________________________________________ _____ _______________________________________________________________ Refer to: _________________________________ Tabled Until: ______________________________ Consent Other: ___________________________________ Regular CITY OF CENTERVILLE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Centerville Planning & Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at the Centerville City Hall, 1880 Main Street in the Council Chambers beginning at 6:30 p.m. or shortly thereafter on the following matter: To consider amending language to City Code, Chapter 156, Zoning Code, §156.051, Mixed Use District (M-1) and §156.052, Mixed Use District (M-2). The Downtown Master Plan and Development Guidelines may be amended as well. The purpose of above stated amendments will clarify discrepancies between the two documents. City Hall is ADA accessible. Requests for hearing assisted devices or a sign language interpreter must be received before 4:00 p.m., September 23, 2024. All persons interested are invited to attend and to be heard or may submit in writing their concerns. You may contact the City ClerkÓs office at (651) 792-7933 or by facsimile (651) 429-8629 if you need additional information. Published in the Quad Community Press on September 17, 2024. Memorandum Date: August 23, 2024 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Mark Statz, PE – City Administrator/Engineer Subject:Downtown Master Plan Logistics At the City Council’s last meeting, a public hearing was held on whetheror not to institute a moratorium on Planned Unit Developments in the M-1 and M-2 Zoning Districts as suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In short, this would have paused all development in downtown for a period of up to a year. The purpose of the proposed moratorium was to study the guiding documents related to downtown redevelopment, including the: Downtown Master Plan and Development Guidelines, Comprehensive Plan, City Code. The purpose of the study would be to clear up existing discrepancies on issues such as density, building height, number of allowed building stories, parking, architecture and the like. Additionally, the planning commission recognized that the public has expressed interest in revisiting the feasibility of downtown redevelopment as it is presented in the Downtown Master Plan. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council voted 3-2 in favor of the following motion, which did not include a moratorium. Resolution: WHEREAS, the community concern of malalignment of documents is supported by the City Council who also feels that there is a malalignment of documents that are guiding decisions, and WHEREAS, the council declined to vote for a partial or complete moratorium, today, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Centerville expresses to the community that they are completely committed to investigating, engaging, and supporting a community-involved and professionally supported pathway to realigned documents and goals. Based on the direction from the Resolution, above, staff has begun laying out a path, by which, the city’s elected officials, appointed boards, and the public at large can collaborate on an updated vision for the city’s core. Fix Inconsistencies As a first order of business, aimed at preventing a repeat of the issues encountered during the review of the LaLonde development, staff would review, with the Planning Commission, the issues which seemed to have the most obvious inconsistencies. Once the issues are identified and a direction on each fix is established, public hearings would be called to allow edits to the required documents. The fixes here would not proport to change the underlying vision of the Downtown Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan, it would simply align the existing documents. In general staff recommends aligning documents to clarify that the M-2 district should be made up of buildings of 2 stories or less, with densities less than 30 units/acre. Staff anticipates this could take as little as 2 months, as shown below. If changes to the comprehensive plan are required, those changes could take an additional month or two. Schedule September 3 – P&Z Reviews issues, gives direction on fixes, calls for public hearings. October 1 – P&Z Holds public hearings on fixes. October 9 – City Council has first reading of new ordinances/master plan language October 23 – City Council has second reading and authorizes publication October 29 – Changes are published and go into effect. Downtown Reimagined The larger goal of a reimagined downtown plan will take much longer; perhaps a year or so. There is no reason that this process cannot take place in parallel with the quick fixes described above. Scope Before a process like this can begin, the Council will need to lay out their boundaries for the effort. Namely, should the process reexamine key goals and policies from the Comprehensive plans, such as: Provide a housing mixture that will allow for low, middle and high-income families… Plan densities and provide services for a sustainable population in excess of 5,000 people at full build-out. Development of workforce rental housing The goals and policies above are not a complete list of those from the Comprehensive Plan but are examples of those which may need to be examined prior to reimagining a downtown plan. More concisely, the Council will need to decide whether or not the process should be focused on reimagining the City’s downtown, or whether it should revisit the idea that the City should have a downtown or Central Business District at all. Process Whether the City Council decides on a narrow or wide focus, the next step will be to decide on a public engagement process. An examination of this scope is best accomplished with more input from the public than would typically be afforded through the legally required public hearings. That input could be garnered through additional public meetings and open houses, and/or through the creation of a task force, made up of elected officials, appointed officials, downtown business and land owners, and representatives from the public at large. Alternatively, the process of revisiting the downtown plan could reside within the authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, since the committee is made up of 7 residents from our community. If a task force model is used, it should be given clear direction from the City Council as to its scope, schedule, budget and process. The City Council should be solely responsible for making appointments to this ad hoc committee. Staff suggests using a task force of no more than 12 people made up of: 2 City Council Members 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Members 2 Business or Land Owners in the Downtown 1 Parks and Rec Committee Member 1 Economic Development Authority Member (non-Council) 4 Community-at-Large Members The Council’s resolution commits to a professionally guided process. While staff humbly asserts that we have the necessary expertise to facilitate the process, it may be beneficial to have an outside consultant lead the group. The cost of a consultant will largely depend on the number of meetings for both a task force and other public engagement events as well as the scope of the study. Staff anticipates costs may range from $20,000 to $50,000 or more. Staff recommends soliciting proposals from qualified firms to lead a task force or the Planning Commission through a reexamination of various planning goals and policies and subsequently, the downtown master plan with an initial budget of $50,000. Staff will initiate a discussion during the work session to seek guidance on the various recommendations in bold, above. areas several light Plan and between to Master brought have Downtown on: the proposals guidance slides examine several topics and suggest simple below. Background and Process development seeking is Are there topics not discussed below with significant inconsistencies?Are there better ways to address the inconsistencies than what are presented –– Recentof inconsistency withinthe DMP, City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.The followingchanges to alleviate confusion.StaffStaff’s suggestion is to quickly address these issues, then take a step back and begin planning a larger initiative to fully reexamine the approach to downtown redevelopment. •••• CITY OF CENTERVILLEREQUEST FOR ACTION Agenda Item # Department: RequestedMeetingDate: September 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning VII.1 TITLE OF ISSUE: Proposed Building Materials Review - Texturewall Panel System BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: City Code Chapter 156.040 (P) states: "Industrial exterior building materials. Industrial buildings are required to be constructed of brick, decorative block or approved textured masonry product. Pole barn type buildings are not allowed." Over the past 20 years or more, tip-up style masonry panels have been widely used and accepted as an "approved masonry product". The product being proposed (Texturewall) looks and functions much like masonry tip-up panels except they are constructed of steel, with a hard aggregate-fiber-reinforced polymer finish. The purpose of the city code is two-fold: aesthetics and enduring taxable value. Traditional metal pole buildings or the use of metal exteriors often leads to lower taxable value and a decline in value over time. Staff has reviewed these panels and consulted with our city appraisers and conclude that the panels will look similar to and hold value as much as their masonry tip-up panel counterparts. Approval is recommended by staff. COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING: N/A REQUESTED ACTION: Motion to approve Texturewall and similar products as acceptable exterior materials for industrial buildings. For ClerkÓs Use: SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Motion By: ____________________________________ Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map Second By: ____________________________________ Vote Record: Aye Nay _____ Product Info; email from City Assesors Other (specify) ____________ ______________________________________________________________ _____ _______________________________________________________________ Refer to: _________________________________ Tabled Until: ______________________________ Consent Other: ___________________________________ Regular Costco Wholesale locaons; 955 Blue Geman Road, Eagan MN & 7070 Tamarack Road, Woodbury MN Dakota Truck; 21450 Humboldt Court, Lakeville, MN Interstate Company; 21568 Highview Avenue, Lakeville MN Versale Vehicles; 17136 Adelmann Street SE, Prior Lake MN Open Road RV Center; 3880 Chelsea Road, Moncello MN Nuss Truck & Equipment; 3499 Chelsea Road, Moncello MN ™ TEXTUREWALL PANEL WALL SYSTEM ® The classic beauty of stucco. The enhanced performance of a Butler building system. You can add this attractive ™ combination of benefits with the TextureWall panel wall system. The textured look of this system makes it particularly ideal in instances where local building ordinances require a masonry or stucco exterior. Choose the TextureWall system to add the beauty of stucco in applications such as retail centers, churches, recreational and community facilities, and more. CREATE CLASSIC BEAUTY The exterior face of the TextureWall system ™ features the Texture-Cote finish system—a hard aggregate-fiber-reinforced polymer finish that creates its characteristic stucco appearance. The metal interior face is finished in an attractive, virtually flat finish with a polyester white color that is USDA approved. This can act as a finished interior wall or can be used for the application of other wall materials. CUSTOMIZE THE LOOK deliver excellent energy efficiency, with an The rich textured surface of the Texture-Cote finish R-value from 15 to 32 depending on panel system is available in four attractive color options. thickness. The factory-applied joint sealant Each is designed to complement other building provides a complete wall system weather barrier. materials, including Butler wall and roof systems. And 42" Panels are offered in 2- to 4-inch thicknesses. with its 42-inch panel width, the TextureWall system EXTERIOR FACE creates a stunning monolithic stucco appearance. 2"-4" INTERIOR FACEFOAM CORE FAST INSTALLATION INSULATION Installation of the Texture-Cote system can be performed from the exterior of the building, which ASSURE LASTING DURABILITY saves time and money. The TextureWall system’s durable surface resists the effects of impact, abrasion, and Aspen White IIAdobe II COMPARE OUR WARRANTY harsh weather. And unlike field-applied finishes While many field-applied systems offer a that are vulnerable to damp or cold weather prorated 5-year warranty on the coating material during installation, TextureWall panels can be only, Butler stands behind the Texture-Cote finish erected in virtually any weather condition. system with a full 10-year warranty on material and application. BUILT-IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY White IIGray II Note: Colors shown may vary from actual samples due to The TextureWall system’s factory-installed foam variations in the printing process. Colors and color availability subject to change without notice. core insulation and thermal break joint design ™ TextureWall Panel WALL SYSTEM PANEL-TO-STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT Concealed clip provides easy Girt exterior installation and clean look Attractive interior surface Thermal break joint to enhance energy efficiency Foam core insulation to The classic textured look of stucco, enhance energy efficiency with a 10-year finish warranty (available in 2"–4" thicknesses) The added durability of the ™ Texture-Cote finish system Four attractive colors Key Benefits The classic textured look of stucco satisfies many local building codes requiring masonry or stucco exteriors 10-year finish warranty Can be erected in virtually all weather conditions Foam core insulation and thermal break joint enhance energy efficiency Attractive interior metal panel provides finished look without the need for additional materials ™ The added durability of the Texture-Cote finish system Four attractive colors Wide 42" panels create a monolithic appearance BUTLER OFFERS YOU MORE Butler Builders provide complete construction services with single-source responsibility • Reputable professionals with extensive knowledge of local building codes Maximize your building’s performance with ® a complete Butler system solution • Innovative structural, wall, and roof systems • Precision engineered for seamless integration Butler ManufacturingButler Buildings Canada Kansas City, MOBurlington, ON, Canada 816-968-3000905-332-7786 www.butlermfg.com ®®™ Butler building products are constantly being improved; therefore, the information contained herein is subject to change without notice. Before finalizing project details, contact your nearest Butler Builder or Butler Manufacturing for the latest information. Galvalume is a registered trademark of BIEC International, Inc. USGBC logo is a registered trademark owned by the U.S. Green Building Council and is used by permission. IAS is a subsidiary company of the International Code Council. The ENERGY STAR name and the ENERGY STAR symbol are registered trademarks of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. ™® © 2017 BlueScope Buildings North America, Inc. All rights reserved. Butler Manufacturing is a division of BlueScope Buildings North America, Inc. Find your independent Butler Builder at www.butlerbuilder.com. Form No. 5218 03/17 From:Erik Skogquist To:Mark Statz Cc:Paul Palzer; Athanasia Lewis Subject:Re: FW: Design House Greetings Building Date:Tuesday, August 20, 2024 2:23:12 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Mark, Yes I have seen them before although concrete tilt-up panels are far more common. In playing with a few different ways I could or may value them, it doesn't appear there would be a significant difference between either construction type and would treat them very similarly unless I had good market data to show me otherwise. Erik A. Skogquist Senior Accredited MN Assessor, License #3121 > wrote: A builder is proposing the attached wall panels for a warehouse building in our industrial district. Our code allows: “…other textured masonry product…” when compared to traditional tip-up style panels? From: Mark Statz <mstatz@centervillemn.com> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 4:01 PM To: Paul Palzer <PPalzer@centervillemn.com> Cc: Dan Schmitz <DSchmitz@centervillemn.com> Subject: FW: Design House Greetings Building Paul and Dan, CITY OF CENTERVILLEREQUEST FOR ACTION Agenda Item # Department: RequestedMeetingDate: September 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning VII.2 TITLE OF ISSUE: Concept Sketch - Design House Greetings BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING: N/A REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion. For ClerkÓs Use: SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Motion By: ____________________________________ Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map Second By: ____________________________________ Vote Record: Aye Nay _____ Concept Sketch Other (specify) ____________ ______________________________________________________________ _____ _______________________________________________________________ Refer to: _________________________________ Tabled Until: ______________________________ Consent Other: ___________________________________ Regular Memorandum Date:August 30, 2024 To:Honorable Chair and Planning Commission From:Mark Statz, PE –City Administrator/Engineer Subject:Concept Sketch Review –Design House Greetings Staff has received a concept sketch from Design House Greetings to build a roughly 12,000 SF building on a 1.4 acre site located just north of their existing warehouse and office on Gateway Circle. The new building would be constructed at 2062 Fairview Street (PID 24-31-22-33-0008), and the proposed warehouse, is a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District on the Table of Allowed Uses (Table 156-A) in the Zoning Code. With a permitted use on a platted lot, there is no need for a public hearing, since there is no plat and no conditional use permit to be reviewed. After the concept sketch is reviewed, a formalSite Plan Approval Application will be brought forward for final approval. Parking/Loading/Driveway The sketch shows a driveway, loading dock areas and employee parking. Two of the loading docks are for semi-trailers, the other is an at-grade dock. City code requires one off-street loading space for facilities with 10,000 sf of gross floor area, plus one additional space for each 25,000 sf. With a gross floor area of around 12,000 sf, this facility only requires one dock; three are provided. Eleven parking spaces are shown in the lot for employees or visitors. The minimum parking requirements for warehousing space is two spaces per 1000 sf. Again, with 12,000 sf of space, the minimum would be 24 spaces. The current design of the building site does not meet city code with regard to parking spaces. However, section 156.166 (E) allows fewer parking spaces through a conditional use permit (CUP). The CUP may require the missing parking spaces to be held in a “landscape reserve” in case the need arises. If the applicant wishes to address parking needs through a CUP, they would need to apply for one and go through the public hearing process. Landscaping City code requires one tree per 3,000 sf of the site area. At 1.4 acres, the site would require 20 trees. The sketch appears to show 4 trees along the boulevard. At least 16 additional trees would be required on the site to meet city code. There appears to be room around the perimeter of the site. The code’s shrub requirement is one shrub for every 10 feet of building and parking area perimeter. The building’s perimeter is 432 ft, plus the parking area’s perimeter of 170 ft (excludes perimeter adjacent to building and perimeter of drive and loading areas). This brings the total perimeter to 602 lineal feet, for a planting requirement of 60 shrubs. The sketch currently shows 21 shrubs. An additional 39 shrubs would be required. There are plenty of spaces for these plantings. The requirement of 10% of any lot being green space appears to be met. The requirement of 3% of the surface area of land within a parking area appears to be met with the landscaped areas adjacent to the parking lot. Setbacks Setbacks and other minimums for lot and building size appear to be met by the proposed building and its location on the lot. Architecture The architecture depicted could, perhaps use some "contrasting architectural features" as described in code, and the wall materials are on this agenda for review. Staff is requesting the Commission review the concept sketch and provide feedback to the applicant so they can make final revisions and submit a formal Site Plan Review application and, if necessary, a Conditional Use Permit application. shall occur on site except minor maintenance including tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. Vehicles that are inoperable or are missing body parts shall be stored inside a building. (2)Automobile and motorized equipment service, excluding salvage operation, as accessory to a gas station, provided all repair, assembly, disassembly, or maintenance of vehicles shall occur within a closed building except minor maintenance including tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. Vehicles that are inoperable or missing body parts shall be stored inside a building. or in a properly screened area, provide however that vehicles which are inoperable, missing body parts, or are unlicensed may not be stored outside a building longer than 90 days. (3)Building supply sales, provided all sales and storage of materials and equipment shall be completely within an enclosed building. (4)Commercial schools and cultural centers; (5)Commercial recreation; (6)Funeral homes and mortuaries (excluding crematoriums); (7)Hospitals; (8)Outdoor retail sales and service, excluding adult-oriented businesses; (9)Licensed Day Care Serving 17 or more persons; (10)Car Wash, as an accessory to Retail Fuel Sales Ord. 2d #97, amended 05/23/2019, Ord. 2d #108, amended 11/13/2020. Cross-reference: Setbacks, see Appendix A, Table 1, Schedule of District Regulations Lot and Yard Requirements Requirements and Table 156-A.1 District Allowed Uses Signs, see Chapter 152 §§ 156.032 THROUGH 156.039 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE. § 156.040 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I-1). § 156.040 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I-1). (A)Purpose. It is intended that the I-1 District provide opportunities for light manufacturing and industrial uses, trade businesses, machine shops and other more extensive land uses. 354 ΋tğŭĻ (B)General minimum requirements. The following minimum requirements, as set forth herein, shall apply to all buildings that may be erected, converted or structurally altered in industrial districts. (C)Setbacks.Setbacks. Specific setbacks are set forth in Appendix Specific setbacks are set forth in Appendix A, Table 1, District ReA, Table 1, District Regulations Lot and Yard Requirements. In addition, side yards facing streets on corner lots shall be considered the same as front yards. Where a front yard or side yard of a corner lot faces a residential district across a street, the setback from the street shall be not less than 60 feet. (D)Off-street parking. Off-street parking shall be provided as required by this chapter. All open street parking areas having more than six parking spaces shall be effectively screened by a wall, fence of acceptable design or compact hedge along all sides which adjoin or are directly across the street from the property in a residential zone or institutional use. The wall, fence or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. Plans for fencing shall be approved by the City Council. The fence shall not be used for advertising purposes. (E)Buffer zone between industrial and residential districts. Where the side yard of any industrial district abuts a residential district, the minimum side yard setback shall be 60 feet. Parking of vehicles will be permitted within 40 feet of the side yard line. All side yard areas not utilized for parking shall be landscaped with screening provided along the side lot line to within 15 feet of any public right-of-way. (F)Screening requirements. If the City Council requires any type of screening as a condition for a variance or, conditional use, or interim use the applicant shall comply with the following conditions: (1)File a copy of the screening plans with the Zoning Administrator; (2)The screening, planting or construction, or both shall be complete within one year from the date of building permit, subject to extension by the City Council; (3)The screening shall be maintained after completion; and (4)A dollar amount of one and one-half times the estimated cost of planting and construction of the screening shall be filed with the city in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit. The cash escrow or letter of credit amount shall be forfeited to the city if any provisions of this section are violated. (G)Landscaping. Landscaping. Landscaping. A minimum of ten percent of any lot shall beA minimum of ten percent of any lot shall beA minimum of ten percent of any lot shall be green space. Three green space. Three green space. Three percent of the surface percent of the surface percent of the surface area of the land within a parking area shall be landsarea of the land within a parking area shall be landscaped with grass and shrubbery or other approved caped with grass and shrubbery or other approved ground cover. Landscaped areas will continue to be maintained by the property owner on a continuous basis. Green areas within abutting street rights-of-basis. Green areas within abutting street rights-of-way will also be maintained by the property owner. way will also be maintained by the property owner. Additional landscaping regulations are set forth in § 156.178. Additional landscaping regulations are set forth in § 156.178. (H)Accessory structures. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. Accessory structures shall comply with other requirements of this chapter. 355 ΋tğŭĻ (I)Permitted encroachments. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on setbacks subject to other conditions within this chapter: off-street parking spaces, flues, belt course, leaders, sills, pilaster, lintels, cornices, eaves, gutters, awnings, open terraces, service station pump islands, open canopies, steps, chimneys, flagpoles, ornamental features, open fire escapes, sidewalks and fences, except as hereinafter amended. (J)Driveways. (1)No driveway shall be located within 100 feet of any right-of-way line of a street intersection. This distance shall be measured along the property line from the corner right-of-way line. (2)Access drives onto county roads shall require a review by the City Engineer. (K)Refuse. (1)Garbage and rubbish containers shall be placed at the rear of the premises or in a manner as to be out of view from the street. In no event shall containers or their enclosures be placed or maintained in a way to unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of adjoining property. (2)All garbage containers shall be screened with a suitable enclosure. (L)Loading facilities. Loading facilities shall be on . Loading facilities shall be on the side of rear yards. When adjacent to and/or visible the side of rear yards. When adjacent to and/or visible from any public street, the facilities must be adequately screened. (M)Storage. For the purpose of this zoning district, car, vans and pickup trucks parked outside and used by employees and/or visitors in the normal course of the business operation will not be construed to be outdoor storage. Further, outside parked trucks and semi-trailers used in the normal business commerce will not be construed to be outdoor storage: (1)Provided that the total number of trucks and semi-trailers does not exceed the number of docks and/or bay doors; and (2)This use is not construed as an operation listed as a conditional use in any industrial zone. (N)Permitted usesPermitted uses. See Table 156-A.1. . See Table 156-A.1. (1)Uses not explicitly enumerated in this section as permitted uses, but closely similar thereto as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission, provided these uses are not explicitly mentioned as permitted or conditional uses elsewhere in this Chapter. (O)Conditional uses. See Table 156-A.1. (P)(P)Industrial exterior building materials.Industrial exterior building materials.Industrial exterior building materials. Industrial buildings Industrial buildings Industrial buildings are required to be constructed of brick, are required to be constructed of brick, are required to be constructed of brick, decorative block or approved textured masonry product.decorative block or approved textured masonry product. Pole barn type buildings are not allowed. Pole barn type buildings are not allowed. 356 ΋tğŭĻ Buildings are required to have contrasting architecturaBuildings are required to have contrasting architecturaBuildings are required to have contrasting architectural features and must be del features and must be designed to be aesthetically signed to be aesthetically pleasing. pleasing. Cross-reference: Signs, see Chapter 152 Adult business licensing, see Chapter 110 Ord. 2d, #40. Amended 12/22/2010, Ord. 2d #58 amended 10/10/2012 §§ 156.041 THROUGH 156.049 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE. § 156.050 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (P-1). (A)Purpose. It is intended that the P-1 District provide opportunities for government facilities, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries and other similar public and institutional uses. (B)Permitted uses. (1)Government buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, rights-of-way, easements, parks, open spaces and vacant land; and (2)Schools, churches, cultural and educational facilities and uses, libraries, hospitals and health facilities. Ord. 2d #58, amended 10/10/2012 § 156.051 MIXED USE DISTRICT (M-1). (A)Purpose. It is intended that the M-1 District implement the "Master Plan and Development Guidelines for Downtown Centerville," adopted by the City Council on January 11, 2006 (the "Redevelopment Plan"), and provide for the unique layout and character of a traditional central business district with retail, professional office, accessory residential and other mixed uses. The M-1 District correlates to the ÐMixed Use CorridorsÑ in the Redevelopment Plan. (B)Permitted uses. See Table 156-A.1. (1)Residential uses with a density between 12 and 30 units per acre. (2)Retail uses must occupy the first floor of all buildings. (C)Special requirements. The following special requirements are intended to implement the Redevelopment Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference. 357 ΋tğŭĻ APPENDIX A TABLE 1: DISTRICT REGULATIONS LOT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS District Regulations Zoning District Min. Area Min. Front Rear Side Min. Min. Width Setback Setback Setback Bldg. Garage Size Size Ground Floor Sq. Ft. R-1 Rural Residential* 10 acres 300 ft.35 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 1,050 ft. N/A R-2A Single-Family 11,500 ft. 80 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 900 ft. 440 ft. Residential* R-2 Single-Family 15,000 ft. 100 ft.35 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 1,050 ft. 440 ft. Residential* R-3 See district. 100 ft.30 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 220 Multi-Family Residential Requirement s R-4 Single-Family 17,500 ft. 100 ft.35 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 1,050 ft. 220 ft. Manufactured Housing* R-5 Single-Family 17,500 ft. 100 ft.35 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 1,200 ft. 600 ft. Residential Î Estate* B-1 Commercial 20,000 ft. 150 ft.30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 1,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A I-1 Industrial 1 acre 200 ft.50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 5,000 ft. N/A P-1 Public/Semi-Public 20,000 ft. 150 ft.35 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 1,000 ft. N/A M-1& M02 Mixed Uses Specifications to be determined as a Planned Unit Development, Setback are governed by the Building Code. NOTES: * The minimum size of any residential building shall either be the ground floor square footage as stated in this Table, or a minimum of 1,650 finished square feet for the total structure, whichever is greater at the time of building permit issuance. 386 ΋tğŭĻ (e)Temporary storage of materials and equipment during construction and landscaping; and (f)Lakeshore properties can store the following items of personal property within 50 feet of the shoreline during the months from September to May: docks, boat lifts, swim rafts, slides and other swimming equipment. (2)Commercial/industrial districts. As an accessory use, storage of products, materials and equipment, excluding rubbish or junk, which is necessary to an approved business operation in a commercial or industrial district, with the following provisions: (a)The storage area must be completely screened from adjoining properties and rights-of- way. (b)The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed 2.5:1. (c)The site plan review process is required to determine the appropriateness for storage permitted in the section, surfacing required for the storage area and the screening required. Ord. 2d #107, amended 10/28/2020. §§ 156.145 THROUGH 156.154 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE. § 156.155 WOODLANDS PRESERVATION. In residential areas, structures shall be located in a manner that the maximum number of woodlands shall be preserved. If large numbers of trees are cut in residential areas, trees shall be replanted in a density and manner satisfactory to the City Council. Clear cutting of woodlands for nonagricultural purposes is prohibited, unless the action involves a utility or roadway, required by the public, and includes a reforestation plan required by the City Council. §§ 156.156 THROUGH 156.165 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE. § 156.166 PARKING AND DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS. § 156.166 PARKING AND DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS. (A)Requirements in general. The following table illustrates the minimum number of parking spaces required for various uses permitted in the city. The city may modify minimum parking requirements in the M-1 District, as part of the planned unit development approval process, if it is determined that the use is consistent with the purpose of the district and that parking is determined by the City to be sufficient to accommodate the use. 377 ΋tğŭĻ Uses Minimum Parking Required Residential 2/dwelling unit Churches 1/3 seats in largest assembly room Schools 1/classroom plus 1/3 seats in largest assembly Theaters 1/3 seats Restaurants 1/3 seats Offices 5/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor space Retail 6/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area Convenience stores 7/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area General services 4/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area Trade businesses 3/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area Manufacturing 3/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area Other industrial or warehousing Other industrial or warehousing 2/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area 2/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area Car washes 5/stacking per bay Drive-up restaurants 5 stacking plus 1/3 seats (B)Off-street parking. When a building or structure is enlarged, additional off-street parking shall be required only with respect to the additional usable floor area. (C)Change in the Use of a Building or Structure. An off-street parking area shall not be changed to any other use until equal off-street parking is provided elsewhere. No parking area used or designated in connection with a building or structure in existence on the effective date of this chapter shall be reduced to provide fewer than the minimum number of parking spaces required under this chapter. (D)Off-street parking and loading zones. No building or structure shall be hereafter erected, substantially altered or its use changed unless off-street parking and loading spaces have been provided in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The number of off-street parking spaces provided shall be at least the minimum number provided in the schedule contained in this section. (E)(E)Notwithstanding the minimum number of parking spNotwithstanding the minimum number of parking spNotwithstanding the minimum number of parking spaces as defined by this section, a conditional use aces as defined by this section, a conditional use aces as defined by this section, a conditional use permit may be granted to provide fewer parking spacespermit may be granted to provide fewer parking spacespermit may be granted to provide fewer parking spaces when it is clearly demonstrated by the applicant when it is clearly demonstrated by the applicant when it is clearly demonstrated by the applicant that the use will not require the that the use will not require the that the use will not require the number of spaces indicated. In the number of spaces indicated. In the number of spaces indicated. In the event a conditional use permit is event a conditional use permit is event a conditional use permit is granted, a condition may be imposed togranted, a condition may be imposed togranted, a condition may be imposed to require that the land normally de require that the land normally de require that the land normally dedicated to parking shall be held dicated to parking shall be held dicated to parking shall be held in a landscaped reserve that can be used for parking in a landscaped reserve that can be used for parking in a landscaped reserve that can be used for parking in the event the use or parking needs should change. in the event the use or parking needs should change. in the event the use or parking needs should change. A landscape reserve should equal thA landscape reserve should equal thA landscape reserve should equal the amount of land necessary to suppore amount of land necessary to suppore amount of land necessary to suppore amount of land necessary to suppore amount of land necessary to suppore amount of land necessary to suppore amount of land necessary to support the number of parking spaces t the number of parking spaces t the number of parking spaces required to serve any more restrictive parking use of the building or structure permitted by the applicable required to serve any more restrictive parking use of the building or structure permitted by the applicable required to serve any more restrictive parking use of the building or structure permitted by the applicable zoning district and building codes. zoning district and building codes. (F)Parking spaces may be located on a lot other than that containing the principal use, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. 378 ΋tğŭĻ (G)Off-street loading. A loading space shall have minimum dimensions of not less than 12 feet in width, 50 ions of not less than 12 feet in width, 50 feet in length, exclusive of drivewfeet in length, exclusive of driveways, aisles and other circulation ays, aisles and other circulation areas. One off-street loading space areas. One off-street loading space areas. One off-street loading space shall be provided and maintained on the same shall be provided and maintained on the same shall be provided and maintained on the same lot for each commercial and industrial use requiring lot for each commercial and industrial use requiring lot for each commercial and industrial use requiring regular delivery of goods and haviregular delivery of goods and haviregular delivery of goods and having a modified gross floor area of ng a modified gross floor area of ng a modified gross floor area of more than 10,000 square feet. One more than 10,000 square feet. One more than 10,000 square feet. One loading space shall be provided for loading space shall be provided for each additional 25,000 square feet or each additional 25,000 square feet or fraction thereof. No off-street fraction thereof. No off-street loading space shall be located in any required yard adjoining any residential use. Required off-street loading space shall not be included as off-street parking space in computing required off-street parking space. Vehicles utilizing this loading space shall not project into the public right-of-way. (H)Fractional space. When an application of the standards of this chapter with respect to number of off- street parking spaces results in the need to provide a fraction of one space, any fraction of one-half or less shall be disregarded and any other fraction shall be construed as one. (I)Uses not mentioned. For any use not specifically mentioned in the schedule of off-street parking and loading requirements, the number of spaces required should be that required for that use named in the schedule which is determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be most similar. (J)Spaces for five or more automobiles.Spaces for five or more automobiles.Spaces for five or more automobiles. Parking areas consisting of five Parking areas consisting of five Parking areas consisting of five or more off-street parking spaces or more off-street parking spaces or more off-street parking spaces shall have individual spaces so marked by pavement shall have individual spaces so marked by pavement shall have individual spaces so marked by pavement striping, the perimeter of striping, the perimeter of lot shall be surrounded by lot shall be surrounded by curbing, and shall be so designed, curbing, and shall be so designed, maintained and regulated that no parking or maneuvering incidental to parking shall be on any public street, walk or alley and so that any vehicle may be parked and unparked without moving another vehicle. (K)Improvement and maintenance. Required parking and loading spaces, together with driveways, aisles and other circulation areas, shall be improved in a way as to provide a durable and dust-free surface asphalt, concrete, pavers, cobblestone or similar material according to minimum city specifications, excluding R-1 Districts. All parking and loading areas shall provide for proper drainage of surface water to prevent the drainage of the water onto adjacent properties or walkways. The owner of any parking or loading area shall maintain the area in good condition without holes and free of all dust, trash and other debris. Parking and access drives shall be located a minimum of five feet from any property line. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine feet wide and 18 feet deep. (L)Driveway Access. All off-street parking areas in non-residential zoning districts and Mixed Use zoning districts shall have access from driveways rather than directly from public streets, and shall be limited to a maximum of 32 feet in width at the curb line, unless a wider driveway is granted by conditional use permit. This shall not apply to on-street parking constructed and maintained by the city, county, or state, such as parallel, diagonal, or vertical pull-in parking immediately accessible from the street. (M)Permitted driveways for residential uses. (1)A driveway must enter a parcel from an authorized location on a roadway and may cross a public right of way or roadway easement to enter a parcel. Except where necessary to enter a parcel, a driveway shall not be located within five feet from a property line, public right of way, or roadway easement. 379 ΋tğŭĻ (2) A driveway shall not be located within any drainage and utility easement. (3) The width of a driveway entrance from a roadway shall be determined as follows: i. As measured at the edge of the roadway, the width of a driveway shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide and a maximum of 24 feet wide, except: 1. On a parcel where a garage is at least 24 feet wide, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the garage, to a maximum of 32 feet wide; or, 2. On a cul-de-sac parcel, the maximum driveway width shall be no more than 2/3 (two-thirds) of the distance between the lot lines extended. ii. A driveway shall not exceed the maximum allowable width where it exists in a public right of way or roadway easement. (4) A driveway may only be constructed on a parcel that contains a primary structure. (5) A driveway shall connect a roadway to a garage or other permitted structure. i. On a lot that does not contain a garage or other permitted structure, the length of a driveway shall be no less than 18-feet deep as measured from the edge a public right of way or roadway easement. (6) A driveway may include a paved parking or turnaround area not more than 8 feet by 18-feet adjacent to a driveway connecting a roadway to a garage or front yard. (7) A driveway shall not include more than one driveway connection from a public roadway into a single-family residential lot, except for corner lots which are permitted one driveway per street frontage. (8) Driveway connections for multi-family uses will be reviewed in the site plan review process. (N) Requirements For Mixed-Uses. If a building or structure contains a mixture of uses as defined by paragraphs (A) and (I), the minimum number of parking spaces required for the entire building or structure shall be calculated for the most restrictive parking use as permitted by the applicable zoning district and building codes. Ord. 2d #19, amended 06/27/2007, Ord. 2d #105, amended 05/27/2020, Ord. 2d #106, amended 08/26/2020. § 156.167 TREE PLANTING. Required trees should be planted in the front yard out of the right of way and a minimum of 15 feet from the curb line and shall not be planted in a manner that interferes with any current or planned utility line. Trees may not be planted under a power line except low growing varieties approved by the City for such locations. 380 ΋tğŭĻ §§ 156.168 THROUGH 156.177 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE. § 156.178 LANDSCAPING. (A)Minimum quantities. (1)All new development activities, including site modifications or use intensifications, shall be subject to landscaping improvements. (2)The following table illustrates guidelines within each zoning district: 4 Overstory TreesFoundation Plantings District 1 2 trees/unit/street frontage None R-1 2 2 trees/unit/open space exposure None R-2, R-4 and R-5 3 8 trees plus two trees/unit None R-2A 5 8 trees or 1/3,000 sq. ft. site area 1/10 ft. building and parking area B-1 5 8 trees or 1/3,000 sq. ft. site area 1/10 ft. building and parking area M-1 and M-2 55 8 trees or 1/3,000 sq. ft. site area8 trees or 1/3,000 sq. ft. site area 1/10 ft. building a 1/10 ft. building and parking area nd parking area I-1 5 8 trees or 1/3,000 sq. ft. site area 1/10 ft. building and parking area P-1 NOTES: 1 Trees shall be deciduous and planted off the boulevard but in the front yard area. 2 Trees shall be deciduous. Unit exposures with street frontage shall be planted in the front yard area consistent with section 156.181. 3 Tree spacing must include trees at near th Tree spacing must include trees at near the boulevard at minimum 50-foot intervals. 4 4 The calculation for the number of foundation planThe calculation for the number of foundation planThe calculation for the number of foundation plantings is based upon one pltings is based upon one pltings is based upon one planting for each lineal anting for each lineal anting for each lineal foot of building perimeter and parking lot perifoot of building perimeter and parking lot perifoot of building perimeter and parking lot perimeter. Plantings may be grouped rather than meter. Plantings may be grouped rather than dispersed at 10-foot intervals. dispersed at 10-foot intervals. dispersed at 10-foot intervals. dispersed at 10-foot intervals. dispersed at 10-foot intervals. dispersed at 10-foot intervals. 55 The required number of trees is based upon a mi The required number of trees is based upon a mi The required number of trees is based upon a mi The required number of trees is based upon a mi The required number of trees is based upon a minimum of eight trees or one tree per 3,000 square nimum of eight trees or one tree per 3,000 square nimum of eight trees or one tree per 3,000 square feet of site area, whicfeet of site area, whicfeet of site area, whichever is greater. Tree spacing musthever is greater. Tree spacing musthever is greater. Tree spacing must include trees at the boulevard at include trees at the boulevard at minimum 50-foot intervals. minimum 50-foot intervals. (B)Minimum standards. (1)Overstory trees: (a)Deciduous trees. Two and one-half inch caliper planting size, balled and burlapped. 381 ΋tğŭĻ (b) Coniferous trees. Six feet in height planting size, balled and burlapped. (2) Foundation plantings. Coniferous and deciduous shrubs shall be planted at a minimum of 1/3 the mature spread and height of typical growth habits. (3) Front-yard trees. All front-yard trees shall be hardwood shade trees or flowering trees. Where overhead utility lines exists, only low growing varieties approved for planting under utility lines shall be allowed. (4) Overstory mix. When multiple quantities of overstory trees are required, at least 75 percent of the trees required shall be deciduous trees. (5) Hardiness. All landscape materials proposed shall be consistent with Minnesota Hardiness Zones, whether indigenous or foreign. Plant species must all be tolerant to snow storage, exposure to salt and sun scald in parking areas. (6) Diversification. In any development in which at least eight overstory trees or foundation plantings are required, at least three varieties of boulevard trees are required on each side of the block. (7) Warranty. All required landscape materials shall be warranted for growth for a minimum of two years after planting. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS § 156.200 OBJECTIVES. To help encourage a more creative approach to the use of land, departures from the city zoning chapter may be granted by the City Council in the form of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Districts, to achieve: (A) A maximum choice of living environments by allowing a variety of housing building types and permitting an increased density per acre and a reduction in lot dimensions, yard, building setbacks and area requirements; (B) A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and, if permitted as part of the project, more convenience in the location of accessory commercial uses and services; (C) A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural features, trees and other vegetation, and prevents the disruption of natural drainage patterns; (D) A more efficient use of land and a resulting substantial savings through shorter utilities and streets; and 382 ΋tğŭĻ CITY OF CENTERVILLEREQUEST FOR ACTION Agenda Item # Department: RequestedMeetingDate: September 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning VII.3 TITLE OF ISSUE: Site Plan Review - Iron Valley Equipment BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Iron Valley Equipment has submitted a Site Plan Review Application for 7137 20th Ave. The site plan includes landscaping and buffering, per City Code, and there are two conditional use permits that run with the land. The attached staff memo provides additional background information on the proposed business and the history of the site. COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING: N/A REQUESTED ACTION: Motion to approve the site plan for Iron Valley Equipment. For ClerkÓs Use: SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Motion By: ____________________________________ Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map Second By: ____________________________________ Vote Record: Aye Nay _____ staff memo, site plan, supporting documentatio Other (specify) ____________ ______________________________________________________________ _____ _______________________________________________________________ Refer to: _________________________________ Tabled Until: ______________________________ Consent Other: ___________________________________ Regular . 038 m edge of N ro fcurrent fence to edge of property, Add gate to fence Ave th Centerville, MN 55 7139 20 IRON VALLEY EQUIPMENT from edge of Building to edge of property, Add gate to fence. Area is located 30 edge of the building . X west 5 long the edge of the a 13 of the property e Extend fence property joining current fence on back of property to new fence in frontfrom property line. . 35 Feet from the west edge of the property and eet from the edge of the property on the north side. Outside Storage Area f10 feet from the edge of the property on the South sideapproximaton the east side Add 7 Spruce trees along fence line. Memorandum Date: August 30, 2024 To: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission From: Mark Statz, PE – City Administrator/Engineer Subject:Concept Sketch Review –Iron Valley Equipment Staff has received a concept sketch from Iron Valley Equipment to occupy an existing th building and site on 20 Avenuein the B-1 Commercial zoning district. Attached to this memo is a letter sent by city staff to theprospective lease holder regarding the viability of his proposed business within the zoning code and with deference to additional rights afforded the property through existing Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) and continuous occupation(grandfathering). The letter explains that the existing site (not just the current lessee)is subject to two separate CUPs, both for an “Auto Repair Business" Conditional Use Permits The existing Conditional Use permits for an “Auto Repair Business”does not line up explicitly with language in our Table of Allowed Uses. However, the description certainly fits as a same or similar match to “Automobile and Motorized Equipment Service, Excluding Salvage Operations”, as is listed in our table. The proposed user (Iron Valley Equip.) has an operation which will perform some tasks akin to “Service”. Their business includes installing accessories and making repairs to accessories or modifying vehicles to accommodate accessories, such as plows, dump boxes, lights, etc. However, much of their business also includes the sale of these same products. This means their “use” under the zoning code might be a mixture of both sales and service. Staff’s recommendation is to allow the use to proceed under the current CUPs on the site, while pursuing a revised CUP which would better accommodatethe company’s full operation. To operate under the existing CUP, no action is necessary from the Planning Commission except to approve their Site Plan. Grandfathering Rights Outdoor Storage For many years the site has been used for outdoor storage as is further detailed in the zoning letter sent to the applicant. Despite the outdoor storage exceeding the 2.5:1 ratio allowed, the new occupant of the site should be afforded the right to continue that use as long as there is not an expansion of the area. Additionally, the site does not conform to the requirement for paving the outdoor storage area. However, this non-conformity is again legal and allowed to continue as long as it is not expanded. It is our understanding that the applicant intends to redress the graveled area identified in the drawings and continue its use for the storage of for-sale inventory of truck accessories. Parking/Loading/Driveway The current paved parking area in front of the building appears to have adequate space for employee and customer parking. Landscaping/Buffers Again, grandfathering rules may not allow the city to require the placement of new landscaping or buffering, however, the existing site us has, for many years had a generous buffer to neighboring residential uses. The submitted site plan continues to incorporate those vegetated and unused buffer areas, meeting current city code, for width. The applicant has proposed the addition of several coniferous trees to add screening to the buffer area. Setbacks There are no modifications to the building proposed. The existing building meets current setbacks. Architecture The current building does not meet city code, but is, again, a legal non-conformity allowed to be used in perpetuity unless expanded. There are no substantial changes proposed for the building. Staff Recommendation/Next Steps Staff is recommending approval of the Site Plan and acknowledgement of the proposed business’ right to operate on the site, within the confines of the existing CUP and historic occupation of outdoor storage areas. We would encourage the applicant to make a formal application for a revised Conditional Use Permit in an effort to better align the permit with their intended business operation. A new permit wouldbenefit both the city and the applicant. Staff believes this business will be a great addition to our community and we understand their goals to include future expansion to accommodate a permanent home for their business here in the Twin Cities Metro. August 8, 2024 To: Michael Vollmers Iron Valley Equipment 601 Franklin Ave NE St. Cloud, MN 56304 Michael, Thank you for your patience as we reviewed our records for the property identi ǎ ed with the parcel identi ǎ cation number (PIN) of 23-31-22-11-0009. Per your request, we have reviewed the history of the property to determine if Iron Valley Equipment could operate within this space with outside storage. It looks like the property was purchased in 1980, and two buildings were constructed on this site. The ǎ rst th building, with an address of 7137 20 Avenue, was built in 1982, and a second building, with an address of th 7139 20 Avenue was built in 1998. Zoning Desigation The property is zoned B-1 Commercial, and the City Code would allow no more than 2.5:1 ratio of storage area to building footprint. The City Code requires the following for outside storage in the commercial/industrial districts. Site Activity on parcel (PIN 23-31-22-11-0009) follows: th 7137 20 Avenue Building  ͭ͵ʹͮЎ¡ŵđŹđŏƂ϶А϶†Ƈŵ϶đêŵňƢ϶ŵđąŗŵċŹ϶êŵđ϶ŹŲêŵŹđϿ϶İŗƜđƚđŵϽ϶ijƂ϶êŲŲđêŵŹ϶ƂİêƂ϶¤ŗЎ¨ŗ϶ąŗŏƂŵêąƂijŏĩ϶İêŹ϶ occupied the 7137 building since 1982. Our records show that the City has issued a couple of violations of ordinance for operating a woodworking shop in spaces designated for warehouse/oice space. In March of 1998, Ro-So pulled a building permit for the 7139 building. In August of 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended that City Council tighten up categories in the Table of Allowed Uses. The category for construction businesses was moved in °êăňđ϶7Ͻ϶ĨŵŗŎ϶ê϶Ч¡đŵŎijƂƂđċ϶µŹđϽШ϶Ƃŗ϶Ч¡đŵŎijƂƂđċ϶µŹđШ϶ƜijƂİ϶ê϶¨Ųđąijêň϶µŹđ϶¡đŵŎijƂϿШ϶ê϶ŏŗŏЎąŗŏĨŗŵŎijŏĩ϶ use requires a Special Use Permit for the addition. The city attorney at the time, recommended only requiring Special Use Permits on future additions, noting that the 7139 building would be grandfathered.  ͭ͵͵͵Ўͮͬͮͯ϶А϶¡đŏŏ϶9ŗŏƂŵêąƂijŏĩ϶А϶Ɯđ϶Ɯđŵđ϶Ƈŏêăňđ϶Ƃŗ϶ijċđŏƂijĨƢ϶ŵđąŗŵċŹ϶ŵđ Ǐ ecting occupancy by Penn Contracting. The landowner advised the city that Penn Contracting was a tenant between 1999- 2023.  ͮͬͬͲЎͮͬͬʹ϶А϶fƂ϶êŲŲđêŵŹ϶ƂİêƂ϶7ŗăăƢ϶êŏċ϶¨ƂđƚđЪŹ϶ƇƂŗ϶Ëŗrld may have occupied the building without a permit between 2006-2008; and that Ƃİđ϶ąijƂƢ϶ċđŏijđċ϶ê϶ąŗŏċijƂijŗŏêň϶ƇŹđ϶ŲđŵŎijƂ϶Й9µ¡К϶Ƃŗ϶sêŹŗŏЪŹ϶ 7ŗăăƢ϶êŏċ϶¨ƂđƚđЪŹ϶ƇƂŗ϶Ëŗŵňċ϶ŗŏ϶sƇňƢ϶ͮͳϽ϶ͮͬͬͳϼ϶϶  ͮͬͭͯЎ¡ŵđŹđŏƂ϶А϶fƂ϶êŲŲđêŵŹ϶ƂİêƂ϶ÈđŵŎđđŵŹąİ϶ƇƂŗ϶¤đŲêir may have been operating without a permit until the city approved a Conditional Use Permit on January 30, 2013. See Appendix A for the terms of this CUP. th 7139 20 Avenue Building  ͭ͵͵ͮЎͮͬͬͲ϶А϶¡đŵĨŗŵŎêŏąđ϶ƇƂŗ϶А϶†Ƈŵ϶ŵđąŗŵċŹ϶ijŏċijąêƂđ϶ƂİêƂ϶¡đŵĨŗŵŎêŏąđ϶ƇƂŗ϶ŎêƢ϶İêƚđ϶ăđđŏ϶ operating without a permit between 1992-1998 until the city granted a Special Use Permit on March 25, 1998. This business appears to have been in operation until sometime in 2006.  ͮͬͬͲ϶А϶†ŏ϶sƇŏđ϶ͮͳϽ϶ͮͬͬͲϽ϶Ƃİđ϶ąijƂƢ϶êŲŲŵŗƚđċ϶ê϶ƂŵêŏŹĨđŵ϶ŗĨ϶Ƃİđ϶¨Ųđąijêň϶µŹđ϶¡đŵŎijƂ϶Ƃŗ϶xêƇŏċđŵƚijňňđЪŹ϶ Auto Repair. On December 5, 2006, the city reviewed and reissued the Special Use Permit for a 12- month period with review by January 1, 2008.  ͮͬͬʹЎ¡ŵđŹđŏƂ϶А϶fƂ϶êŲŲđêŵŹ϶ƂİêƂ϶¨İêŏđЪŹ϶êƇƂŗ϶ŎêƢ϶also have been operating without a permit between 2008 until 2014 until the city approved a CUP on December 11, 2014. See Appendix B for the terms of this CUP. After a thorough review of records, sta was unable to ǎ nd any changes to the Conditional Use Permits for ¨İêŏđЪŹ϶ƇƂŗ϶ŗŵ϶ÈđŵŎđđŵŹąİ϶ƇƂŗϽ϶Ɯİijąİ϶ŎđêŏŹ϶ƂİêƂ϶ǎ ndings and conditions in these CUPs are still in place today. Grandfathering Rights While our City Code prohibits expanded outside storage, inspection of our records and historic aerial photos, along with the information you shared, leads us to conclude that the site has grandfathering rights to allow outside storage similar to what has been continuously occupied on the west side of the site. Please see the aerial photos of the area in the Appendix C to gain better understanding of the storage used by the previous business. Conclusion Iron Valley Construction can operate on the site subject to the following conditions: The businesses shall operate according to allowed uses in the Zoning Ordinance. See Appendix D for the Table of Allowed uses. New businesses are required to comply with existing conditional use permits (CUPs) for the site. No more outside storage isallowed thanthere was in previous uses. Pleasenote that the 2020 aerial photo shows nearly 35,000 sf of occupied space Next Steps Iron Valley Construction will need to submit a sketch plan for site plan review. Sta and the Planning and Zoning Commission will review the plan, along with the CUPs to determine if any revisions are needed. Total outside storage shall not exceed 34,797 sf as previously occupied. A site plan application can be found on our website at www.centervillemn.com under the Forms and Permits graphic icon on the front page. The forms are listed in alphabetical order. Site plan submittal requirements are outlined in section 156.108 of the City Code, which can also be found on our website via the Ordinances graphic icon button, which is located to the right of the Forms and Permits icon. The next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, and sta will need two to three weeks to review your submittal. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Athanasia Lewis Assistant City Administrator Attachments: Appendix A. Vermeersch Auto Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ŲŲđŏċijơ϶7ϼ϶¨İêŏđЪŹ϶ƇƂŗ϶9ŗŏċijƂijŗŏêň϶µŹđ϶Й9µ¡К϶ Appendix C. 2020 Aerial Photo Appendix D. Table of Allowed Uses cc: Mark Statz, City Administrator Teresa Bender, City Clerk Henry and Michael Dabruzzi, Land Owners TABLE 156-A.1 District Allowed Uses Revised Ord. 1 Version /2/202 - l a e c n n 68716001020o 1 1 i e 11121233455t * 5 A i 2 r 12345121* 1 00000000000 10 - - --2------ ........... .de - - If 66666666666 6P RRRRRBBd MM e R 55555555555 5 A Use Category and Use Type 11111111111R 1 Agricultural Uses Crop production and vegetable gardeningP Produce stands for products raised on the P premises Tree nurseries and sod farmsP Horses, livestock and fowl, not exceeding a density of one horse or livestock animal per P acre or three fowl per acre Group Living Uses Nursing homesC Residential-Care for six or Fewer Persons PPPPPPPUDPUD (Except Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment) Residential-Care for Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment for six or fewer persons.(Subject to conditions as are necessary to protect the C health and safety of the residents of the residential facility per 156.021(C)(3).) 156.021(C3) Residential-Care for seven through sixteen Persons (Except Care for Juvenile Sex C Offender Treatment) Family Day Care serving twelve or fewer PPPPPPPUDPUD persons Group Family Day Care serving 14 or fewer PPPPPPPUDPUD persons Licensed day care serving thirteen through C sixteen persons Licensed day care serving seventeen or more CPUDPUD persons Specialized Care FacilityCPUDPUD Household Living Uses Single-family detached dwellings at a density P not exceeding one home per ten acres Single-family detached dwellingsPPPP Single-family attached dwellings with up to two PP dwelling units per building Single-family attached dwellings with up to C twelve dwelling units per acre Single-family attached or detached dwellings where in combination with multi-family dwellings PUD PUD PUD on the development property meet the district density goal Manufactured housing development, park, or PUD cooperative 156.019 Multi-family projectsPUDPUDPUD Public parks and recreation usesPPPPPPPP Residential accessory uses as further reguated PPPPPP 156.107 in this chapter Home OccupationsPPPPPP 156.102 Commercial Uses 156.040 (H), Accessory BuildingsPPPCC 156.107 Accessory storage within the principal buildingPPPPPPPPPPPP 156.107 Adult and Sexually oriented businesses as C further regulated in this code 110.01-110.99 Revised Ord. 1##, Version 10/20/2023 Use Category and Use Type CC Veterinary Clinic 90.01-90.09 CCC Pet Shop 90.01-90.09 C Kennel 90.01-90.09 Automobile and motorized equipment sales, Automobile and motorized equipment sales, Automobile and motorized equipment sales, CCCC excluding salvage operations (Outdoors)excluding salvage operations (Outdoors) Automobile and motorized equipment sales, PP excluding salvage operations (Indoors) Automobile and motorized equipment service, CC excluding salvage operations as accessory to a gas station Automobile and motorized equipment service, CC excluding salvage operations Barber/beauty salonsPPPUDPUD Building Supply Sales and Storage YardsCC Building Supply Sales and Storage Yards C (Winthin Building Only) Business and Professional OfficesPPPPUDPUD Car washesCP Car wash, as Accessory to Retail Fuel SalesCC PPPUDPUD Commercial schools/Cultural CentersCCP Commercial recreationCCCPUDPUD Construction trade offices and yardsP Crematorium Day care - see Group Living UsesCCCCCCC Day care facilityPPPUDPUD Eating and drinking establishmentsPPPUDPUD Farm/Lawn Implement sales and serviceC Farm/Lawn Implement sales and service PP (Within Building Only) Financial institutionsPPPUDPUD Funeral homes and mortuaries (excluding CC Crematoriums) HospitalsCCP HotelsPPPUD Liquor storesPPPUDPUD Machine and repair shops-inside building onlyCP Non-Retail (Bulk) Fuel SalesC Personal and professional business officesPPPPUDPUD Public buildingsCCCCCCPPPPUDPUDP Public utility buildings and structuresCCCCCCPPP Retail Fuel SalesPP Theatres and recreational businesses PPPUD conducted within structures. Retail sales and service, excluding adult- PPPUDPUD oriented businesses Revised Ord. 1##, Version 10/20/2023 - l a e c n n 68716001020o 1 1 i e 11121233455t * 5 A i 2 r 12345121* 1 00000000000 10 - - --2------ ........... .de - - If 66666666666 6P RRRRRBBd MM e R 55555555555 5 A Use Category and Use Type 11111111111R 1 Outdoor retail sales and service, excluding CCC adult-oriented businesses Industrial Uses Indoor Shooting/Archery RangeP Machine and repair shops (Indoors)CP Manufacturing, processing, assembly except C recycling and waste Mini-StorageCC Research Facility, excluding animal or livestockP Industrial Uses Recycling and Waste Processing entirely within C the principle structure Truck TerminalC Warehouse/DistributionP CODES **1 These Interim UseI references are Permitted UseP for guidance only and are not Conditional UseC intended to Planned Unit DevelopmentPUD include all applicable sections of the code. Reference: Procedures for Site Plan Review 156.108 XXXXXXXXXXX Procedures for Conditional Use Permits 156.320 XXXXXXXXXXX Procedures for Planned Unit Developments 156.200 XXXXXXXXXXX Procedures for Variances 156.310 XXXXXXXXXXX 156.167, Landscape and Tree Planing Requirements 156.168 XXXXXXXXXXXX Fences XXXXXXXXXXXX Building Height Limits 156.121 XXXXXXXXXXXX Yards 156.122 XXXXXXXXXXXX Appendix A, Setbacks Table 1 XXXXXXXXXXXX Parking Requirements 156.166 XXXXXXXXXXXX Other Standards 156.144 XXXXXXXXXXXX Outside Storage 156.144, (M) XXXXXXXXXXXX Shoreland Requirements 156.133 XXXXXXXXXXX Iron Valley Equipment & Mfg –MN 601 Franklin Ave NE, St Cloud, MN 56304 320-281-3335 Iron Valley Equipment & Mfg –ND th 1643 29Ave S, Suite 36, Moorhead, MN 56560 701-353-5266 TO: CITY OF CENTERVILLE th Property: 7137 20Ave North Request for Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Storage Exceeding Space allowed by Ordinance. IVE intends to utilize the existing outdoor storage area that has been used by the previous occupants for over 20 years. The existing compacted gravel surface area would be top dressed with fresh Class V, and re-graded. Dust control will be applied as needed throughout the Summers. Outdoor Storage would consist of mostly new, customer or company owned vehicles & equipment., As well as inventory of truck bodies & equipment that are installed on the trucks and equipment. IVE, upon approval would install a chain-link fence approx. along the South Property line, from the NW property corner, approx. 270 feet to the East. A Fence with Gate (see orange line) would be installed from the existing residential fence near the NW corner of the building, South the meet the East/West Fence. IVE would install 11 Spruce trees (6-8’)Approx 20’. staggered from the Rear fence line of the residential homes, to create a Natural Screen. Total area of Storage/Open are to be utilized: (Area In Yellow square) Approx. 125’ N/S & Approx 200’ E/W (25,000SQ FT) 6500 sq ft are drivelines/aisles Iron Valley Equipment & Mfg Ï MN 601 Franklin Ave NE, St Cloud, MN 56304 320-281-3335 Iron Valley Equipment & Mfg Ï ND th 1643 29 Ave S, Suite 36, Moorhead, MN 56560 701-353-5266 TO:CITYOFCENTERVILLE th Property:713720AveNorth RequestforConditionalUsePermitw/OutdoorStorageExceeding SpaceallowedbyOrdinance. (D)Conditionaluses.(1)Automobileandmotorizedequipmentsales (Outdoors),excludingsalvageoperations,providedʹ LƩƚƓğƌƌĻǤ9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷźƭƩĻƨǒĻƭƷźƓŭğ/ tŅƚƩƷŷĻƚƦĻƩğƷźƚƓƭƚŅğ aǒƓźĭźƦğƌğƓķ/ƚƓƷƩğĭƷƚƩ9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ{ğƌĻƭͲtğƩƷƭğƓķ{ĻƩǝźĭĻ/ĻƓƷĻƩͲğƭ ǞĻƌƌğƭğƓźƓĭƩĻğƭĻƚŅğƌƌƚǞĻķƚǒƷķƚƚƩƭƷƚƩğŭĻƭƦğĭĻ͵ LƩƚƓğƌƌĻǤ9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷƭǒƦƦƌźĻƭĻƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷƷƚĭƚƓƷƩğĭƷƚƩƭğƓķ ƒǒƓźĭźƦğƌźƷźĻƭźƓƚǝĻƩЎƭƷğƷĻƭ͵ŷĻĬǒƭźƓĻƭƭźƭƭźƒźƌğƩƷƚğĬǒƭźƓĻƭƭƷŷğƷ ğƌƩĻğķǤƚƦĻƩğƷĻƭǞźƷŷźƓƷŷĻ/źƷǤƚŅ/ĻƓƷĻƩǝźƌƌĻ͵ ВЉіƚŅğƌƌƷƩǒĭƉƭğƓķĻƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷğƩĻĬƩğƓķƓĻǞ͵aƚƭƷƚŅƚǒƩĭǒƭƷƚƒĻƩƭ ğƩĻŭƚǝĻƩƓƒĻƓƷğŭĻƓĭźĻƭŅƩƚƒabͲΛ/źƷǤΉ{ƷğƷĻΉ/ƚǒƓƷǤΑLƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ/źƷǤ ƚŅ/ĻƓƷĻƩǝźƌƌĻΜğƭǞĻƌƌğƭĭƚƓƷƩğĭƷƚƩƭ͵ {ƷğƓķğƩķhƦĻƩğƷźƓŭIƚǒƩƭğƩĻʹ aCАğƒƷƚАƦƒ {ğƷǒƩķğǤБğƒƷƚЋƦƒΛƭĻğƭƚƓğƌΜ wğƩĻƌǤķƚĻƭƷŷĻĬǒƭźƓĻƭƭƚƦĻƩğƷĻƚƓ{ǒƓķğǤƭ͵ hĭĭğƭźƚƓğƌƌǤͲķǒƩźƓŭƒğƆƚƩƭƓƚǞŅğƌƌĻǝĻƓƷƭͲL9ƒğǤƚƦĻƓŅƚƩƭŷƚƩƷ ƦĻƩźƚķƭƷƚğƌƌƚǞğĭĭĻƭƭƷƚ9ƒĻƩŭĻƓĭǤtğƩƷƭ{ğƌĻƭƚƩaźƓƚƩwĻƦğźƩƭğŅƷĻƩ ŷƚǒƩƭ͵ L9ƚƦĻƩğƷĻƭЋğķķźƷźƚƓğƌƌƚĭğƷźƚƓƭźƓ{Ʒ͵/ƌƚǒķͲabğƓķ‘ĻƭƷCğƩŭƚͲ b5͵ŷĻǤCğĭźƌźƷźĻƭğƩĻƉĻĻƦĭƌĻğƓͲƚƩŭğƓźǩĻķͲğƓķƚƩķĻƩƌǤ͵L9ğƌƭƚķƚĻƭ ĬǒƭźƓĻƭƭǞźƷŷƷŷĻƒǒƓźĭźƦğƌźƷźĻƭǞźƷŷźƓƷŷĻğƩĻğƷŷğƷƚǒƩƚƷŷĻƩŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭ ğƩĻƌƚĭğƷĻķ͵ŷĻƚƦĻƩğƷźƚƓƭķƚƓƚƷźƓĭƌǒķĻğƓǤƷǤƦĻƭƚŅ{ğƌǝğŭĻ ƚƦĻƩğƷźƚƓƭ͵ ‘ĻƭƷCğƩŭƚ{ŷƚƦ {Ʒ/ƌƚǒķƭŷƚƦ CITY OF CENTERVILLEREQUEST FOR ACTION Agenda Item # Department: RequestedMeetingDate: September 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning VIII.1 TITLE OF ISSUE: June 4, 2024 Meeting Minutes BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The June 4, 2024 minutes are included in the packet for the Commission's consideration. COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING: N/A REQUESTED ACTION: Motion to approve the June 4, 2024 meeting minutes. For ClerkÓs Use: SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Motion By: ____________________________________ Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map Second By: ____________________________________ Vote Record: Aye Nay _____ Minutes Other (specify) ____________ ______________________________________________________________ _____ _______________________________________________________________ Refer to: _________________________________ Tabled Until: ______________________________ Consent Other: ___________________________________ Regular CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held in Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Krueger called the regular meeting to order at 6:37p.m. 1. Roll Call Present: Commissioner Richard Nelson Not Approved Commissioner Dawn Kalina Vice-Chair Darrell (DJ) Olson, Jr. Chair Jon Krueger Commissioner Matthew McCabe Commissioner Jeannie Seppala Commissioner Bruce Thompson Absent: None Staff: City Administrator, Mark Statz Assistant City Administrator, Athanasia Lewis Consulting Planner, Phil Carlson Attorney, Kurt Glaser Council Council Member Russ Koski II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. Motion by Commissioner Thompson seconded by Commissioner Kalina to Approve the Agenda. All in favor. Motion carried. IV. PUBLIC HEARING (6:30 PM or shortly thereafter) 1. Chapter 157: Erosion Control Minimum Control Measures (MCM) Ordinance to be in compliance with Construction Stormwater Requirements for Erosion, Sediment, and Waste Controls. Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, noting that requirements in new legislation have changed. He suggested swapping the existing Chapter 157: Erosion Control Measures with a new ordinance suggested from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Chair Krueger opened the public hearing at 6:34p.m. There were no public comments. 16 Commission 2024 Motion by Commissioner Kalina seconded by Commissioner Olson to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried. The public hearing was closed at 6:35p.m. V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPEARANES 1. None VI. OLD BUSINESS 1. LaLonde First Addition a. Preliminary Plat b. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Administrator Statz introduced this item, and asked the developer to explain the changes they made since the public hearing in May. Presentation by Developers Marcus Ebert with Ebert Construction thanked the Commission for having them back and explained that they listened to the feedback from the May public hearing and incorporated some of the requested changes. Notable changes: 1. The west portion (shown in orange) on the north leg of the building has been moved on the west side of the south leg of the building, thereby lowering the height as viewed from the west quite a bit. 2. Two units were then removed from the third floor at the west end of the south leg to give the building a softer appeal. 3. A combination of a fence with arborvitae is proposed to draw a hard line between the property and the school from a safety perspective. Questions from the Commission Commissioner Nelson asked about garbage and the ability of the trucks to turn around. Jacob Budenski, with Ebert Construction, reviewed the location of the dumpster caddy on the plan and reviewed options for trash removal. Commissioner Seppala asked if the dumpster caddy was big enough for 300 residents. Mr. Budenski noted that there would be two or three dumpsters (trash and recycling) and the size is sufficient. Commissioner Thompson asked what the trash enclosure would look like. Mr. Budenski noted that there would be a fence around the dumpster. The fence does not match the fence around the property, but he noted that that fence could be any color. Commissioner Kalina asked why there are gaps in the fence on the north side. Mr. Budenski stated that it is for the arborvitae. The Commission expressed preference for a continuous fence. Mr. Ebert said that would not be a problem. Commissioner Seppala asked about the noise from the garbage haulers backing up. She also asked if the city code allows garbage bins to be placed on the street. Administrator Statz noted that the trash needs to be hidden from public know that it would be a problem for a couple hours. 16 Commission 2024 Commissioner Kalina asked where moving vans would unload. Mr. Budenski noted the primary location, which is at the main entrance. Commissioner McCabe asked if the times are staggered with several people moving in at once and Mr. Ebert explained that they do that when needed. Commissioner Seppala asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces with 2 units being removed. Mr. Budenski noted that the parking ratio is the same. Commissioner Kalina asked if a fire truck would park on the north end and the developer said yes. Administrator Statz noted that the Fire Marshall discussed the project with the developer and made modifications in the northwest to accommodate access to the northwest corner of the building. The Fire Marshall is comfortable with staging vehicles for adequate coverage for the entire building. Originally the plan only had access to the south and east sides of the building. Commissioner Kalina asked about the number of people that would be permitted in the units. Mr. Ebert noted that it would be 2-4 people for a two bedroom. Chair Krueger asked if these restrictions would be done in the leases and the developer said yes and there would be background checks. Mr. Budenski added that all people living in a unit need to be listed on the lease. Commissioner Kalina asked about temporary stays and Mr. Ebert noted that the one-off scenarios would be impossible to predict, but there would be a full-time person on staff who would monitor and bring situation(s), as needed, to their attention. The property manager and other staff would be monitoring the premises. Presentation by Administrator Statz (summary) Administrator Statz reviewed his slides as presented in the packet. A summary of the slides follows. Slide 1 Land Use The proposed use is a residential use with a density between 12 and 45 units/acre. Slide 2 Preliminary Plat The developer has proposed a two-lot plat to qualify for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) should the city elect to offer it. Administrator Statz noted that there have been some questions about the shape of the lot proposal, noting that the city does not get to draw the lines, the developer does, and the city evaluates whether those lots meet the requirements laid out in the code. Administrator Statz explained that both lots meet the requirements in the code. He added that just because the Commission feels the proposal does not need two lots is not a reason to deny the plat; there would need to be an issue with public health or safety, such as one access to a public street on a curve. Commissioner Seppala stated that information about the two lots being split to qualify for TIF was not disclosed as she did not find it anywhere in the materials for the Planning and Zoning Commission, adding that she found it when she was reading her water bill. Administrator Statz reviewed criteria for parcel(s) to qualify for TIF, noting that our financial consultants confirmed that splitting lots for TIF consideration is common. Commissioner Seppala asked about needing to address the Planning and Zoning Commission to explain a reason for a lot split, and Administrator Statz noted that a reason is not necessary because the Commission would be reviewing the plat. Administrator Statz added that part of the disclosure process, when issuing a public notice, was disclosing that the lot split was in preparation for an apartment. 16 Commission 2024 Attorney Glaser added that the city has a legal duty to approve a lot split if the applicant meets whatever criteria applies, and as a city, we do not have to have a reason or duty to ask. Attorney Glaser added that private landowners have rights to do with their property whatever the law allows , and i situation is. The applicant wants to split the lot and take advantage of the TIF tools, and the way they decided to do it qualifies under the city rules, therefore we must let him do it. Slide 3 Density The proposed density meets the Zoning Code. Administrator Statz said stated that the code was recently changed to align with the Master Plan and Downtown Master Plan, adding that we were quite open about that. We had a public hearing and there was one person that commented. It was explained why we were doing it, adding that because we knew there was a proposal, and in reviewing it and others that we have received or talked about with developers previously, we understood that density was appropriate for the scale and size of the buildings that were contemplated in the downtown master plan for this district. Slide 4 Building Height Administrator Statz reviewed the definition of building height, which is the vertical distance from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building, to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs. He noted that no structures or buildings may be erected to a height exceeding 35 feet without the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP). He reviewed (city code 156.121) provisions for increases to building height with a CUP. Administrator Statz noted that a conditional use permit is allowed with reasonable conditions. He added that all development in this district is done through a the definition of height requirements in the city code. Commissioner Thompson asked if the Commission could deny a conditional use permit on the height of a building. Administrator Statz stated that they could not deny a conditional use permit if the building meets the conditions. Commissioner Thompson asked a few clarifying questions about conditional use permits and Administrator Statz explained that conditional uses can have reasonable conditions allowed and planned unit developments are allowed. Commissioner Kalina asked who issues a conditional use permit. Administrator Statz explained that the Planning Commission issues a recommendation to council and council approves it. Commissioner Seppala asked about the Stantec analysis that says the height of the proposed building would be at least 35 feet as defined in the Centerville Zoning Code but would appear 48 feet in height on the north side due to the ground level, on the northwest corner of the buildings. Administrator Statz explained that the Stantec memo has three different options for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider: one for approval, another one is for approval with enhanced conditions, and one is for denial. Since staff heard a mix of options, they prepared three options. 16 Commission 2024 Discussion ensued about the building height. The City of Centerville Code height is based on the east elevation. Some codes will take into consideration the entire perimeter of the building. Administrator Statz noted that the developer has made efforts to soften the height. Slide 5 Parking Administrator Statz reviewed this slide, highlighting the number of parking spaces required per code, and explaining that a conditional use permit may be granted to provide fewer parking spaces when it is clearly demonstrated by the applicant that the use will not require the number of spaces indicated. Administrator Statz also explained a condition for proof of parking, whereby the land being held in a landscape reserve in the event the use or parking needs change could be used. He added that he thinks proof of parking is a nice way of ensuring that there are no issues with parking overflowing into the school and/or streets. Administrator Statz also mentioned that the conditional use permit has further restrictions, which allow the city to restrict the number of units being rented if parking were to become a problem. Commission Kalina asked if the developer would be charging for parking and the developer responded that they are. Administrator Statz reviewed his slide on parking ratios, also showing ratios on similar projects in Farmington and Delano. Commissioner Seppala asked if the other communities had a land-locked issue like we do. Mr. Ebert explained that Delano is more like Centerville and there have not been reports of problems there. Commissioner Kalina asked if their code allows for on-street parking. Mr. Ebert and his colleague confirmed there have not been any problems reported and that driving by every night on the way home (for 2 years) the parking lot has not been full. Commissioner McCabe asked about parking conditions to gain a better understanding of the similarities with the Delano project. Commissioner Olson asked if anyone has looked at what the project would look like if the site had parking requirements of 2:1. Mr. Ebert said they are looking at proof of parking. Administrator Statz pointed out that there are several bills that were introduced at the legislature and got hearings at committees. One bill was about parking. Another was termed the missing middle, where restrictions were placed on planning lot size, size of buildings, preempting local zoning authority. Administrator Statz noted that there is a narrative out there that cities are overregulating things like parking, causing the price of housing to skyrocket and if we could eliminate then we would have affordable housing. He added that the council opposed those legislative actions by writing letters stating that we value this board and their discretion on these issues and that we trust they will make discretionary choices. Further, Administrator Statz said that if the bills had passed, this would have taken away local authority to decide on how much parking is allowed and it would have disallowed public hearings. In addition, construction of duplexes, triplexes (up to eight plexuses with no restriction on additional parking, utility connections, etc. would have been allowed). City Planner Phil Carlson added that he is seeing many projects in suburban locations being built to a 1.6 standard, adding that parking minimums are way too high. 16 Commission 2024 Slide 6- Proximity to Elementary School Administrator Statz noted that there is nothing within the zoning code specifically disallowing a multi-family building in the vicinity of a school, adding that the Centerville Elementary School playground and ballfields are surrounded by homes with porches, decks and rear windows with views of these areas. This development would be similar with a limited number of units with these views. Administrator Statz asked the Commission for clarification on why it makes sense to eliminate balconies when the views are like the ones that homeowners surrounding the school have. Commissioner Seppala noted the difference in sight line from the balconies. Commissioner Seppala, referencing the balconies on the east side of the building, asked how preventing people from drinking intoxicating beverages and vaping would be regulated since per city entary school or children. Commissioner Thompson noted that there is a bar across the street in view of children and Chair Krueger noted that there is an apartment building with 14-15 units in the school parking lot. City Attorney Glaser noted that law enforcement is trained to use discretion and that maybe the first time someone received a warning and is asked to quiet down, and the next time may result in a violation. Attorney Glaser stated that the law would be enforced the same Lakeland Hills. Commissioner Kalina asked if there were anything in the apartment lease that would prevent residents from drinking or having a cocktail on their balcony. Mr. Ebert said there is no smoking but there is nothing prohibiting people from having a cocktail. Attorney Glaser noted that the city does not have a crime free rental ordinance, noting that this is one of those measures that you use for people who are getting out of control and that we have the regulation because it applies to everybody in town. Chair Krueger asked how big the balconies are. The developer said they would be about 5ft by 10ft. Slide 7 Crime Administrator Statz said that he does not see evidence in Centerville that a multi-family building creates more crime than a single-family home. He reviewed examples of single-family owner- occupied homes that have an overwhelming problem for our police department, noting that crime exists in a variety of different housing types, adding that we have crime at commercial sites. Administrator Statz noted that the top calls for service at this time include gas stations and assisted living facilities taxing our public safety right now. Administrator Statz stated that he does not have any evidence that shows that a multi-family development will cause more crime than any other type of development. Commissioner Nelson said that we did not have anything else in the city to compare with and that maybe we could look in Lexington at places that have had some problems. He said he feels like the medical calls we respond to are a routine part of doing business in the city. Commissioner Seppala asked if Commissioner Nelson was saying he wanted some analysis done on buildings of comparable Chair Krueger stated that he patrolled in Lexington for 27 years and he oversaw the crime free rental program. He added that as far as the police department is concerned the city of Lexington has multiple high rises and the one that causes a lot of problems (at first) is the Landings, which are lower income apartments, adding that the city of Lexington has done a lot to address the initial problems. Chair 16 Commission 2024 Krueger also said that the city of Lexington has a lot of other high-rise buildings (Ephesians and the Loft) and the calls for service there are low due to higher rents. Slide 8 - Screening Administrator Statz reviewed the slide, noting that the existing trees on the east of the property line will remain in place and offer some screening, as well as a fence and arborvitae on the east side of the property edge. Administrator Statz noted that the developer, as noted earlier, stated that they are open to an opaque fence along the north and east sides of the property of 6-8ft. City Planner Carlson added that one of the main reasons for a fence is to screen headlights. Slide 9 - Parks Administrator Statz reviewed the park fees that would be paid upon execution of the development agreement and is not refundable through TIF. The amount collected would be $312,000 and can be used to expand or add new equipment to our parks system (not eligible for use on maintenance). Discussion ensued about the retaining wall staying and what would happen to trees if the parking lot were to be extended. Administrator Statz explained that if there is no more room for trees due to added parking, the Commission could ask for tree replacement elsewhere or for a donation to the tree fund. Discussion ensued about requiring more trees of a certain caliper as a condition of proof of parking. City Planner Carlson added that a caliper of 2.5 in or 6ft evergreen is what is optimal for survival. Slide 10 Utilities Administrator Statz reviewed the slide, noting that the city utilities are sufficient to handle the development; he also explained how utilities fees can be used. Administrator Statz noted that connection fees paid to the city for water, sewer, and stormwater would be $435,000. The development will be fully paying users of these utilities (not refundable through TIF). Slide 11 Traffic Administrator Statz noted that the traffic study shows that the development does not degrade the function of any neighboring intersection, and he reviewed key findings of the study, which are outlined in his presentation. Commissioner Seppala stated that she does not see how the number of cars coming out of a one-way area and adding another 700 to the stub will not cause problems for traffic and/or safety; she showed a picture of several bikes at the school. Discussion ensued about traffic and traffic calming measures such as a roundabout or traffic signal. Administrator Statz noted that staff has talked to the county about this and that from his perspective (engineering) that a traffic signal light would be green most often and this would not be the case for a roundabout; he added that the county will make the decision. Administrator Statz added that traffic calming will be needed in the next few years regardless of if this development goes through or not. Commissioner Kalina asked how pedestrians cross at a roundabout and Administrator Statz explained. Commissioner Seppala asked about the misalignment of the parking lot, adding that she felt it would be a good thing. Administrator Statz explained they will probably do a radius reduction to give people more room to get out of the development and maybe widening of the driveway. Discussion ensued about the added trips and traffic added (phase 1 and phase 2 of the development). Administrator Statz reviewed the traffic study slides in his presentation. Slide 12 School Capacity Administrator Statz reviewed his slide, noting that the new students that would be coming from the development would not overburden the schools. Discussion ensued about the market study, which shows there will be about 30% young professionals and about 20% young families or 16 Commission 2024 single families and then 50% empty nesters. Commissioner Kalina asked how this information is collected, and the developer noted that this information is based on similar high end luxury buildings in suburban markets (like Delano). Administrator Statz added the Elementary strategy for open enrollment is that as the population reaches its peak, they will drop open enrollees to ensure that people that live in Centerville will attend the elementary school. Commissioner Kalina asked what the average class size is, and Administrator Statz noted that he does not have the number but the limit to require hiring another teacher is not different here than in other areas. Slide 13 Architecture Administrator Statz reviewed his slide, noting historical elements from the old school, facades, architecture previously used downtown. Administrator Statz added that the proposed building substantially meets the requirements of the Downtown Master Plan, however, more detailed architectural plans will be required subject to review. Commissioner Olson asked what the developer will do to the northwest to hide the blank wall since the masterplan states that designs should minimize blank walls on public roadways. Administrator Statz noted that the first thing they did was take nine feet off. Mr. Budenski noted that in addition to reducing the size, they will screen with some type of greenery, and full windows (not real windows because the parking garage will be behind it). Commissioner Olson noted that there are other requirements in the Master Plan regarding materials that can be used. Administrator Statz noted that the detailed architectural plans would need to be reviewed by the Commission. Slide 14 Garbage and Snow Management Administrator Statz noted that since this was covered earlier, he will move forward to the next slide. Slide 15 Small Town Feel Administrator Statz reviewed his slide, noting that the Downtown Master Plan calls for both small town feel and high-density housing. He asked the Commission to consider how these two could co- exist. Commissioner Kalina asked for clarification on the front side of the building; she asked why the front is not the lake since the desirable view. Administrator Statz noted that the code used to be different twenty years ago, but today it is considered the street side or yard (east). Discussion ensued about measurement and height. Chair Krueger asked if there were any other questions on anything before entertaining a motion. Since there were none, City Planner Carlson reviewed the three options: Approve with Conditions and Findings, Approve with Enhanced Conditions and Findings, or Denial. Mr. Carlson noted that the staff recommendations is option 1: Approve with Conditions, noting that there are twenty-one conditions and without reviewing each condition, the underlined ones are new thth from the May 7 meeting and the findings (also underlined) are based on the May 7 report. Mr. Carlson added that the twenty conditions and ten findings are what staff would recommend for this project. Mr. Carlson noted that the second option: approve with enhanced conditions, i.e., proof of parking, occupancy, balconies, etc. Mr. Carlson said that there really needs to be extraordinary reason to deny a conditional use; he added that either of the first two options are recommended from his view, noting that staff has provided material in case the Commission wanted to deny the plan. 16 Commission 2024 Commissioner Seppala asked Mr. Carlson some questions about city code 156.210 items b and c; she noted that the code says that all conditions for a CUP or IUP must be met for a PUD and wondered if preservation of unique natural resources of land an exception would be because tree removal and other activities associated with development would alter the natural landscape. Mr. Carlson noted that while this is a wonderful site, he would not consider these natural resources in the sense that the Grand Canyon is -story building harmonize with the school right next door or with the lake or the neighborhoods around it. Mr. Carlson said there is probably not one right answer, but the property to the north is about 200 feet from those homes not ten or twenty feet. Other homes are next to each other and there are also existing trees in the area, noting that the development certainly harmonizes reasonably. Mr. Carlson added that a school is a busy place during the day and a building next to it does not seem unreasonable or out of character. To the lake, the building is set back significantly; the other part of the clause is future proposals, and the intent of the downtown is that it will be built up with more intense dense development. Commissioner Seppala read aloud the definition of harmony, noting that she does not know how this development is compatible with the school, lake, or surrounding neighborhood, because it is not a visually pleasing combination, adding that it sticks out like a sore thumb. Mr. Carlson noted it falls in the area of judgement. Commissioner Seppala further added that the code says that all conditions must be met. Commissioner Seppala asked how we get past the Master Plan limiting buildings to three stories and the development is four. Mr. Carlson noted that with sloping site, it meets the criteria. Discussion ensued about a definition of erms of criteria that are currently in place. Discussion also ensued about changes to the density in the M2 district last year. Discussion ensued about internal mid-t. Commissioner Thompson noted that the city has a Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan that says we want to grow downtown within the parameters of the planning documents, adding that then we go out to the development community and say this is what we want and then a developer comes in and tries to meet most of what we want. He added that if there are things that we want to change, like parking, the view to school, etc., the Commission can set conditions through the CUP. Further, Commissioner Thompson said that he is having trouble understanding why the Commission is project against the city code and guiding document he added that the role is not to consider political ramifications of rental housing versus home ownership TIF, etc. Commissioner Seppala said that the Commission needs to do due diligence and vet this for the Council, adding that they should point out the parking, height, contradictions in the Master Plan and the conditional use permit. Commissioner Thompson asked if the Commission wanted to point out the contradictions and pass this forward or deny it. Commissioner Seppala noted that she would make a motion to deny the LaLonde Property CUP for a PUD based on not conforming with zoning related to parking, related to height as outlined in the Stantec denial, that it conflicts with the Master Plan specifically the height and mass of the building do not protect the integrity of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The design of the building is not consistent with the architectural design standards in the referenced Master Plan. The Master Plan limits projects to three stories, whereas, the proposed project would rise more than three level on the western north side, the conditional use permit 156.21 that it does not harmonize with the existing surroundings, for safety and the proximity to the Centerville Elementary School, and the 16 Commission 2024 school children walking and playing, and that short stop, The Master Plan contradiction of downtown for the scale and size of the project considering its proximity to the elementary school and adjacent single- family homes she noted that she would not go on. Motion by Commissioner Seppala, seconded by Commissioner Kalina to deny the LaLonde CUP for PUD for the reasons of parking, height, contradictions in the Master Plan, conditional use permit 156.21, the proximity to the Centerville Elementary School and safety of the school children and that short stop, Master Plan contradiction of downtown neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan, the LaLonde is incompatible and inappropriate for the scale and size of the project considering its proximity to the elementary school and adjacent single family homes. Discussion: Commissioner Thompson noted that a lot of the things cited are subjective and he thinks it exposes parking can be addressed by requiring proof of additional parking, but he thinks we would need to determine how much parking is needed. He added that if the Commission wants the developer to meet the city code of the two parking stalls per unit, then that becomes the norm, i.e., the standard for all developments as we move forward. He noted that the proximity to the school, a whole bunch of other multifamily residential units that are near schools. The developers have also taken a step to try and mitigate the interaction with kids in this property through innovative screening, so he does not see that as a big issue. Commissioner Nelson asked how he felt about the small-town feel. Commissioner Thomoson noted that if we are going to grow from 4,000 to 5,000 people, there will anting the city to grow to 5000. Commissioner Thompson clarified that the Commission, Council, and residents had the opportunity to prepare the documents that are currently in use if the Commission wants something different then they should consider that after a decision is made on this proposal. Commissioner Seppala noted that in addition to the city code, denial should be done because the Commission should role to review the documents. Discussion ensued about the sentiment of the public comments, changing housing go through another use could be proposed, like a church and no taxes would be collected on that. Commissioner Olson noted that the project meets the code but that additional conditions can be added, so the Commission could push the developer to limit the north façade or to break the building apart to look smaller. Chair Krueger noted that the height meets the code, parking could be an issue, but he likes the proof of parking condition. Commissioner McCabe noted that the development meets in terms of height and that the superintendent of the schools has weighed in, the proximity of the school is no different than other residential homes, adding that there is an apartment building in the parking lot of the elementary school. Commissioner McCabe asked if the Commission could have a visual of what additional parking would look like, should they need it. Commissioner McCabe also stated that he was looking at something that was not subjective, something that was not open for interpretation as to why the proposal could be denied. Motion restated as: Motion by Commissioner Seppala, seconded by Commissioner Kalina to deny the LaLonde property CUP and PUD based on not confirming with zoning-related to parking, related to the height as outlined in the Stantec denial, it conflicts with the Master Plan, specifically the 16 Commission 2024 height and mass of the building do not protect the integrity of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the design of the building is not consistent with architectural design standards in the referenced Master Plan. The Master Plan limits projects to three stories, whereas the proposed project would rise more than three levels on the western north side. Paragraph 156.21 conditional use permit that it does not harmonize with the existing surroundings, talking about safety in proximity to the Centerville Elementary School for the school children playing. Number seven, the Master Plan denotes that the downtown neighborhood is reserved for mid-rise housing. The proposed project of three to four levels and has a goal to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible and offensive uses and to identify areas appropriate for multifamily housing opportunities. The LaLonde property is incompatible and inappropriate for this scale and size of the project. Considering its proximity to the elementary school, and adjacent to single-family homes. The applicant has not presented enough information as to the public benefit of the PUD. The public benefits do not outweigh the relaxation of standards of being requested. And, lastly, the safety of people walking across Main Street. Commissioner Seppala yay, Commissioner Kalina Yay, Commissioner Nelson yay, Commissioner McCabe nay, Commissioner Thompson, Nay Commissioner Olson Nay, Commissioner Krueger, nay. Motion failed 4 to 3. A different motion was made to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and conditional use permit for a planned unit development with the findings outlined in the Stantec memo under the Enhanced Recommendations and Conditions Heading. Motion by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Chair Krueger to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and conditional use permit for a planned unit development with the findings outlined in the staff memo and the Stantec Enhanced Recommendations and Conditions. Discussion ensued about lighting, height, materials, parking, garbage and recycling, screening, and the other conditions in the enhanced Stantec memo. Commissioner Seppala requested an amendment to have the building façade approved by the planning and zoning Commission in addition to the planner and engineer. Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. Commissioner Seppala requested an amendment to have the planning commission approve the final construction plans as they relate to luxury materials and luxury amenities. Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. Commissioner Seppala requested an amendment to for the height of the fence on the east side to Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. Commissioner Seppala requested an amendment to the exterior conditions to include the apartment along with proof of parking. Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. Condition 11 was removed and substituted for condition 23 (proof of parking). Commissioner Nelson requested an amendment to include submission of a defined written snow removal plan. Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. 16 Commission 2024 Commissioner Olson requested an amendment to lower the building on the north side to be more to scale with residential properties. Commissioner Thompson rejected this change. Commissioner Kalina requested an amendment limiting occupancy in the apartments will be limited to two times the number of bedrooms in each unit. Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. Commissioner Seppala requested an amendment to include a ladder truck. Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. Commissioner Seppala requested an amendment to include submission of a demographic study. Commissioner Thompson accepted this change. Chair Krueger seconded all the accepted amendments. Commissioner McCabe aye, Commissioner Kalina aye, Commissioner Thompson Aye, Chair Krueger Aye. Commissioner Olson, Nay, Commissioner Seppala Nay, Commissioner Nelson Nay. Motion carried 4 to 3. Revised Enhanced Conditions adopted by the Planning Commission. The P&Z Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of the CUP/PUD and Preliminary st Plat for LaLonde 1 1) The design of the building façade will be revised to include additional details that evoke historic French-Canadian architecture, to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer and Planning Commission. 2) The lower level of the west façade of the building will be revised to include more architectural detailing instead of a blank decorative block wall, to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer and Planning Commission. 3) Due to concerns over the height of the building adjacent to the existing single family neighbors to the north, the north leg of the apartment building will be shortened by two units per floor and the westernmost two units on the upper floor will be removed, compared to the original design of three stories of apartments over parking. 4) Development Agreement - The applicant will enter into a development agreement for all aspects of site construction and engineering to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney and City Council. 5) Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval from the City Engineer and the Planning Commission as it relates to luxury materials and luxury amenities. 6) Screening The Subject Property shall provide a fence on the east and north sides of the property. sufficient height and length be maintained with sufficient screening or fencing to stop light from leaving the site from vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot and parking garage, and in a manner coordinated with the landscape plan. The fence on the east side of the property shall serve to screen the elementary school from the 16 Commission 2024 7) Garbage If garbage containers are stored on site they Garbage containers shall be screened from public view. Garbage hauling shall be coordinated to not interfere with school bus traffic from Centerville Elementary School. All garbage shall be contained within garbage containers designed for that purpose. The grounds of the subject property shall be maintained in a manner that is free from litter and garbage. A written Garbage and Recycling management plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and shall include staging of the garbage containers at the street edge on Westview Street. 8) Exterior Conditions The Subject Property shall be maintained in a neat and workmanlike order to include, but not limited to: a. The original landscape, grading, and lighting plans shall be maintained. b. Lawn, shrubbery, trees, and planting areas shall be maintained in conformity with City standards, and dead plantings shall be replaced. c. Painted surfaces shall be free from pealing, cracking, or fading. d. Pavement, curb, and sidewalk shall be free from potholes and major damage as so deemed by the City Engineer. e. Lane lines and markings for parking, driveways, and fire lanes shall be clearly visible by painting or marking. f. Exterior lighting shall function as designed and illuminate areas from dusk until dawn, and such light shall not pollute areas off of the subject property, including the apartment. 9) Snow Removal Snow removal operations shall utilize snow storage locations only on the Subject Property or hauled off site in a manner that complies with local regulations. All fire lanes and means of fire access on the Subject Property shall be cleared of ice and snow within 24-hours from the end of snowfall. A written Snow Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 10) Parking Vehicle parking by residents and guests shall be confined to the parking areas on the Subject Property. No vehicles from the site shall park on public streets north of Main utilizing area streets or other privately held parking lots for overflow parking, whether legal or illegal, the City reserves the right to make adjustments to the operation of the building and site to mitigate the issue until no off-site parking is being utilized. 11) Proof of parking shall be shown on a site plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer that would provide the number of parking spaces required to obtain a 1.8:1 ratio. An escrow will be provided to the City for three years to allow construction of additional parking spaces if, in the opinion of the City Council, there are parking problems warranting additional parking on site. 12) No working on/repairing cars or other vehicles or equipment in the parking lot. 13) No oversized vehicles are allowed in the parking lot or taking up more than one space per vehicle. 14) Outside Storage No Outside Storage, as defined by Ordinance, is permitted on the Subject Property other than customary furniture and equipment on the patio or on the individual unit balconies. 16 Commission 2024 15) Construction-related traffic is prohibited from using Westview Street during drop-off and pickup times at Centerville Elementary School, to be coordinated with a written plan developed by the City Administrator, the school administration, and the contractor. 16) The parking lot and site plan layout included in the final plans will be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief, ensuring adequate space to maneuver public safety vehicles including a ladder truck. 17) Disturbances Prohibited The Subject Property, or users thereof, shall not produce noise, vibrations, air pollution, light pollution, fire hazards, or noxious emissions which disturb, endanger, or offend neighboring properties or the public. 18) Public Nuisances Prohibited - The Subject Property, or users thereof, shall not create or maintain a public nuisance or disorderly conduct, as defined pursuant to the Code of Ordinances or pursuant to State Law. a. The City deems it to be a public nuisance to smoke, vape, or drink intoxicating beverages within sight of the elementary school property or its students. Accordingly, these activities are not permitted on the east side of the apartment building. b. The City deems it to be a public nuisance to loiter in the vicinity of the elementary school or its students. Accordingly, loitering is not permitted on or from the subject property. c. The City deems it to be a public nuisance for conditions to exist on the subject property which cause the excessive use of law enforcement or emergency services. d. The City deems it to be a public nuisance for conditions to exist on the subject property which allow persons to cross Main Street to or from the west side of the subject property. 19) Permits - Landowner will follow the applicable standards and requirements of the City of Centerville City Code, Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, Army Corp of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and any other agency having jurisdiction over the Subject Property. Landowner shall grant and allow access by city and other agency personnel to inspect the subject premises for compliance with the aforementioned Permits. 20) Legal Compliance The Subject Property shall be kept in compliance with, and Landowner will obey all laws and regulation necessary to operate this building, and will obtain and maintain, in good standing, all licenses or permits necessary to operate this type of facility. 21) Apartment leases shall be no less than twelve months to provide more long-term residents and fewer transients. All leases will be with the apartment management company; no sub- leases will be permitted. 21) Balconies shall be constructed of wrought iron vs. aluminum or other material, in keeping the Downtown Master Plan preference for that material. 22) Due to concerns about overcrowding, occupancy in the apartment units will be limited to three two times the number of bedrooms in each unit. 23) Proof of parking shall be shown on a site plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Commission that would provide the required number of parking 16 Commission 2024 spaces per city code (2:1). An escrow or other security will be provided to the City for three years to allow construction of additional parking spaces if, in the opinion of the City Council, there are parking problems warranting additional parking on site. Plus, the following conditions: Architectural Plans with a level of detail to show, at a minimum: o Elevation views of all 4 sides of the building, including material call-outs o Floor Plans of all 3 floors of residential living and the parking level These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The building shall be designed, constructed and maintained to include the list of amenities associated with the proposed Luxury Apartment as detailed in the presentation to the Planning Commission at the Concept Review Stage. Administrator Statz noted that the City Council will review this recommendation, knowing that some of the items will be brought back to the Planning Commission for further review. VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2010 Fairview Street Use Review Caliber Collision (Auto Glass Replacement/Repair) Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet. Motion by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Chair Krueger to support the Zoning (indoors); a permitted use on the Table of Allowed Uses in the City Code. All in favor. Motion carried. 2. Chapter 157: Erosion Control Minimum Control Measures for (MCM) Ordinance to be in Compliance with Construction Stormwater Requirements for Erosion, Sediment, and Waste Controls. Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet. Motion by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Chair Krueger to approve the replacement of Chapter 156: Erosion Control ordinance with the model ordinance. All in favor. Motion carried. VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 7, 2024, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, noting revisions to comments th provided by Tyler Brigl at the public hearing on May 7 include the last two paragraphs: Tyler Brigl, 1295 Mound Trail Mr. Brigl said that when he tells his friends he lives in Centerville they do not know where it is and -town feel is. He stated that small towns do not have 104-unit apartment buildings. Mr. Brigl asked the Commission to look at the situation and the morality of it because community matters, and the community does not want this. Mr. Brigl also stated that things should be built on merit, so if the development goes through then make them build it on their own, without financial assistance because it is not right or fair for the community. 16 Commission 2024 he stated you take $2.5 million over 15 years, noting that first you divide by 15 and get about $166,000 and that would do a lot of good for our fire department, police, public services, and schools; Mr. Brigl added that the developers do not get a free ride. Mr. Brigl provided another example of what this would mean for the builder and operators, noting that $2.5 million over 15 years - taking $160,000 and dividing by 104 units is another $138 per month ed that all they would have to do for this luxury apartment is charge the market rate plus $138.00. Mr. Brigl also said that to the community and the Commission needs to say no. Motion by Commissioner Seppala, seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve the May 7, 2024, with the additional comments of Mr. Brigl. All in favor. Motion carried. IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES 1. Council Member Russ Koski Council Member Koski thanked staff for holding a breakfast for veterans and their families over the Memorial Day weekend. Council Member Koski thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for the work they do, noting that the job is not easy if do it then the Council would need to meet much more often. 2. Report No Report given. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner McCabe to adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried. 16 CITY OF CENTERVILLEREQUEST FOR ACTION Agenda Item # Department: RequestedMeetingDate: September 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning VIII.2 TITLE OF ISSUE: July 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The July 9, 2024 minutes are included in the packet for the Commission's consideration. COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING: N/A REQUESTED ACTION: Motion to approve the July 9, 2024 meeting minutes. For ClerkÓs Use: SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Motion By: ____________________________________ Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map Second By: ____________________________________ Vote Record: Aye Nay _____ Minutes Other (specify) ____________ ______________________________________________________________ _____ _______________________________________________________________ Refer to: _________________________________ Tabled Until: ______________________________ Consent Other: ___________________________________ Regular CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held in Council Chambers on Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Krueger called the regular meeting to order at 6:37p.m. 1. Roll Call Present: Commissioner Richard Nelson Not Approved Commissioner Dawn Kalina Commissioner Jon Krueger Commissioner Matthew McCabe Commissioner Jeannie Seppala Commissioner Bruce Thompson Absent: Vice-Chair Darrell (DJ) Olson Staff: City Administrator, Mark Statz Assistant City Administrator, Athanasia Lewis Council: Council Member Russ Koski II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was revised to add public comments under V.1 Award, Presentations, Appearances. The variance concept review for 7021 LaMotte Drive Driveway Width was moved to V.2. The agenda was approved as revised. Motion by Commissioner Thompson seconded by Commissioner Nelson to Approve the Agenda as revised. All in favor. Motion carried. IV. PUBLIC HEARING (6:30 PM or shortly thereafter) 1. None V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPEARANCES 1. Public Comments Nancy Golden 1654 Lakeland Circle Ms. Golden addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission, noting that over the last eight months she has been engaged with the Planning and Zoning Commission, Council, and committees, and she has realized that the city has conflicting documents, which are a source of frustration for the Planning Commission, Council, residents and likely developers. Ms. Golden stated that everyone in the room Page 1 of 4 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission July 9, 2024 wants to improve Centerville and protect the Crown Jewel of the northern cities, but that we need to be smart and diligent. Ms. Golden stated that she would like to request a six-to-twelve-month moratorium on all planned unit developments (PUDs) downtown so that we can regroup and engage with quality developers that will be coming forth. Anita Rios 1680 Lakeland Circle th Ms. Rios addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission, noting that at the June 12 City Council Meeting, Jeannie Seppala requested a moratorium on all planned unit developments (PUDs) downtown due to inconsistencies in the 2006 Downtown Master Plan, 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and zoning codes and that she is here to support that request. Ms. Rios said that it would take some time to update the documents and that she did not want decisions that do not reflect the updated documents to occur in the meantime. Ms. Rios stated that the city council recently updated their Strategic Plan to include engaging the community in the review and revision of both the Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan and she applauds this effort. Ms. Rios stated that she thinks the LOCi study should be considered when reviewing the Master Plan. Ms. Rios said that the LaLonde proposal was a wake-up call for her and others about what they do not want the city to look like. Ms. Rios said that she hopes that city leaders can work together with Centerville residents to preserve the small town feel of the city and manage growth. Ms. Rios requested that the Commission consider a one-year moratorium on PUDs downtown. Heather Carciofini 1652 Lakeland Circle Ms. Carciofini stated that she is here to support the one-year moratorium on all new Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) seen over the past few months, in her opinion, underscores the need for a more thoughtful approach to downtown development. She added that the world has changed significantly since the creation of the Downtown Development Master Plan and that she does not think the 2006 documents serve the community well in 2024. Ms. Carciofini said that she thinks we have an ideal opportunity right now to pause and ensure that future development is truly in sync with the wants and needs of current Centerville residents. Ms. Carciofini requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission vote in favor of a moratorium. 2. Variance Concept Review - 7021 LaValle Driveway Width Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, adding that the Planning and Zoning Commission updated the code pertaining to driveway widths not too long ago. Mr. McCall, the resident requesting the variance, addressed the Commission and explained that he wanted to widen his driveway because he said that the rock and width are problematic. Discussion ensued about the area for improvement (up to the road, west to the property line, south of the front property line). Administrator Statz stated that State law is very specific about when municipalities can grant a variance: If the change would fit with the character of the neighborhood If the need for the variance was not created by the owner If the change is a reasonable use of the land Mr. Statz added that he thought it would be difficult to justify granting a variance that the owner would not need additional driveway width for without the RV. However, Administrator Statz noted Page 2 of 4 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission July 9, 2024 that the resident could expand his driveway the width of his garage without a variance, and this is approximately 7 feet. VI. OLD BUSINESS 1. Review of Committee By-Laws Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet. Discussion ensued about the process for amendments and friendly amendments to motions. Administrator Statz also noted that if there is a question about a motion on the floor, then it is appropriate for someone to call for a point of order at the meeting (not after the meeting). Chair Krueger acknowledged Resident Cara Johnson at 1862 Partridge Place, allowing her to address the Commission to speak about a letter she sent staff the day after the vote on the LaLonde property. Ms. Johson stated that she really appreciated the follow-up and that going forward, she importance to the town; she added that she would like to see the city lean out of going through a friendly amendment process as it would help bring confidence to the way the city is making decisions. NEW BUSINESS 1. Development Concept Review Eric Marshall Property 7216 & 7230 LaValle Drive. Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, reviewing the 3-lot concept and the 2 two-lot concepts (as outlined in the staff memo). Property owner Eric Marshall addressed the Commission, explaining that he is looking for the best use for his property. Mr. Marshall explained that he met with Administrator Statz to discuss concepts, adding that he brought some plans to the city about six years ago, but paused pursuing anything due to some personal circumstances. Mr. Marshall addressed the Commission to gauge their interest in considering a planned unit development (PUD) on his property. Discussion ensued about setbacks, ponding, height, home price, timeline to get started, and flex points at Bay View Villas. The consensus among the Commission is that they would entertain further discussion on a PUD. 2. Review Downtown Guiding Document Inconsistencies & Next Steps to Address Them Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, reviewing his slides and staff recommendations (noted at the bottom of each PowerPoint slide). Discussion ensued about density, height, definitions (of story and floor), parking (ratio and in height consideration), parameters of the downtown, architecture and the inclusion of examples of French-Canadian architecture. Discussion ensued about the process for making tweaks to the existing plan and/or recommending a moratorium on planned unit developments (PUDs) in the downtown while more substantial changes are made to the Downtown Master Plan. The consensus among Commissioners is to recommend that the City Council approve a moratorium, so Administrator Statz reviewed the next steps. Motion by Commissioner Seppala seconded by Commissioner Kalina to Approve the Agenda as revised. All in favor. Motion carried. 3. Submittal of Proposed 2025 P&Z Budget to the City Council Page 3 of 4 City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission July 9, 2024 Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, noting that per the -Laws a budget is supposed to be submitted to the city council. Motion by Commissioner Thompson seconded by Commissioner McCabe to submit the budget to the city council as presented. All in favor. Motion carried. 4. Scheduling of Special Work Session of the P&Z Commission City Bus Tour Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, advising that staff will need to post notice of a potential quorum if everyone wants to attend. Administrator Statz also noted that the stops for the tour will be posted, so people can follow the bus. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 4, 2024, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet. Commissioner Nelson, noting the length of the minutes, requested the minutes be reviewed next month. Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kalina to approve the June 4m, 2024 minutes next month. All in favor. Motion carried. IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES 1. Council Member Russ Koski Council Member Koski announced that the Fire Steering Committee meeting will meet on July thth 18 and that Fete des Lacs will kick begin on July 16. Council Member Koski also thanked the Commissioners for the work they do. 2. Report Administrator Statz reviewed the report as presented in the packet. V. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kalina, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried. Page 4 of 4 CITY OF CENTERVILLEREQUEST FOR ACTION Agenda Item # Department: RequestedMeetingDate: September 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning IX.2 TITLE OF ISSUE: Administrator's Report BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The Administrator's Report is included in the packet for the Commission's review. COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING: N/A REQUESTED ACTION: Information only. For ClerkÓs Use: SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Motion By: ____________________________________ Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map Second By: ____________________________________ Vote Record: Aye Nay _____ Admin Report. Other (specify) ____________ ______________________________________________________________ _____ _______________________________________________________________ Refer to: _________________________________ Tabled Until: ______________________________ Consent Other: ___________________________________ Regular Report 2024 ELECTIONS UPDATE State Primary Elections (August 13, 2024, Recap) The City of Centerville processed three absentee/envelope process ballots, eight direct ballots in the 46 days prior to election day. On election day, Election Judges assisted 187 voters and registered 5 new voters. The turnout was very low for this cycle at6% of registered voters at 7 a.m. on election day. Municipal Elections The filing period for municipal elections has now ended. The candidates for Council raceson November 5, 2024, are: Mayor (2-year Term) D. Love Nancy Golden Council (2-Year Term; 1 seat)Special Election Anita Rios Council (4-Year Term; 2 seats) Russ Koski David Kubat Garland Port annual Movie in the Park will take place on September 14. Please join them for free popcorn and lemonade. Please bring a lawn chair, blanket and family and Quad Area Chamber Calendar August 28, 2024 Nosh & Network 5:00p.m.-7:00pm T and Nae Flower Farm in Hugo September 12, 2024 Quad Area Chamber Board Meeting 12:00pm-1:00pm Online Schedule Committee ENGINEERING TH 20 Avenue (CSAH 54) Corridor Study The City Council has approved the Corridor Study. Next steps will be to work with the county and the City of Lino Lakes to sync up our respective capital improvement plans so that we can begin budgeting for these improvements, many of which are 5 to 10 years out. Additions Trip Site) Site (Featured News) Board (11,000+ cars/day) Schedules Media (576 Twitter; 883 FB Followers) (949/3459 Total Impressions) City Accounts List (264 email addresses) List (60 email addresses)