HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-14 CC
..
~ -'~'r
~~:~ ~f~l.:~:.!_.f.L~
-=-~...
COUNCIL MEETING
C't'.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2001
6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
II. SET AGENDA
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Ordinance #4 Amendments (Continued from P & Z)
2. Zoning Map Modividations (Continued from P & Z)
IV. APPEARANCES/A WARDS
1. Mr. Mike Quigley, Gor-Em (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
2. Mr. Lloyd Drilling, Uptown Center (Comprehensive Sign Plan)
V. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. October 24, 2001 Council Meeting Minutes
VI. PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS
VII. OLD BUSINESS
1. Grassen Companies - Street Lights (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
2. Mueller Pipeliners (Terminal Transport Building)
3. Budget/Deferred Comp./Union Contract (Update)
4. Quad Cities Police Department (Update)
5. Vinco Overages (Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park)
6. Turcotte Property (Update-Ro-So $6,200)
7. Holiday Party (Update)
8. Entrance Monument
9. Public Works Mowing vs. Contractual Mowing (Update)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance #4 Amendments
2. Gor-Em (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
3. KCI - Site and Sign Plan
4. Thermal Imaging Cameras - Centennial Fire
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
1. City of Centerville October 25, through November 14, 2001 Expenditures
2. Centennial Fire District Expenditures
r
..
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Ad Hoc Communications Committee
XI. ADJOURNMENT
...
AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE #4
FOURTH ADDITION
1. Division 30: Non-conforming Uses and Structures: Page 20: The time
frame for an abandon or discontinued use has been extended to 12
months rather than 6 months under state statute.
2. Division 75: Final Grading and Landscaping: Page 26: After "grade as
specified" the following language should be added "except during
inclement weather an escrow shall be deposited with the City as approved
in the fee schedule.
3. Division 080-100: Industrial District - Item "Special Requirements":
Page 33: This section should be deleted in its entirety as Division 135-140
on Page 48 is more comprehensive and complete.
4. Division 110: Sign Regulations: Page 38: This section should be deleted
due to Ordinance #39, Signage.
5. Division 135-140: Outside Storage: Residential Districts: Item C: Page
48: The heading should be changed to include dwelling units in the M-1
District.
6. Front yard set back on lakeside and rear yard at street side.
7. Site Plan Review Process should be explained.
8. Delete Sections 205-010 & 020.
9. Add the following language regarding Commercial District.
10. Page 25 correct typo - Maximum (Not Minimum)
11. Page 42 & 48 Correct typos.
General Minimum Requirements. The following minimum requirements; as set
forth, shall apply to all buildings that may be erected, converted or structurally
altered in Commercial Districts.
Setback. See Table A - Schedule of District Regulations Lot and Yard
Requirements.
Building Height in Commercial Districts. As provided in Division 115.
Off Street Parking. As provided in Section 36 of this ordinance.
In addition to Division #90:
A. Space for a single vehicle shall be nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet or
larger.
B. Off street parking area shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete, and
with permanent concrete curbs to define driveways and parking
limits. Plans and specifications for parking areas shall be reviewed by
C. There shall not be off street parking within five (5) feet from any
street right-of-way nor five (5) feet from any other lot line.
D. Also see Division 165.
Buffer Zone Between Commercial and Residential Districts. Where a Commercial
District abuts a Residential District, any new development shall include a buffer
zone. There shall be a protective strip of not less than ten (10) feet in width. This
protective strip shall contain no structures, shall not be used for parking, off street
loading, or storage, and shall be landscaped. The landscape treatment shall include
a compact screen wall or fence, but shall not extend within fifteen (15) feet of the
street right-of-way. The planting or fence desire must be approved by site plan
review process.
Screening Requirements. If the City Council requires any type of screening as a
condition for a Variance or Special Use Permit, the applicant shall comply with the
following conditions:
A. File a copy of the screening plans with the Zoning Administrator.
B. The screening, planting or construction, or both shall be complete
within one (1) year from the date of building permit, subject to
extension by the City Council.
C. The screening shall be maintained after completion.
Landscaping. A minimum of ten (10) percent of any lot shall be green space. Three
(3) percent of the surface area ofthe land within a parking area shall be landscaped
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 right-of-ways will also be maintained by the property
owner. See division #160 for other requirements.
Site Plan. Site plans for all developments requiring a special use permit must be
submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. At least the following
information shall be submitted for review:
A. Site development plan.
B. Building plans, including building elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior surfaces, including all materials
proposed to meet the screening requirements of this ordinance.
C. Landscape plans, including the number, species, and size of all plantings.
D. Grading, drainage, parking areas, items to be stored, and utility plans.
Accessory Structures. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls, buildings, and
exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality, and appearance as
the principal structure.
Exterior of Building. All buildings shall be finished on all sides with permanent
finished materials of consistent quality, per division 95, and Ordinance #44-A.
Permitted Encroachments. The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on setbacks subject to other conditions within this ordinance:
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, flag poles, ornamental features, open fire escapes, sidewalks, and fences,
except as hereinafter amended.
Exterior Merchandise
See section 135-140.
Lighting
See Section 135-040.
Driveways
A.
B.
No driveway shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any right-
of-way line of a street intersection. Said distances shall be measured
along the property line from the comer right-of-way line.
Access drive onto county roads shall require a review by the City
Engineer. This review shall be measured along the property line from the
comer right-of-way line.
Special Use Permits
As provided in Division 200 of this ordinance.
Criteria for Issuance of Special Use Permit. When reviewing an application for a special
use permit the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall considered the
following criteria:
A. Impact on traffic.
B. Impact on parks, streets, and other public facilities.
C. Compatibility of the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping and
structures with contiguous properties.
D. Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties.
E. Impact on general public health, safety, and welfare.
F. Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Signs
As provided in Ordinance #39.
Refuse
A.
All premises shall be provided with, at owner's expense, an adequate
number of approved containers to hold the garbage accumulated by such
premises. Such containers shall be made of metal or other suitable
material, shall be water tight, insect and rodent proof, and shall be of a
material not easily corrodible and equipped with suitable handles and tight
fitting covers and shall be kept covered when there is garbage stored
therein.
B. Garbage and rubbish containers shall be placed at the rear of the premises
or in such a manner as to be out of view from the street. In no event shall
container or their enclosures be placed or maintained in such a way to
unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of adjoining property.
C. All garbage containers shall be screened with a suitable enclosure.
D. Every garbage or rubbish container shall be maintained in as sanitary
condition as is possible and shall be thoroughly cleansed as needed. If,
upon inspection by the Administrative Authority a container is found to be
in poor repair, corroded or otherwise defective the Administrative
Authority shall notify, in writing, the provider or user of the container of
the deficiency and shall require the repair or replacement of the container
within fifteen (15) days. All container enclosures shall also be kept in
good repair.
Permitted Uses
A. Retail sales and service, but excluding adult orientated businesses.
B. Automobile and motorized equipment sales and service, excluding salvage
operations.
C. Farm implement sales and service.
D. Building supply sales and storage yards.
E. Funeral homes and mortuaries.
F. Day care centers.
G. Hotels and motels.
H. Full service gasoline sales and service.
1. Eating and drinking establishments.
1. Financial institutions.
K. Personal and professional business offices.
L. Public buildings.
M. Barber/Beauty salons.
N. Commercial schools.
O. Hospitals and clinics.
P. Nursing homes.
Q. Commercial recreation.
R. Animal clinics.
S. Car washes.
T. Liquor stores.
Section 080-100: Industrial District (I-I).
Purpose
It is intended that the 1-1 District provide opportunities for light manufacturing and
industrial uses, trade businesses, machine shops and other more extensive land uses.
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.
Permitted Principal Uses/Uses Permitted on Special Use Permit
As provided in Section 080-100 of this ordinance.
Setback
See Table B- Schedule of District Regulations Lot and Yard Requirements.
In addition, side yards facing streets on comer lots shall be considered the same as front
yards. Where a front yard or side yard of a comer lot faces a residential district across a
street, the setback from the street shall be not less than 60 feet.
Building height in Industrial Districts
As provided in Division 115 of this ordinance.
Off Street Parking
As provided in Division 90 of this ordinance.
In addition to Division 90:
A. Space for a single vehicle shall be nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet or
larger.
B. Off street parking areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete, and
with permanent concrete curbs to define driveways and parking limits.
Plans and specifications for parking areas shall be reviewed by the City
Engineer, and approved by the City Council prior to construction.
C. All open street parking areas having more than six (6) 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. Such 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.
D. Parking constructed to fall within the minimum setbacks: See Table A.
E. Off street parking areas shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all
surface water. Drainage plans shall be subject to approval ofthe City
Engineer.
F. Also see Section 165.
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.
Screening Requirements
If the City Council requires any type of screening as a condition for a Variance or
special use permit, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
A. File a copy of the screening plans with the Zoning Administrator.
B. 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.
C. The screening shall be maintained after completion.
D. 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.
Landscaping
A minimum of ten (10) percent of any lot shall be green space. Three (3) percent of the
surface area of the land within a parking area shall be landscaped 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 right-of-ways will also be maintained by the property owner. Also see Section 160.
Site Plan
Site plans for all developments require special use permits prior to the issuance of
building permits. At least the following information shall be submitted for review:
A. Site development plan.
B. Building plans, including building elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior surfaces, including all materials
proposed to meet the screening requirements of this ordinance.
C. Landscape plans, including the number, species, and size of all plantings.
D. Grading, drainage, parking areas, items to be stored, and utility plans.
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 all of section 080-100.
Exterior of Building
All buildings shall be finished on all sides with permanent finished materials of
consistent quality, per division 100, and amendment #44-A.
Permitted Encroachments
The following shall not be considered as encroachments on setbacks subject to other
conditions within this ordinance:
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, flag poles, ornamental features, open fire escapes, sidewalks, and fences,
except as hereinafter amended.
Exterior Merchandise
See section 135-140.
Lighting
See Section 135-040.
Driveways
A.
B.
No driveway shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any right-
of-way line of a street intersection. Said distances shall be measured
along the property line from the comer right-of-way line.
Access drive onto county roads shall require a review by the City
Engineers.
Special Use Permits
As provided in Ordinance #39.
Refuse
A.
All premises shall be provided with, at owner's expense, an adequate
number of approved containers to hold the garbage accumulated by such
premises. Such containers shall be made of metal or other suitable
material, shall be water tight, insect and rodent proot~ and shall be of a
material not easily corrodible and equipped with suitable handles and tight
fitting covers and shall be kept covered when there is garbage stored
therein.
B. Garbage and rubbish containers shall be placed at the rear of the premises
or in such a manner as to be out of view from the street. In no event shall
container or their enclosures be placed or maintained in such a way to
unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of adjoining property.
C. All garbage containers shall be screened with a suitable enclosure.
D. Every garbage or rubbish container shall be maintained in as sanitary
condition as is possible and shall be thoroughly cleansed as needed. If,
upon inspection by the Administrative Authority a container is found to be
in poor repair, corroded or otherwise defective the Administrative
Authority shall notify, in writing, the provider or user of the container of
the deficiency and shall require the repair or replacement of the container
within fifteen (15) days. All container enclosures shall also be kept in
good repair.
Loading Facilities
Loading facilities shall be in the side of rear yards. When adjacent to and/or visible from
any public street, such facilities must be adequately screened.
Storage
For the purpose of this zoning district, car, vans and pick-up trucks parked outside and
used by employees and/or visitors in the normal course of the business operation will not
be constructed to be outdoor storage. Further, outside parked trucks and semi-tailers used
in the normal business commerce will not be constructed to be outdoor storage;
A. Provided that the total number of trucks and semi-trailers does not exceed
the number of docks and/or bay doors, and
B. Such use is not constructed as an operation listed as a conditional use in
any industrial zone.
Permitted Uses
A. Business and professional offices.
B. Machine and repair shops.
C. Construction trade offices and yards.
D. Manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, processing, packaging,
assembly and research uses, except waste management.
E. lndoor shooting/archery range and sales.
F. Truck terminals. (Special Use Pem1it required)
G. Mini-Storage (Special Use Permit Required).2
2 Amended: June 27,2001
H. Kennels (Special Use Permit Required)
Special Requirements
A. The storage of supplies, products, vehicles, equipment or other materials
shall be kept indoors unless totally screened from public rights of way and
adjacent properties. Adult orientated businesses are regulated separately
by City Ordinance.
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2001
6:30 p.m.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regularly scheduled
meeting on October 24,2001, at City Hall, 1880 Main Street.
PRESENT: Mayor Tim Mayor Swedberg
Council Member Dick Council Member Travis
Council Member Mary Council Member Capra
Council Member Mari Council Member Nelson
Council Member Linda Council Member Broussard Vickers
ABSENT: None.
STAFF: City Administrator Ms. Moore-Sykes
City Engineer, Mr. Tom Peterson
City Attorney, Mr. Jim Hoeft
Public Works Director, Mr. Paul Palzer
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Swedberg called the October 24,2001, City Council meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
II. SET AGENDA
Under Old Business add the Lion's Haunted House and Turcotte Property - (Ro-So
Contracting) as items number 13 and 14 respectively.
Under New Business add the Holiday Party and Centerville Elementary Peace Site
Recognition as items number 2 and 3 respectively.
Motion by Council Member Nelson. seconded by Council Member Capra to
approve the agenda as amended. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARING (S)
1. Preliminary Plat - The Shores
Mayor Swedberg opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
Mr. Bart Rehbein, 1659 Lakeland Circle, appeared before Council and reported that Glen
Rehbein Companies had contact Anoka County in regards to a trail way through the sub-
Page 1 of 23
division. Mr. Rehbein stated that Anoka County felt that the trail should be placed on the
east side of County Road 14 and a letter would be forwarded regarding same. Glen
Rehbein Companies requested that their engineering firm be allowed to complete the
design work and construction plans within the plat rather than the City's engineering firm
and then reviewed by them.
City Engineer Peterson stated that construction would commence this year. Mr. Peterson
discussed that a feasibility study had been completed in the past for a neighboring
subdivision rather than bringing services down County Road 14. Mr. Peterson stated that
he would prefer that all new subdivisions are serviceable by city sewer and water. Mr.
Peterson also stated that soil issues may occur new the Lakeland Hills subdivision. Mr.
Peterson stated that a feasibility study would forwarded to Council at their second
meeting in November.
Mayor Swedberg questioned the reasoning for not placing services in this area when the
Buechler Estates subdivision was built. Mr. Peterson stated that the City had not received
a petition from residents to do so, that a minimal number of residents would have
benefited and same would have been a rather expensive project.
Mr. Jerry Latender, 1397 Mound Trail, stated that he had concerns regarding Anoka
County widening County Road 14. Discussion ensued regarding Anoka County's request
for funding in 2005 for same. Mr. Peterson stated that the water main would be buried
seven (7) to eight (8) feet below the surface so same would not be a problem.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Capra to close the public hear at 7:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. APPEARANCES/AWARDS
1. Juran & Moody (Pheasant Marsh Bond)
Mr. George Eilertson appeared before Council to discuss the bond issuance for the
Pheasant Marsh subdivision. Mr. Eilertson stated that bids were received that morning
and subsequent to review, United Bankers Bank was the lowest bidder. Mr. Eilertson
stated that United Bankers Bank also submitted a bid for the Hunter's Crossing
subdivision and was awarded same. Mr. Eilertson suggested that Council award United
Bankers Bank as the successful underwriter of same. Mr. Eilertson stated that there was
a $20,000 difference between the lowest bid and the second lowest bid. Mr. Eilertson
stated that the bond will be issued as of November 1, 2001 with monies available on
November 19,2001.
Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned whether Mr. Hoeft had reviewed same.
Mr. Hoeft concurred.
Page 2 of 23
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member to
adopt Resolution #01-020 awarding the sale of $990.000 General Obligation
Improvement Bond based on the attorney's recommendation and the appropriate
numbers being placed in the document as presented by United Bankers Bank. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Eilertson requested that the Mayor and City Administrator accept the bid presented
by United Bankers Bank. Same signed the appropriate documentation.
2. Mr. and Mrs. Ken Carpenter, 6985 - 20th Avenue North - Zoning of Residence
Mr. Carpenter stated that he owns two (2) parcels, one in which his home is built on and
another that abuts same where his business is operated. Mr. Carpenter stated that both of
his parcels are zoned Commercial. Mr. Carpenter stated that when he built his home it
was allowable to construct a residence in a Commercial District; however, it was not
allowable to build a commercial business in a Residential District. Mr. Carpenter desired
to refinance his home and was informed by staff that his residence was none conforming
and if destroyed more than 50% he could not rebuild. Mr. Carpenter felt that the City
changed the rules midstream without notifying him of same.
City Administrator Moore-Sykes stated that the lender had been notified that the property
was zoned commercial and had contacted the City for additional information.
Mr. Hoeft stated that it appears that the property has always been zoned Commercial and
should not have been constructed. Mr. Hoeft stated that the residence is considered a pre-
existing condition and non-conforming. Mr. Hoeft stated that the City has not done
anything improper in this matter.
Mayor Swedberg questioned Mr. Hoeft as to the ability of Mr. Carpenter to sell this
residence. Mr. Hoeft stated that Mr. Carpenter could sell the home as Commercial
property.
Mayor Swedberg indicated that Mr. Carpenter had a very deep lot and asked if the
commercial zoning covered the entire lot or just the front portion of that lot.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the entire parcel would be zoned
commercial as it is listed under one (1) PIN number.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he had followed City Code and questioned how he could now
be penalized.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that nothing had changed with the City Code and suggested
that perhaps the lender changed the way it looks at things as compared to years ago when
the structure was built.
Page 3 of 23
Mr. Carpenter indicated that if nothing had changed with the City Code, he should be
able to get the loan.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that whether or not to grant the loan was up to the discretion
of the lender.
Council Member Broussard Vickers commented that Mr. Carpenter was asking Council
to make his property conforming in order to be able to qualify for the loan
Mr. Carpenter indicated the house was conforming when he bought the first permit and
should be conforming today.
Mayor Swedberg asked whether Mr. Carpenter was attempting to obtain a guaranteed
loan.
Mr. Carpenter indicated it was a guaranteed loan and said that every other village that he
knows of makes grandfather clause concessions so as not to hurt its residents.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the concession is that since the house was
built he could continue using it as long as he wants to but cannot expand it or rebuild it if
it is destroyed.
Council Member Travis indicated that Mr. Carpenter could ask for a rezone of his
property.
Mr. Carpenter questioned why he should have to worry about this when he was legal in
the beginning.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the ordinances were changed after the
house was built.
Mr. Carpenter noted that Council had said it held public hearings and then changed the
ordinances. He then asked how he would have known that this would affect his home
until he went to refinance.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that all public hearings are noticed in the newspaper.
Mr. Carpenter indicated he would not have known that the proposed ordinance changes
would affect him until he went to refinance his home. He then asked Council to think
about what they were doing to him and his family.
Mayor Swedberg indicated the property had always been zoned commercial and the
structure had always been non-conforming.
Mr. Carpenter indicated that, at the time he bought the house, it was conforming. He then
stated that if it was conforming in the beginning it should be conforming now.
Page 4 of 23
Mr. Carpenter indicated that the lender has said it is a high-risk loan because the structure
is non-conforming. He then indicated he had all the inspections and paid the permit fee
and now has to tell potential buyers that the structure is non-conforming.
Council Member Capra indicated that, back in 1973, there were other issues with regard
to people living on the property because it was zoned commercial.
Mr. Wilharber suggested that maybe a solution would be to split the lot into commercial
and residential zoning noting the lots depth and shape would lend itself to doing so. He
then agreed with Mr. Carpenter that selling the property is an issue because he would
need to inform buyers of the nonconformity of the structure.
Council Member Capra commented she did not feel Mr. Carpenter could claim total
ignorance of the issue as the property was always zoned commercial.
Mr. Carpenter indicated the lender is stuck on the word "compliant" and noted that the
lender is concerned because the structure cannot be rebuilt if it bums down.
Mayor Swedberg asked if it were legal for the City to say that Mr. Carpenter is compliant
in order to help him obtain financing.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated the City could not say that Mr. Carpenter's residence was
compliant with City Code because it is not.
Mr. Carpenter indicated that he feels the City should make a modification so that those
residents paying taxes and following all the rules can realize their investment. He then
said the City cannot take his investment away from him.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated the property owner could apply for rezoning and noted that
request would be considered through the Planning and Zoning Committee and then by
Council. He then cautioned Council that rezoning Mr. Carpenter's property could be
considered spot zoning and said the matter would need to be investigated.
Council Member Broussard Vickers pointed out that the City changes ordinances when it
realizes that things could be done better. She then noted that doing so creates non-
conforming structures and said the way the City deals with that is by allowing the use to
continue but not be changed or modified.
Mr. Carpenter suggested the City buy his house.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the lender's interest would be
protected by an insurance policy and said she feels the lender is being more of a stickler
on this matter than lenders have been in the past.
Page 5 of 23
Council Member Broussard Vickers told Mr. Carpenter that being allowed to build the
house there did not make it conforming.
Mayor Swedberg indicated he felt there is some merit to consider rezoning considering
the depth of the lot and the zoning of other property in the area.
Mr. Carpenter asked if rezoning the property was in the best interest ofthe City.
Mayor Swedberg indicated he was not sure how to solve Mr. Carpenter's problem.
Mr. Carpenter asked why he could not have an amendment if he was zoned properly and
grandfathered in with all the rights.
Mr. Carpenter said if the structure bums down in 5 or 6 years when he retires he would
not rebuild it but he would need to do so if it burned down prior to that time.
Council Member Travis asked if Mr. Carpenter was opposed to the rezone.
Mr. Carpenter asked the City to check with other villages and see how they handle these
types of matters.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that in years' past, the rules were different from
community to community as far as the standards for non-conforming pre-existing
structures. He then indicated that the legislature had decided this year to pass legislation
indicating that for pre-existing non-conforming structures in all statutory cities, the law
is, if the structure is destroyed by more than 50% in value it cannot be rebuilt, and it
cannot be expanded and the City has no ability to change that.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the only way to solve the problem would
be for the City to consider rezoning the property.
Mr. Carpenter said he would like a copy of the state statute Mr. Hoeft had quoted. He
then indicated he wanted to sit down with the City Attorney and have him explain it to
him because he hired the attorney just like everybody else did.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated it would be helpful if the City Attorney
would give Mr. Carpenter a copy of the statute but said she did not feel it is the City's job
to advise Mr. Carpenter and said he should get his own attorney to interpret the statute for
him.
Mr. Carpenter indicated that he bought the permit and jumped through all the hoops and
he thinks he should be conforming. He then questioned why Council does not think his
ability to understand the statute is a legal issue for the City. He further questioned why,
ifhe pays taxes, he cannot use the services of the City Attorney.
Page 6 of 23
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the City has no legal issue in this
matter as the structure is non-conforming.
Council Member Nelson agreed with Council Member Broussard Vickers.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that Mr. Carpenter did not agree with the
City but said him not agreeing with the City is not a legal issue for the City.
Mayor Swedberg indicated Council needed to move forward with the meeting and
suggested Mr. Carpenter contact the City Administrator to obtain a copy of the state
statute and any other relevant paperwork he needed to proceed with the rezone request.
3. Mr. Dan Skoog, 113 Peltier Lake Drive - Visa, Internet and Debit Card Use
Mayor Swedberg indicated the City had received a letter from Mr. Skoog requesting that
the City accept payment for services by Visa, internet, and debit cards.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the legislature had approved a law that allows cities to
accept credit cards but not debit or cash cards.
Council directed City Administrator Moore-Sykes to check into the matter and determine
what was necessary to begin accepting credit cards for City services.
V. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. October 10, 2001 Council Meeting Minutes
Council Member Capra requested the following changes: On Page 8 in the third sentence
change "the" to "a", Change the spelling of "Buckby" to "Buckbee" through out the
document. On Page 14, in the motion, indicate the amount of the reimbursement to Ken
Cook as $7,386.44. On Page 18, fourth paragraph change "criterion" to "criteria".
Motion by Council Member Nelson. seconded by Council Member Capra to
approve the October 10. 2001 Council Minutes as amended. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
VI. PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS
None.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
1. Preliminary Plat (The Shores), Glen Rehbein
Page 7 of 23
Mr. Rehbein indicated that there was still an issue concerning the weight restriction
posting on Mound Trail. He then indicated he could enter the development off of the
County Road 14 access until the County realized he was doing so and shut him down.
Council Member Capra asked whether the soil boring to determine how the road should
be rated had been done.
City Engineer Peterson indicated that he and City Staff had measured the depths of the
materials in the road and said that Mr. Buechler hard provided borings that were done
back when the plat was done from Mound Trail straight out in front of his development.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she did not think Council should have to
keep revisiting this whenever a truck has to travel on Mound Trail.
Mr. Rehbein indicated that when this plat is done there would not be any more
construction on Mound Trail.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she had no problems with the plat but said
the City needs to determine whether or not City water will be run to the development.
Council Member Capra asked if the City needed to clarify the trail location.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she did not see where the Park and
Recreation Committee had drawn the trail on the map provided.
Council Member Capra pointed out the trail location on the map.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that Mr. Rehbein could bond for the road
to ensure that there would be funds available to fix the road if it were damaged.
Mr. Rehbein's surveyor asked if Council could approve the preliminary plat subj ect to the
trail and water determination.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that Council could approve the preliminary plat subject to
those conditions.
Council Member Travis noted Mr. Rehbein still had to provide a grading plan and noted
that the developer's agreement and the final plat still needed to be approved.
Council Member Capra asked what the City's time frame was.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the City was under no time frame at the moment.
Mr. Rehbein indicated that the only thing critical for him is his purchase agreement and
indicated that he did not want to close on the property until he received final plat
approval from the City.
Page 8 of 23
Council Member Nelson indicated there were several steps necessary before final plat
approval would be given.
Mr. Rehbein indicated he was hoping to have final plat approval by the middle of
December so that he could close on the property.
Council Member Nelson indicated she was fine with approving the preliminary plat as
long as it is made clear that there needs to be some kind of bonding for the road. She
then indicated that the City is considering bringing water to that development and noted
that a large portion of the cost to do so would be Mr. Rehbein's responsibility.
Council Member Broussard Vickers noted she felt that the middle of December was an
aggressive time line for final plat approval because, even if Council ordered the
feasibility study tonight, it would be the first week in December when the public hearing
would be held. She then suggested Mr. Rehbein should renegotiate his closing date.
Mr. Rehbein indicated that when the closing date was determined he did not think that
water was going to be an issue with this development.
Mayor Swedberg questioned whether the City had a policy of requiring that the City
Engineer do the engineering work involved with the development.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the City typically has the City Engineer do the work as
the developer or landowner does not usually have the expertise needed to do the work.
He then indicated he did not feel it was an issue to allow the developer to use his staff to
provide the documents, provided the developer is willing to pay for and be bound by the
inspection of the City Engineer.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the City had never been asked to allow a
developer to do the engineering work.
Mayor Swedberg questioned whether Mr. Hannah would have asked to be allowed to use
his own engineer.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that Mr. Hannah could have used his own engineer but said
that he feels that looking at the cost benefit analysis it was cheaper to use the City
Engineer in Mr. Hannah's case.
Mayor Swedberg thanked City Attorney Hoeft for his comments and indicated he did not
want to go against any City policy.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that if Mr. Rehbein wanted his own attorney to draft the
developer's agreement he would have no problem with that.
Page 9 of 23
Mr. Rehbein's surveyor clarified that the hold up is the feasibility study for bringing
water to the development.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that Council could make a motion to approve the
preliminary plat conditioned upon further review of Mound Trail bonding, the water main
extension, and the trail.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Nelson to approve the preliminary plat for The Shores conditioned upon further
review of Mound Trail bonding. the water main extension. and the trail location and
specifications. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rehbein indicated he could design the plat with the water main assuming it is coming
in and proceed with the process.
Mayor Swedberg asked if there was a reason that one well could not service several
houses.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated it was not a good idea.
Mr. Rehbein indicated that it was not uncommon for septic systems to be shared but said
it is not advisable to share water supplies.
Council Member Travis asked if there was an easement for the lift station. Mr. Palzer
indicated that there was.
Mr. Rehbein's surveyor indicated he had been told that Mound Trail was vacated. He
then questioned whether the utilities maintained their rights when the road was vacated.
City Engineer Peterson indicated that the easements for utilities were still there.
Mr. Rehbein questioned if there would be a problem with where the County and the City
would like the trail located.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the County and City trail may be one
in the same and noted that there would need to be an easement for trail way included in
the final plat.
Mr. Rehbein asked how he would receive direction concerning the trailway.
Council Member Broussard Vickers directed Staff to contact the Park and Recreation
Committee to determine the recommendation for the trail location and to contact Mr.
Rehbein with the information.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Capra to order a feasibility study to extend the water main to The Shores from
Page 10 of23
Bonestroo in an amount not to exceed $5.000 to be presented at the second meeting
in November. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Travis asked who would pay for the study. Council Member Broussard
Vickers indicated the City would pay for the study.
City Engineer Peterson clarified that the City pays the up front costs and can recoup the
costs in the construction costs.
Mr. Rehbein's surveyor asked when he could expect final plat approval.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she would not want to approve the final
plat until the water issue was settled.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the City would need to consider
information obtained at the public hearing at the first meeting in December and then
decide.
2. Resolution #01-020 - Awarding the Sale of $990,000 G.O. Improvement Bond -
Pheasant Marsh
Handled earlier in meeting???
3. Resolution #01-021 - Abatement of Special Assessments (Parkview Addition)
1723 Meadow Lane
Motion by Council Member Capra. seconded by Council Member Broussard
Vickers to approve Resolution #01-021. a resolution for abatement of special
assessments (Parkview Addition) 1723 Meadow Lane. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. R & R Leasing - Special Assessment Split Request
Mayor Swedberg noted this matter had been tabled for more information.
Council Member Travis indicated that R & R Leasing had requested an assessment split
not a lot split. City Attorney Hoeft concurred that R & R Leasing had requested an
allocation assessment. He then indicated that Council is not being asked to do something
that is wrong or bad but something that is out of the ordinary course of action.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she was not interested in approving the
request as she feels the City should collect the assessment in full as is the normal course
of action.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that there was 31.95% of the assessment escrowed and said
Mr. Rehbein is not interested in paying the rest of the assessment at this time.
Page 11 of23
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Nelson to deny the request by R & R Leasing for an assessment allocation. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Ms. Sanna Buckbee Request for Information
Council Member Broussard Vickers asked Staff to tell her what information had been
provided to Ms. Buckbee. She then asked if Council needed to explain its reasoning and
rationale behind the choices it made as is requested in the letter, or if the minutes of the
meeting would suffice.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that Ms. Buckbee had made an information request and a
document request and noted he felt the minutes would suffice. He then indicated that any
further information that Ms. Buckbee wished to receive could be handled through either
his office or the City Administrator's office.
Council Member Broussard Vickers clarified that the City would not be out of
compliance by providing Ms. Buckbee with minutes as it would be giving her what
information the City does have. City Attorney Hoeft agreed.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that he thought Ms. Bender had been compiling the
information requested and said he did not think any of the information had been released
to Ms. Buckbee.
Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that the letter was received on September 18,
2001 and said she feels that this information needs to get to Ms. Buckbee as soon as
possible.
Council Member Capra indicated she had discussed this request with Ms. Bender and Ms.
Bender had indicated that she was not sure how to respond to the request due to the
request for Council's rationalization of choices and that is why it was held and placed on
Council's agenda for discussion.
6. Liquor Policy
Council Member Capra indicated that this item was tabled until a new City Administrator
was hired and noted that liquor license renewals come up in December.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the fees to renew are due in December
and indicated that how the City governs the liquor license can be redone at any time.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that she felt the ordinance needs to be
reviewed but said she felt that this matter should be pushed back until January or
February when things slow down a bit and Ms. Moore-Sykes will be settled in.
Page 12 of 23
Council Member Travis indicated that the League of Minnesota Cities may have
something the City could use for a model ordinance.
Council recessed at 8:23 p.m. to switch the tape.
Council reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
7. Budget/Deferred Comp./Union Contract (Update)
Council Member Capra indicated she and Ms. Bender had met with Abdo, Eick and
Meyer last Tuesday and comprised a list of documents that needed to be gathered to bring
the City into compliance. She then indicated that Mr. McDonald had some questions that
were forwarded to city Attorney Hoeft and noted that the City would be receiving a letter
from the consultant concerning the process.
Council Member Capra indicated that the majority of the City's records were in computer
files and said that she had asked the public works staff to pull the files from 1996 and
1997 out of storage. She further indicated that she will work with Staff to copy the old
records and noted that Abdo, Eick and Meyers would contact PEBSCO to obtain
information from them to cross-reference with the City's information.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated he had exchanged messages with Mr. McDonald and said
Mr. McDonald had indicated a letter would be sent to Council concerning the process.
He further indicated that a letter would be sent to his office concerning the fees and
services to be provided by Abdo, Eick and Meyers.
Council Member Capra indicated that they had set the date of November 7, 2001 to have
all the information ready to give to the auditor for review. She then indicated that the
City would need to send a letter to PEBSCO authorizing them to release information to
the auditor.
8. Quad Cities Police Department (Update)
Mayor Swedberg indicated that there was a budget meeting where the vision budget
which included authorizing the hiring of two sworn officers and a community service
officer was approved. He then indicated that Circle Pines and Lexington are attempting
to determine what level of support they can offer to the budget.
Mayor Swedberg indicated that Centerville would be hosting the next meeting and
indicated he would provide Ms.. Moore-Sykes with that date. He then indicated he would
provide donuts and orange juice.
Council Member Travis indicated the next Quad Cities Police Meeting was scheduled for
November 15,2001 at 7:30 a.m. at Centerville City Hall.
Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if there was discussion on the consultant.
Page 13 of23
Mayor Swedberg indicated there was no discussion concerning the consultant but said in
previous discussions it was mentioned that a pro bono individual from certain police
agencies and the state police was being considered.
9. Reception for Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes (Update)
Mayor Swedberg indicated Council would like to introduce the new City Administrator
and asked Ms. Moore-Sykes to select a date for the reception and he will bring the cake
and punch.
10. Laurie LaMotte Park - Vinco Overages (Update)
City Engineer Peterson indicated that per Council Member Travis' request he discussed
the overage with Vinco who had agreed to discount the invoice by 36 cubic yards. He
then indicated they were not required to do so and said he feels it is a gesture of good will
on their part.
Council Member Travis indicated that puts that one item at $25,000 over budget.
City Engineer Peterson indicated that some items were lower than the price that was bid
and some items were higher. He then indicated that when the City bids by unit prices
some may be lower than others and this one was high.
Council Member Broussard Vickers clarified that out of the 286 cubic yard overage
Vinco was only willing to discount 36 cubic yards. City Engineer Peterson indicated the
actual measurement was 436 cubic yards and noted the City had paid for 150 cubic yards
and still owes Vinco for 250 cubic yards.
Mayor Swedberg noted the amount of yards was discounted by less than 10%. City
Engineer Peterson agreed but said Vinco was not required to do any discounting.
Council Member Broussard Vickers suggested keeping this incident in mind for the
future.
Mayor Swedberg asked how there ended up being such a difference in granular. Council
Member Travis commented that there was supposed to be 4 inches of clay on top of the
sand.
City Engineer Peterson indicated that the contractor had to remove more clay and,
therefore, had to put back more fill and build it up to allow for proper drainage. He then
commented it is fairly common to go over on aggregate base material but said not when
the price is $100 per yard.
Council Member Travis indicated the City has the right to audit them if it wants to fight
the invoice because the company would have to justify the costs. He further commented
that the City is a public entity and has the right to audit if it wants to.
Page 14 of23
City Engineer Peterson questioned whether the City wanted to put every item under the
microscope as some items were under and some were over.
Council Member Travis commented it could cost the City a lot of money to fight the
InVOice.
Mayor Swedberg asked if the audit procedure was a legal procedure overseen by the City
Attorney. Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated the City would need to hire an accounting
consultant to investigate the matter.
Council Member Travis indicated that the $100 per cubic yards was valid when the quote
was for 120 yards but noted that the quantity had tripled and said he costs of getting the
materials could not have tripled.
Ms. Moore-Sykes asked if the City had been notified of the overage. City Engineer
Peterson indicated that there had been no indication until the invoice arrived. He then
explained that the contractor would not have known of the overage until it was measured.
He further explained that he and the contractor had made marks on the boards and
calculated the area times the depth to verify that the amounts were correct.
Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if the City could send a letter requesting that
the company justify the expenditure of$100.00 per yard.
City Engineer Peterson said the contractor had justified the amounts to him and had
indicated that the cost included hauling the material from the trucks to the pit and the
labor it took to push the sand and compact it.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she felt the City should ask the contractor
for documentation supporting the $100.00 per yard price. City Engineer Peterson
indicated that he had been told by the contractor that the amount figured to be $100.69
per yard.
Council Member Broussard Vickers clarified she is looking for justification beyond the
120 yards.
Council directed Ms. Moore-Sykes to send a letter to the contractor asking for
justification of the per yard pricing for yards beyond 120.
11. F.M. Frattalone Excavating (Update)
City Engineer Peterson indicated that Mr. Buechler had provided two borings that were
done in front of his five lots.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that, until Mr. Buechler comes back asking
for a permit, there is no issue.
Page 15 of23
12. City of Circle Pines Proposal for Joint Building Inspections (Update)
Mayor Swedberg indicated he would like to hear the comments of Mr. Palzer concerning
the proposal of Circle Pines for joint building inspections.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she had talked to the City Administrator from Circle Pines
and was told that Circle Pines is still interested in working with Centerville for joint
building inspections. She then indicated that she had been asked to notify the City
Administrator from Circle Pines of Council's decision the morning following the meeting
as he needed to sign a contract with the contingency inspector.
Mayor Swedberg asked for a recommendation from Ms. Moore-Sykes.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she was concerned with how Staff time could be split to
ensure that the same amount of Staff time would be devoted to building inspections in
Centerville as in Circle Pines.
Council Member Nelson commented that with the proposal of Circle Pines to pay 145%
of the cost of wages to do Circle Pines inspections, taking into account overtime paid at
time and a half, the City of Centerville would be paying Circle Pines 5% to do their
inspections.
Mr. Palzer indicated that he felt there would need to be an additional public works person
and an intern hired by the City to accommodate the work load increase. He then stated he
felt there needed to be more research into the specifics of what the proposal would cost
the City before agreeing to the contract. Mr. Palzer recommended turning down the offer
at this time as the City needs to do more research and Circle Pines has indicated it does
have a contingency plan in place should Centerville not agree to the contract.
It was the consent of Council to turn down the offer of Circle Pines for joint building
inspections.
13. Lions Haunted House
Council Member Capra indicated that she felt it may be prudent to have the fire inspector
make sure the haunted house passes fire codes due to liability reasons.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the Lions would be providing an
insurance certificate for the event.
Council Member Capra indicated that, even with an insurance certificate, the City could
be held responsible as the event is held in a city-owned building.
It was the consent of Council to ask the fire inspector to check the haunted house for
compliance with fire codes.
Page 16 of23
14. Turcotte Property Review
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she had received a quote to tear down the structures,
disconnect the sewer, cap the well, and fill the hole in the amount of $5,125.00. She
further indicated that the estimate assumed that the house would be removed by a house
mover.
Mayor Swedberg asked whether the property was worth more with or without the
buildings.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that a clean, flat piece of property is more attractive to a
developer than one with an old duplex on it.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that if a house mover takes the house the City would need
to contract with someone to do the work listed in the estimate.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she did not think the City would find
someone to move it because moving a house even a short distance can cost $10,000 to
$20,000.
Council Member Travis indicated he thought the estimate was reasonable.
Council Member Nelson suggested moving forward with the quote.
Council Member Travis indicated that the City did not have to remove the structures but
said it makes for a cleaner site.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the City would have to clean up the site at
some point and indicated there would be Staff time involved to continue checking on the
buildings if they were not removed.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated there could be a liability issue for the City with trespassers or
loitering at the vacant property.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Capra to direct Staff to contact home movers to see if any are willing to take the
house for the cost to move it and to direct Staff to enter into a contract with Roso to
have the site cleaned up and the hole filled in.
Council Member Travis indicated he thought the house would have brought more but
after looking at it closely it looks nice but it is older than it looks and it would cost a lot
of money to renovate and bring it current.
Council Member Capra indicated that the multiple foundations underneath the house
could cause problems for the home mover.
Page 17 of 23
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated there is too much to replace to consider
updating the house.
Council Member Travis commented that the City needed to consider all the costs
associated with this property when offering it for sale and make sure that the City recoups
its funds.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she thought the value of the property
would increase when the City bought it and removed the buildings.
City Attorney Hoeft told Council it needed to keep in mind that the City was attempting
to get an important piece of property for the City to redevelop and indicated that a profit
would be nice but may not be possible. He indicated that one of the costs involved with
obtaining and redeveloping the property may be a municipal subsidy to the developer to
make it happen. He further indicated that the City should keep track of costs but may not
see a specific profit outside of an improved look and more taxes.
Vote: Ayes - 4, Nays - 1 (Swedberg). Motion carried.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Resignation of Chaymus Klang, Cable Operator/Letter of Interest
Mayor Swedberg indicated that Chaymus Klang had notified the City of his intent to
resign. He then indicated that Mr. Klang attends the University of Minnesota and was
resigning because the meetings were lengthy and his school work was suffering.
Mayor Swedberg indicated Council accepted his resignation with great regret and
thanked him for everything he has done for the City.
Chaymus Klang thanked Council for their kind words.
Council recommended accepting the offer of Kim Stephan to act as the City's cable
operator.
2. Holiday Party
Council Member Capra requested that Ms. Moore-Sykes confirm that a reservation for
the holiday party was made at Bunker Hills.
Council Member Capra indicated she had researched the costs involved with the holiday
party at Kelly's and suggested that the City's money may be better spent by hosting a
cook out at City Hall to coincide with National Volunteer Day in April.
Page 18 of 23
Council Member Nelson indicated that the City may have better participation in an event
in April because around the holidays people are so busy with other parties.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she did not have a problem with Council
Member Capra's suggestion.
Council Member Capra indicated that the City spent approximately $700.00 on the event
at Kelly's and said she feels that the event could be more cost effective if held at City
Hall.
3. Centerville Elementary Peace Site Recognition
Council Member Capra indicated that she and Council Member Travis had attended the
ceremony at Centerville Elementary dedicating them as a W orId Peace Site and noted the
ceremony was very touching.
Motion by Council Member Capra. seconded by Council Member Nelson to present
Centerville Elementary School with a Certificate of Recognition for its efforts to
become a World Peace Site. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
1. The City of Centerville October 11, 2001 through October 24, 2001 Expenditures.
2. Centennial Fire District Expenditures
3. Resource Strategies Corp. - Compo Plan Amendment (Pheasant Marsh) $2,931.53
Council Member Broussard Vickers requested that Item 3 be removed for discussion.
Council Member Nelson requested that Item 1 be removed for discussion.
Motion by Mayor Swedberg. seconded by Council Member Nelson to approve
Consent Agenda Item 2 as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Nelson questioned why Paul Palzer had two payroll checks.
Mayor Swedberg indicated that he and Council Member Travis had discussed the matter
and had determined that one of the checks was for comp time which the City allows
employees to be paid for if they choose.
Council Member Nelson asked ifMr. Palzer had used all of his comp time.
Mayor Swedberg indicated that he had not.
Council Member Capra indicated that, at one time, the City had over $10,000 in
outstanding comp time pay. She then indicated that she had asked Ms. Moore-Sykes
Page 19 of23
about it and it was determined that the matter should be discussed at the budget work
seSSIOn.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that it is typical for cities to allow an employee to make the
determination to take time off for comp time or be paid for it.
Council Member Capra asked if there was a limit to the amount of comp time an
employee could accrue.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated the City could set a cap and when that cap was reached the
employee would either have to take time off or be paid for the comp time. She further
explained, however, that the City could not limit the amount of comp time over all.
Council Member Travis indicated that comp time is covered in the City's personnel
policy.
Motion by Council Member Nelson. seconded by Council Member Capra to
approve the City of Centerville expenditures from October 11. 2001 through
October 24. 2001. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned why the invoice from Resource
Strategies Corporation was on the agenda for the City to pay when it is a Ground
Development invoice. City Attorney Hoeft asked if Ground Development had paid the
City the administrative fee.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she was not sure but said it seems that the
invoice is straight forward enough to be sent directly to Ground Development without the
City getting involved.
Council directed Staff to send the invoice to Ground Development for payment.
XI. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Standardized By-Laws
Council Member Capra indicated she felt this matter should be discussed by Council
based on the comments made by Mr. DeVine at the last Council meeting. She then
indicated that she feels that standardized by-laws are important and act as a tool for
residents serving on committees as to what the rules are and what is expected of them.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she was not sure why committees needed
by-laws.
Council Member Nelson indicated that by-laws act as guidelines for things such as the
open meeting laws that committee members need to understand. She also indicated that
Page 20 of 23
by-laws would instruct committee members that they make recommendations to Council
and do not make decisions on their own.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that she never looked at the by-laws when
she was on a committee and still knew what was expected of her.
Council Member Capra indicated that when she joined the EDC she never got by-laws
and said that she felt it would be good procedure to provide by-laws to the committees to
make sure they know the rules.
Mayor Swedberg indicated that Council has a lot of budget work right now and is also
dealing with the deferred compensation issue. He then suggested postponing this item
until a quieter time of year.
Council Member Capra indicated she was willing to come up with a basic draft of a set of
standardized by-laws for the committees to present to Council for discussion.
Council Member Nelson indicated she would like to see the City present a standardized
set of by-laws to its committees.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the City had no requirement for by-laws but said if
Council wishes to use them as a way of achieving consistency it is fine to do so.
Council Member Capra commented she feels that committees need to know they are
bound by open meeting laws in order to avoid any sticky situations.
Mayor Swedberg asked how much of the City Administrator's time Council Member
Capra was asking for.
Council Member Capra indicated she did not need any time from Ms. Moore-Sykes and
said she is willing to do the work herself.
Council Member Capra and Council Member Nelson agreed to work on the draft of the
by-laws and said they would report back to Council in the near future.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the Planning and Zoning Committee is
very busy and will hold several public hearings at its next meeting. She then indicated
that notice was sent to the entire City for the Ordinance #4 amendments but some of the
envelopes were delivered without the notice inside.
City Attorney Hoeft questioned whether City Ordinance reqUIres that residents be
notified by mail.
Council Member Broussard Vickers suggested it may be necessary to continue the public
hearing from Planning and Zoning to Council.
Page 21 of23
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she had received a number of phone calls concerning the
empty envelopes and had sent notices out that day to those that called. She also noted
that the notice is in the paper.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated that, unless the City's Ordinance specifically requires it,
the City does not have to mail notice to the entire community. He further commented
that he believes the meeting has been properly noticed and can be held.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated that the meeting may be continued anyway
depending on the input received.
Mayor Swedberg asked Ms. Moore-Sykes to make sure the meeting is posted in the
vestibule.
XI. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'S REPORT/CLERK/TREASURER'S REPORT
1. Valley Creek Annual Contract Renewal
Mr. Pa1zer indicated that Valley Creek does the City's mowing and weed-whipping
which costs the City between $23,000 and $28,000 per year.
Mayor Swedberg questioned when it became cheaper for the City to cut its own grass.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that she and Mr. Pa1zer had been discussing the issue of costs
associated with the City cutting its own grass and had determined that it would cost
approximately $50,000 up front to obtain the equipment necessary to do so. She then
indicated that she intended to continue her research and work with City Staff to determine
whether it is fiscally more responsible for the City to purchase equipment and do its own
grass cutting or continue to contract out the work.
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated there was time to gather more information
before the next meeting.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Nelson to table this matter until the next Council meeting. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Council Member Capra questioned whether Mr. Pa1zer was recommending that the City
enter into an agreement with Hugo and Lino Lakes for emergency management.
Mr. Pa1zer indicated that the City of Hugo and the City of Lino Lakes had approached
Centerville and asked the City to join a consortium whereby the public works staff from
each City would lend its services in the case of an emergency. He then indicated that, at
the time it was proposed, the City decided not to join and suggested it may be time to
reconsider that proposal.
Page 22 of 23
Council Member Capra asked if Mr. Palzer had any further information on protecting the
City's well heads.
Mr. Palzer indicated the area of protection extends into Lino Lakes and indicated he is
working with City Administrator Moore-Sykes to determine Staff recommendation on the
matter.
Council Member Nelson asked that the City of Hugo and City of Lino Lakes agreement
be placed on the next meeting agenda.
Council Member Travis indicated that Council had decided not to participate based on
the wording of the contract as it was worded to say that the Hugo staff could be off in an
emergency in their own City but Centerville would have to respond.
Mr. Wilharber indicated that at the time of the proposal, Hugo had only one Staff person
and Council had looked at that and decided that Centerville would end up contributing
more than it got out of the agreement.
Mr. Palzer indicated that Hugo has increased its Staff to two and may have hired a third
person.
Mayor Swedberg asked if there would be a cost reimbursement for going to the other
cities.
Mr. Palzer indicated that he receives daily emergency management information and
indicated he will continue to share that information with Ms. Moore-Sykes and will leave
dissemination of that information up to her.
City Attorney Hoeft indicated he had been asked to check the developer's agreement for
Centervilla to determine whether the City had agreed to pay for the oversizing of the
water main. He then indicated that the contract does not break out any oversizing costs
and states that the developer agrees to pay the entire cost of improvements.
Mayor Swedberg asked Ms. Moore-Sykes to send a letter to the developer of Centervilla
based on the Attorney's comments.
Council Member Travis questioned whether the pipe was oversized. City Engineer
Peterson indicated that there was a 10-inch water main put in.
Ms. Moore-Sykes reported she would be doing the week in review report on Fridays
starting on October 26, 2001.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that there was a budget work session on October 30, 2001 at
6:30 p.m. and indicated there had been a request for approval of an executive session.
Page 23 of 23
City Attorney Hoeft asked City Administrator Moore-Sykes to create an agenda for the
executive session and post it three days in advance of the meeting.
Council Member Broussard Vickers clarified that when Council holds closed session
discussions there are to be no motions and Council should take notes.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she had received a request to put the bobcat purchase on the
agenda for discussion at the next meeting.
Mayor Swedberg indicated the bobcat purchase could be discussed III the budget
deliberations.
Ms. Moore-Sykes thanked Council for the plant and said it was very nice to have it when
she walked in.
Mr. Ray DeVine addressed Council and expressed concern with Council's decision to
request a fire inspection for the Lions' haunted house. He then asked why inspections
had not been done on past haunted houses.
Council Member Capra indicated she had spoken to Chief Heckman at the budget work
session and he had expressed concern about some things that happened with the Kelly's
event and said that started her thinking about other liabilities and she thought it would be
appropriate to ask for an inspection to ensure that the haunted house is safe for residents.
Council Member Nelson indicated the City had granted a noise variance for the event at
Kelly's but did not grant an outside liquor permit.
Council Member Capra indicated she had discussed her concern with Milo Bennet and
Ms. Moore-Sykes who agreed that it may be a good idea to have a fire inspector take a
look at the building.
Mr. DeVine told Council that several people had been working tirelessly for weeks to
ensure that the haunted house would be ready to go for the upcoming weekend. He then
indicated that there had never been a fire inspection before for the haunted house. He
further commented that when he remodeled his office building he had a fire inspection
and said that based on that experience, he did not feel there was any way the haunted
house would pass a fire inspection. Mr. DeVine then stated that ordering a fire inspection
would effectively shut down the haunted house scheduled for Friday and Saturday.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated the City just wants to send a fire inspector in to review and
determine if there is anything that is obviously dangerous so corrections can be made.
Mr. DeVine indicated there was not time to make corrections to the haunted house as the
event is scheduled to begin in two days.
Page 24 of 23
Council Member Travis suggested having Milo Bennet walk through the haunted house
to make comments.
Council Member Capra stated that the City has a responsibility to its residents to make
sure the building is safe. She then commented there was no intent to shut down the
Lions' haunted house.
Council Member Capra noted that Mr. Bennett had gone into the warming house during
the Fete de Lacs Festival and had found a few small things that needed to be fixed. She
then said again, that it was never the intent of Council to cancel the haunted house.
Mr. DeVine asked if someone from the fire department would be contacting him to make
arrangements to review the haunted house.
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she would make arrangements for Mr. De Vine to be
contacted for a fire inspection.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Council Member Nelson. seconded by Council Member Broussard
Vickers to adjourn the October 24. 2001 City Council Meeting at 9:25 p.m. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 25 of 23
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6, 2001
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on November 6, 2001, at 6:30 p. m.
PRESENT:
John McLean
Ray DeVine
Brian Hanson
Tom Wilharber
David Kilian
ABSENT:
Rob Sheppard, Barry Brainard
COUNCIL:
Linda Broussard Vickers
STAFF:
City Administrator Kim Moore-Sykes
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
II. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Eagle Pass 2nd Addition
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Quigley representing Gor-Em pointed out the changes made to the plan since the last
time he was before the Commission. He then explained that the plan was revised to
include twinhomes as is consistent with the current development.
Commissioner Devine asked Mr. Quigley to comment on the extension of Ojibway
Drive. Mr. Quigley indicated that the Association is allowed to expand under its bylaws.
Chairperson Hanson asked if number two was a separate association. Mr. Quigley
indicated it would be part of the single-family association.
Commissioner Kilian asked if the Association had approved the expansion to allow for
the new homes. Mr. Quigley indicated that the Association did not have the option of
denying the homes entrance into its Association as the bylaws were originally written to
Page 1 of 24
allow for a specific number of homes and the addition of these homes would not exceed
the maximum.
Commissioner Kilian asked whether the home on Lot 2 would front on Dupre Road or
Meadow Lane. Mr. Quigley indicated it could front on either one based on the wishes of
the City. Commissioner Kilian commented that it might be best to have the home front
on Meadow Lane. Mr. Quigley indicated that Lot 2 was a comer lot and indicated that
City Ordinance would govern the building on it.
Commissioner Wilharber asked ifthere would be a trail located between buildings one,
two, three, and four in Section One. Mr. Quigley indicated he had not included a trail on
his plan and said the area Commissioner Wilharber had asked about was an easement for
water line. Mr. Quigley indicated that the area is owned by the Association and any trail
access would need to be negotiated with the Association.
Ms. Peterson of 7065 Dupre Road indicated they had petitioned the City to take over
Ojibway Drive and had not received a response. She then commented that she would like
to see as many trees kept as possible. She also asked if there would be a center aisle in
the turn around. Mr. Quigley indicated there would not be a center aisle in the turn
around.
Ms. Peterson of 7065 Dupre Road indicated the initial problem with the previous plan
was that they were designed to be single detached homes that did not fit into the
Association. She indicated that the newly proposed units would be larger and the
assessments would need to be different which the Association is working on. She then
commented that the Association is required to accept the new homes into the Association
because they are twin homes.
Mr. Jerry Albrecht of7071 Dupre Road asked what tonnage the roadway would be built
to. Mr. Quigley indicated the road would be built to 5-ton standards. He then indicated
that as he and Mr. Albrecht had discussed previously the road will be built to City
standards as determined by the City Engineer.
Mr. Albrecht commented that every time he has asked the tonnage question he has
received a different answer. Mr. Quigley indicated the City designs the roads and his
company would install them.
Mr. Albrecht asked ifMr. Quigley was willing to guarantee, in writing, that Gor-Em and
Swift will repair any damage done by construction vehicles for a period of one year after
the construction is completed. Mr. Quigley agreed to provide a written agreement that
Gor-Em and Swift would pay to repair the road if any damage is done up to one year after
the construction is completed.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the City would get a guarantee on the road
written into the developer's agreement since the City would have no other way to control
it and the City is not responsible to repair it.
Page 2 of 24
Mr. Bill Ingison, Jr., of 1762 Ojibway Drive suggested adding a trail from Chauncy
Barrett Gardens trough the property so the elderly residents would have a safe place to
walk rather than walking out on Centerville Road. Mr. Quigley indicated he had no
problem making the trail connection if the City and the Association could agree upon the
specifics.
Mr. Brian Carlson of 1771 Meadow Lane pointed out that a line of trees was missing on
the map provided and asked if those were to be removed. Mr. Quigley indicated the trees
would remain but were not shown on this drawing.
Mr. Albrecht asked if any of the good trees would be used behind the existing units. Mr.
Quigley indicated that any trees that were suitable for transplanting would be transplanted
in the area.
Mr. Jim Juhl of 1825 Voyageur Court asked that Unit 5 of the detached homes be
screened from the existing unit next to it due to the close proximity. Mr. Juhl thanked
Mr. Quigley for pressuring Swift to complete some of the unfinished items in the
development such as the sidewalks and the tennis courts. He then indicated that some of
the residents on Dupre Road are interested in paying to have some of the trees moved
rather than seeing them harvested.
Mr. Juhl asked when Mr. Quigley intended to start moving dirt. Mr. Quigley indicated
that moving dirt is weather dependent but said he might try to do some things this fall to
give the property a drainage pattern before spring.
Mr. Quigley drew in the requested screen on his drawing of the development.
Motion by Commissioner Wilharber. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to close
the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing for Ordinance #4 Amendments at 6:50 p.m.
Commissioner Wilharber suggested the Commission make its decision concerning Eagle
Pass 2nd Addition (Preliminary Plat) at this point in the meeting rather than making
residents wait through the entire meeting.
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to table the
Ordinance #4 public hearing to later in the meeting. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner DeVine asked Council Liaison Broussard Vickers how to make sure that
the roadway guarantee is put into the developer's agreement.
Page 3 of 24
Mr. Quigley indicated he had written a letter, signed it and sent it to the Association last
summer concerning the roadway guarantee. Mr. Albrecht indicated that the copy
received by the Association was not signed. Mr. Quigley indicated he must have
received a copy of the fax that was sent and then said he could provide a signed copy of
the letter.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that while the City was without an
administrator only those things that were of a pressing nature were dealt with. She then
indicated that the City Attorney has advised against the City taking over the roadway and
said that, in her opinion, it does not appear that the City is interested in taking over the
roadway. She further indicated that the City is waiting to hear from the police and fire
departments concerning the roadway before holding an in depth discussion on the matter.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Council would attempt to address all
the concerns of the residents in the developer's agreement.
Commissioner Kilian indicated that the new homeowners are going to be part of the
Association that would have to repair the roadway and, therefore, it is in everyone's best
interest to be careful with the road.
Mr. Peterson asked why the City Attorney did not want to take over the road. Council
Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the road is narrower than public streets, the
future costs to maintain the road, and it would be setting a precedent for taking over
private roads. She then indicated that the matter has not been thoroughly discussed by
Council but will be in the near future.
Mr. Peterson questioned why, if the City designed the road, it did not want to take it over.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the road's design and construction were
determined by the City Engineer but the private street is narrower than public streets.
Ms. Peterson of 7065 Dupre Road asked if residents would get a real estate tax break
because they are not provided with City services to maintain the roadway.
Commissioner DeVine recommended sending another letter to Council asking them to
take a look at the matter.
Mr. Jim Halstrom of 6960 Dupre Road indicated there are other private roads in the
development, not just Ojibway. He then expressed frustration with Council as they have
written several letters and have not received an acknowledgement of receipt of those
letters. He further indicated that, as a part of the developer's agreement on the new
development he would like to see streetlights added to the existing development as there
are not enough and it is a dangerous situation.
Tracy Halstrom of 6960 Dupre Road indicated they have asked questions and have not
had responses. She then indicated that she feels the new homeowners will want answers
to the same questions as no information was given to her by the realtor or the builder
Page 4 of 24
concerning the private roads and what it would cost them. Ms. Halstrom then asked if the
City needs permission to repair City sewer and water along the private roads.
Commissioner De Vine indicated that there is a utility easement that grants the City
permission to maintain its sewer and water lines.
Ms. Halstrom asked for something in writing on the utility easement. She then asked
who replaces burned out light bulbs in the streetlights.
Chairperson Hanson asked ifher questions were related to Eagle Pass 2nd Addition. Ms.
Halstrom indicated she felt the questions should be answered for the new homeowners.
She then said she did not think her questions would be for the developer's agreement but
said she would like answers.
Commissioner Kilian indicated that, if Ms. Halstrom does not receive a response from the
City, all the Commissioner's telephone numbers are available and asked her to call one of
them to let them know she has not received the information requested.
Ms. Halstrom indicated that most of the questions were addressed to Jim March prior to
his resignation.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the City has a new City Administrator and suggested
Ms. Halstrom contact Ms. Moore-Sykes.
Chairperson Hanson asked Mr. Quigley to speak with the Association concerning a
trailway through the outlot to connect with Chauncy Barrett Gardens. Mr. Quigley
agreed to look into it.
Motion bv Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to
recommend to Council approval of the Preliminary Plat for Eagle Pass 2nd Addition
with the Association's requested issues added concerning trees. trailway through the
outlot. concerns with screening. and a written guarantee for Ojibway Drive. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Ordinance #4 Amendments
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to reopen the
public hearing at 7:10 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that a special work session was held three weeks ago to
discuss Ordinance #4 amendments.
Tracy Tratar of 1710 Peltier Lake Drive indicated he was surprised that his issue was not
included in this public hearing as he has been to the last two meetings asking the
Commission to consider his situation.
Page 5 of 24
Chairperson Hanson indicated the Commission determined that Mr. Tratar's issue was a
special circumstance more appropriately handled by variance than a change to the
Ordinance.
Mr. Tratar indicated that he was at the meeting for his personal situation but commented
that not changing the ordinance would put a lot of residents out of compliance with City
Code.
Mr. Jeremy Bates of 1977 South Robin Lane indicated he thought the Commission had
discussed changing the sideyard setback for comer lots from 35 feet to 20 feet.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned whether the Commission's intent was to
allow a 20-foot setback for principal structures on comer lots.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the table with the list of amendments to Ordinance #4 was
not in packets and said he was unsure of what, if any, change the Commission had agreed
to make.
Commissioner DeVine indicated it was his recollection that the Commission had decided
not to allow principal structures with a 20-foot setback because a new developer could
come in and do that and the City does not want that to happen.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission would be continuing this public
hearing to the Council meeting for further discussion and clarification.
Chairperson Hanson told Staff clarification was needed as to whether the Planning
Commission had made a change to comer lot setbacks for principal structures before the
matter is heard by the City Council.
Mr. Tratar indicated that he feels the setback restrictions on comer lots are excessive.
Commissioner McLean indicated that the City is concerned that a new developer could
come in and put new houses 20 feet from the lot line.
Commissioner DeVine showed Mr. Tratar a diagram as to what could happen with a new
development if the Ordinance was changed to a 20- foot setback.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated that it was his recollection that the Commission
decided not to change the ordinance to make sure new developments could not take
advantage of a 20-foot setback. He further indicated that Mr. Tratar's situation is rare
enough that it would warrant a variance.
Mrs. Camp-Barron of7l21 Centerville Road asked if there was a videotape of the work
session meeting where Ordinance #4 was discussed. Chairperson Hanson indicated that
there are minutes available for the meeting.
Page 6 of 24
Mrs. Camp-Barron asked if the minutes were available at City Hall. The Commission
indicated that they were and said the date of the meeting was October 9, 2001.
Ms. Kathy Tratar of 1710 Peltier Lake Drive indicated they could build a detached garage
at 20 feet.
Commissioner De Vine explained that the difference is a new builder could not come in
and build a detached garage as it has to be attached according to Ordinance. He then
indicated that, if the Commission changed the setback to 20 feet the developer could
come in and use the 20- foot setback for the entire subdivision.
Mr. Tratar indicated that the Commission's decision did not make sense as the
development would look the same.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated that Mr. Tratar had offered to bring in measurements
of surrounding properties and then asked ifhe had done so.
Mr. Tratar indicated he was not able to come to the work session as they were out of
town. He then indicated he was not sure the Commission wanted him to do the research
he offered to do.
Commissioner Wilharber commented he had thought Mr. Tratar would be bringing in
information on other lots. He then indicated that the Commission is trying to help Mr.
Tratar out but said future subdivisions could be compromised if the setback is changed.
He further indicated that he feels a variance would be appropriate in the Tratars'
situation.
Mr. Tratar indicated he still disagreed that a 20- foot setback would be undesirable in a
new subdivision. He then noted that he is not allowed to build on 68% of his comer lot.
Commissioner DeVine indicated that, in order to determine whether Mr. Tratar's claim
that not being allowed to build on 68% of his lot is excessive, a person would need to
gather information from other situations and determine the area of buildable land based
on the setbacks and lot sizes.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission had addressed this matter and
apologized for not being able to provide an answer at this meeting due to lack of
information.
Ms. Shelly Olson of Chetak, Wisconsin asked if dog kennels were added to the
Ordinance. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission approved language
allowing dog kennels in industrial zoning with a special use permit.
Mr. Bart Rehbein of 1659 Lakeland Circle indicated that a resident had asked the
Commission to look at parking of boats and RV's in driveways and then asked if the
Page 7 of 24
Commission had made any changes to that part of the Ordinance. Chairperson Hanson
indicated that no changes were made to that part of the Ordinance.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that a resident had thought there was
something wrong with the language of the Ordinance concerning parking in driveways
but the Commission had determined that the way the Ordinance is written is what the
Commission intended to allow.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the Commission clarified the wording of the sentence but
said the meaning is the same.
Mrs. Camp-Barron of7121 Centerville Road asked what page of Ordinance #4 covered
parking in the driveway. Commissioner Wilharber indicated parking in the driveway was
covered on Page 53 of the new Ordinance and Page 48 ofthe old Ordinance.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission had changed the Ordinance to allow
residents in the R-4 district of Royal Meadows who do not already have a garage to build
an accessory structure of a maximum of 440 square feet.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the word "minimum" was used where the
word "maximum" should have been in the Ordinance concerning the 200 square feet
allowed if a resident currently has a garage.
Mr. Lloyd Drilling of 7185 Mound Trail asked why the Commission decided to allow
dog kennels in industrial and not commercial. Commissioner Kilian indicated that
commercial zoning is closer to residential and the Commission felt it would be better to
have dog kennels further from the residential zoning to buffer residents from the noise.
Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive asked for an explanation of the
wording on the notice he received.
Chairperson Hanson explained that the notice had a list of things to be discussed at the
public hearings at this meeting.
Commissioner DeVine explained that the Ordinance requires that a minimum setback of
75 feet be maintained from the lake.
Mr. Al LaMotte of 1643 Heritage clarified that nothing was being changed on the
lakeshores.
Commissioner De Vine clarified that the City had an issue when one developer built a
house closer to the lake than the rest of the houses in the development and this addition to
the Ordinance would keep the houses in line.
Page 8 of 24
Mr. Steve Marcello of 1649 Peltier Lake Drive indicated that Rice Creek has required a
minimum setback of75 feet for a number of years. He then asked why the 75 feet has
not been part of Centerville' s Ordinance until now.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the City had not yet adopted the
shoreline standards but said that the City could not be less restrictive than the state
requirements, meaning that Rice Creek's requirements would be the standard.
Mrs. Camp-Barron asked if the public hearing was being continued to the Council
meeting due to a lack of information. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the meetings
are always continued to Council as the Commission merely makes a recommendation to
Council and Council makes the final determination.
Mrs. Camp-Barron asked if the document needed to discuss Mr. Tratar's request would
be provided to Council. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the document would be sent
along with the Commission's recommendation to Council.
Mrs. Bates asked the date of the next Council meeting.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the next Council meeting would be held on November 14,
2001.
Commissioner Kilian indicated the agenda would be available the Friday before the
meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Kilian. seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to continue
the public hearing to November 14. 2001 at the Council meeting. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Zoning Map Modifications
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that Staff had recommended that the conservation district
be removed from the map.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated that the conservation district was not included in the
Comprehensive Plan or in Ordinance #4.
Mr. Steve Marcello of 1649 Peltier Lake Drive asked why the conservation district across
from Peltier Lake was being removed.
Commissioner De Vine indicated that a conservation district is not addressed in the
Ordinance or in the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 9 of 24
Mr. Marcello expressed concern for changing the conservation district as he feels the area
should remain in a conservation district.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the Comprehensive Plan and the
Ordinance do not infer any special circumstances for the conservation district.
Mr. Lloyd Drilling of7l85 Mound Trail cautioned against removing the conservation
district designation because someone could go back to old aerial photographs of the area
and determine that it is not a natural wetland and it could be filled in.
Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive indicated the City of Centerville runs
across part of Peltier and Centerville lakes and asked what the lake is zoned.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the DNR controls all the water in the state. He further
indicated that all water is publicly owned.
Mr. Al LaMotte commented that removing the conservation district leaves the possibility
that someone could put something in there.
Ms. Joan Sturgeon of 7257 Centerville Road indicated she did not want the City to take
away the conservation district as she enjoys the wetland and the wildlife it brings to her
backyard.
Commissioner De Vine indicated the Commission did not intend to impact any of the
things mentioned by Ms. Sturgeon with its proposed changes. He then commented that
the land is under water and not buildable.
Commissioner DeVine commented that Mr. Marcello and Mr. Drilling had raised a valid
concern regarding elimination of the conservation district that should be considered
before proceeding.
Mr. Ted Irkenback of 7377 Peltier Circle expressed concern that removing the
conservation district and replacing it with R-1 zoning would mean that someone could
build too close to the creek. Chairperson Hanson indicated that Rice Creek Watershed
District would govern building in the floodway.
Mr. lrkenback of7377 Peltier Circle indicated he is concerned for the impact the change
would have on wildlife and concerned that the change would allow encroachment into the
creek area by developers.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated the whole area is in the flood plain which is
controlled by the Army Corp of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, and
Rice Creek Watershed District. He further commented that anything existing in the flood
plain, if destroyed, cannot be rebuilt.
Page 10 of24
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the area is not just a flood plain but a
floodway and that carries even more stringent restrictions than a flood plain.
Mr. Irkenback asked the Commission to look into the matter before changing the zoning.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he would like to ask Mr. Palzer the reason for the
change.
Mr. Don Simonson of 7263 Centerville Road indicated that he is concerned that if
someone had aerial photographs they could determine the land was dry at one point and
determine it is not a natural wetland and the City would lose control of the property. He
further commented that someone could mitigate two to one and fill in the wetland.
Mr. Marcello of 1649 Peltier Lake Drive suggested the City may need to amend
Ordinance #4 to include the conservation district.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that all public input would be considered before any
changes would be made. He then reviewed the other changes to the zoning map for those
in attendance.
Commissioner McLean commented that he had thought this was a paperwork issue but
said there have been some good points raised that he feels need to be investigated before
the zoning is changed.
Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive indicated that when he built his house
in the mid-1970's the bucket used to dig out the area was left on his property.
Mr. Norm Friteche of 1637 Peltier Lake Drive indicated that the area was dug out to
provide more buildable property.
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to continue the
public hearing to the November 14.2001 Council Meeting. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
III. APPEARANCES
1. Mr. Mike Quigley - Gor-Em (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
This matter was heard under public hearings.
2. Mr. Lloyd Drilling - Comprehensive Sign Plan (Uptown Center)
Mr. Lloyd Drilling of 7185 Mound Trail asked the Commission if he needed to submit a
comprehensive sign plan as he was informed by City Staff that he needed to do so.
Page 11 of24
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that the Ordinance went into effect on May 1, 2001 and the
permit was pulled on May 2, 2001.
Mr. Drilling indicated he had no problem providing a comprehensive sign plan and then
asked if a tenant, such as Hair Update, wanted to differ from the comprehensive sign plan
would they be required to ask for a variance.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated a variance would not be necessary provided
that the sign meets all the requirements of the sign code.
Commissioner De Vine asked how much square footage of signage was being used. Mr.
Drilling indicated that he was using a small portion of what the sign ordinance allows.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers reminded Mr. Drilling to make sure he does not allow
one tenant a disproportionate amount of signage and end up with not enough for the last
tenant.
It was determined that Mr. Drilling did not need to submit a comprehensive sign plan due
to the fact that the ordinance indicates that the comprehensive sign plan is part of the site
review process and Mr. Drilling had completed the site review process prior to the May
1, 2001 effective date of the Ordinance change.
Mr. Drilling asked if he needed a sign permit.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers recommended that Mr. Drilling check with Mr. Palzer
to determine whether or not he needed a sign permit.
Commissioner DeVine asked City Administrator Moore-Sykes to create a binder with the
latest Ordinances because the Commission should have the Ordinance in front of it when
discussing possible changes. He then commented that the letter he received from Ms.
Bender contained incorrect information and said that anyone at City Hall quoting
Ordinances should know what they are talking about.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested that only Mr. Palzer and Ms. Moore-Sykes
should be quoting Ordinances.
3. Mr. Brent Coatney - Mueller Pipeliners (Terminal Transport Building); Site Plan
Mr. Brent Coatney, the President of Terminal Transport indicated that he is downsizing
his business due to economic constraints and would like to sublease his facility in
Centerville to Mueller Pipeliners. He then indicated that Mueller Pipe liners is a similar
type of industry and should be a good business for Centerville.
JeffNordness of 25582 East Comfort Drive, Chisago City, representing Mueller
Pipeliners presented a grading plan and described for the Commission what Mueller
Pipeliners wished to do. He then indicated that the one change in the plan is that Mueller
Page 12 of24
Pipeliners would like to use an aggregate base on the extended parking lot area rather
than asphalt because track vehicles are very hard on the asphalt.
Mr. Nordness explained that the company is involved in almost every community right
now and is working with light rail transit and is working on the extension of Centerville
Road utilities. He noted they are a very good community player and explained that
representatives of the company helped clean up Siren, Wisconsin after the tornado this
summer and also helped clean up after the flooding in south St. Paul. He further
indicated that the company would bring commerce to Centerville as its fuel bill last year
was $127,000.
Commissioner Wilharber asked how the track vehicles would be brought into the
building for maintenance. The Vice President of the company explained that they would
be brought into the building on trailers.
Mr. Nordness indicated there would not be any gasoline tanks on site and said the
vehicles would go to the station and fuel up there. He then handed out pictures of the
equipment and site.
Commissioner Kilian read a portion of Ordinance #4 indicating that this type of usage is
allowed.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked why Mr. Palzer had told them to come to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Nordness indicated he was not sure. Ms. Moore-Sykes
indicated that Mr. Palzer had expressed concern for the outside storage and the request to
use an aggregate base rather than asphalt.
The Vice President of the company indicated that 90% of his equipment is out at the job
site from spring through late fall and then comes in to be maintained during the slower
winter months.
Commissioner Wilharber asked how many vehicles would be stored at the facility during
the winter. The Vice President of the Company indicated that approximately 100
vehicles would be stored on site during the winter.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the proposal met the 10% green space
requirement. Mr. Nordness indicated that the plan is exactly what was approved in 1998.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested Mr. Nordness make sure that the 10%
greenspace as required by the new ordinance is met.
Commissioner Wilharber asked if Mr. Nordness intended to provide screening to the
south and east.
Mr. Nordness indicated that there is a line of trees and some pine trees that were planted
as a screen. Mr. Nordness indicated it was their intention not to take out any of the trees.
Page 13 of24
Commissioner Wilharber asked if Rice Creek had given its approval.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that he comes from a military background and said
they used concrete to move track vehicles back and forth. He also commented that he is
concerned with fluids leaking from the vehicles. Mr. Nordness indicated that they would
be using trailers to protect Mr. Coatney's blacktop.
The Vice President of the company indicated that the company's fleet of vehicles is
rotated every three years to keep them new.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that he is concerned that with the aggregate base parking
lot, hydraulic spills or gas spills could get into the ground water and the residents in the
area all have private wells.
The Vice President of the Company indicated that what is stored out back will mostly be
trailers and compressor generators that are small.
Chairperson Hanson expressed concern for security with the small pieces of equipment
because the site is not fenced in.
The Vice President of the company indicated that he has surveillance cameras that he
intends to install.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the City Engineer had commented on the
plans. Mr. Nordness indicated the City Engineer had not yet commented on the plans.
Chairperson Hanson commented that Centerville does not have a filling station that sells
diesel if that is the type of fuel used by the vehicles. The Vice President of the company
indicated that the vehicles use regular unleaded gasoline.
The Vice President of the Company indicated that Mueller Pipe liners sends promotional
information all around the country that would say "Mueller Pipe liners of Centerville".
Mr. Nordness indicated that the safety programs to be held at the facility would bring 350
employees in for training.
Mr. Nordness indicated that Mueller Pipeliners is considered one of the top 8 specialty
contractors in the country.
Commissioner DeVine expressed concern with allowing the aggregate parking lot and
asked if there was a way to require a review of the parking every year.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked whether Rice Creek was aware of the aggregate
base and not asphalt when it approved the plan as it is not specified on the letter from
Rice Creek.
Page 14 of24
Mr. Nordness indicated he would get a clarification on the aggregate approval from Rice
Creek.
Commissioner Kilian read the permit that indicated that a pond is required.
Mr. Brent Coatney indicated there is a pretty extensive pond in back.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that Mr. Rehbein has had some problems with Rice
Creek Watershed on various occasions. He then asked if the pond was there and dug.
Mr. Coatney indicated that it was.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the permit says that if the pond is not
done it will need to be done.
Chairperson Hanson asked how many people would be on site on a day-to-day basis. The
Vice President of the company indicated that there would be approximately 12 people on
site daily.
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to recommend
to Council approval of this site plan provided that the applicant provide proof of the
10% greens pace and information on the pond. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested getting a letter from Rice Creek stating that
the pond is in place and talking to the City Engineer to address concerns before the City
Council meeting.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Ordinance #4 Amendments
This matter was continued to the Council meeting on November 14,2001.
2. Zoning Map Modifications
Chairperson Hanson indicated that, based on resident input, more research was needed
into the ramifications of eliminating the conservation district.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested asking Mr. Palzer to provide information as
to why he recommended eliminating the conservation district prior to the next Council
meeting. She then commented that, if it is determined that the conservation district
should remain, Ordinance #4 would need to be amended to allow for controls in that
district.
Page 15 of24
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner McLean to continue
the public hearing to the November 14.2001 City Council meeting. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was recessed at 8:05 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 8: 15 p.m.
3. Comprehensive Sign Plan - Uptown Center
This matter was handled under appearances.
4. Sign Variance - Hair Update & Day Spa
After discussion with Mr. Drilling concerning the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Uptown
Center it was determined that no variance was needed for Hair Update & Day Spa.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Mr. Mike Quigley - Gor-Em (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
This matter was heard earlier in the meeting.
2. KCI - Site Plan and Comprehensive Sign Plan (Lot 4. Block 1. Royal Industrial
Park)
KCI addressed the Commission and discussed the office/warehouse lease type of building
they are proposing to construct in the industrial park.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if KCI's architect had copies of the City's
Ordinances when it did the plans. KCI indicated that their architect had a copy of the
City's Ordinances.
Chairperson Hanson asked if there would be berming on 20th Avenue. KCI indicated
they had not planned to do so. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that berming
is not required by the Ordinance.
Chairperson Hanson asked if the plan meets the 10% greenspace requirement.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated that Mr. Palzer would determine whether the plan
meets the greenspace requirement. He then asked for the estimated tax value of the
building.
KCI indicated that they estimated the building to be valued between $50,000 and
$65,000.
Page 16 of24
Motion by Commissioner Wilharber. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to
recommend to Council approval of the site plan for KCI for Lot 4. Block 1. Royal
Meadows Industrial Park. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall
would need to approve the site plan.
3. Coatney Enterprises - Mueller Pipeliners (Terminal Transport Building) - Site
Plan
This matter was handled earlier in the meeting.
4. Grassen Companies - Street Lights (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
Bert Casper of 6979 Eagle Trail told the Commission that Eagle Pass is a very unusual
neighborhood due to the way the streets are built with curves. He then commented that
the developer wanted the development that way because it is cheaper to construct the
roads that way and there is more land available to sell and build homes on.
Mr. Casper indicated that, at the time, he thought there was a benefit to the homeowners
too because it is an attractive neighborhood and it is nice that no windows are directly
across from your window. He then indicated that after having lived there for a while he
has determined that it is not a safe place and it is not safe because it has inadequate
lighting.
Mr. Casper pointed out that the single-family homes have 7 street lights over the course
of 4/1 Oths of a mile and his side of the development has 8 street lights over twice as much
roadway.
Mr. Casper explained that if a person is driving west on Eagle Trail and kids are riding
bikes south on Eagle Trail they are on the same road but cannot see each other. He then
commented that it is a very dangerous situation because kids, especially traveling in
groups, are very inattentive to traffic.
Mr. Casper told the Commission the development is dangerous because the corners are
not lit. He then indicated that he thinks the newness of the development allowed the
developer to slide as few lights as possible past the City and NSP and save themselves
some money.
Mr. Casper indicated that some of the corners are 120 degree bends and said that more
lighting is needed in the development. He then asked the Commission to drive over to
the development sometime after dark to see what he is talking about.
Tracy Halstrom of 6960 Dupre Road drew a diagram of the development on the white
board to illustrate the way the road curves and how headlights do not shine on the
roadway. She indicated there is a petition signed by every member of the Association
Page 17 of 24
asking for street lights. She then indicated that Centerville was on the Home and Garden
Channel because of this coved development.
Ms. Halstrom indicated that the single family homes have a light in every peak of the
curves and the twinhome side of the development does not. She then indicated that there
have been several near misses with dogs, kids, and strollers due to the limited visibility.
Ms. Halstrom indicated that one night she almost hit some debris that some kids had drug
out into the street.
Ms. Halstrom asked the Commission to recommend more street lights in the development
before someone gets hurt. She then indicated that the intersection where kids get to the
park is on the twinhome side of the development and needs to be better lit.
Commissioner DeVine indicated that Council was aware of the petition for streetlights
and commented that he did not feel it would help to have the Planning Commission
recommend approval.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the street lights in the development
were brought up a year ago and at that time it was Christmas and Council determined that
there were too many Christmas lights to be able to adequately judge if the development
was dark. She then said that now that this new development is coming in the matter has
been brought to the forefront again.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that it may be possible to ask Gor-Em to
install more lights as part of the developer's agreement for this development but she said
she is not sure Council is willing to do that as additional street lights cost the City money
in continued maintenance costs and with the recent information that street lights cost the
City $40,000 per year Council may be reluctant to install more. She also commented that
other residents could argue that their street is dark and unsafe and ask the City for street
lights.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Council needed to consider all the pros
and cons of requiring additional streetlights in the development before making a
determination.
Ms. Halstrom asked the Commission to explain the inequity of the single family homes
having more lights than the twinhomes.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated she was not sure why there were more
lights in the single family homes but speculated that it may be because the road is more
curved in that part of the development. She then commented that the City Engineer had
approved the design and Council had relied on the expert opinions it had at the time. She
further commented that there are several issues to be discussed by Council concerning the
Page 18 of24
new development and said that she is not in favor, personally, of adding any more private
roads to the development.
Commissioner McLean indicated he drives on Dupre Road and it is darker than other
streets.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that it is dark in a lot of areas in the City.
Commissioner McLean questioned whether there is a third-party safety survey that could
be done to determine whether the lighting is inadequate.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that Council may not be willing to order
a study that the City would have to pay for due to budget constraints.
Commissioner McLean commented that not looking into the safety of the development to
determine if it is inadequately lit could open up the City to liability if a child were to be
hit and that liability could far outweigh the cost to add a few street lights.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that drivers are not supposed to overdrive
their headlights and commented that she felt someone would be hard pressed to prove
that the City is liable for an accident due to inadequate lighting.
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner McLean to
recommend that Council carefully consider the lighting in Eagle Pass.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he was on the Council at the time Eagle Pass was
brought in and it was a PUD which was something very different. He then commented
that Council spent a lot of time discussing the aspects of the development and finally
approved the development based on the City Engineer's recommendation.
Commissioner Wilharber suggested the residents petition the City for streetlights and
have the City assess the cost back to the homeowners for the cost of those streetlights.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that adding more street lights adds to the
City's ongoing streetlight expenses. She then commented that there are other streets that
are just as dark in Centerville and said that light pollution is also a consideration in this
matter.
Chairperson Hanson clarified that the motion is to recommend Council look at the
situation to determine whether it is dangerous and not to recommend that Council
approve additional streetlights.
Commissioner De Vine indicated he did not think anybody would be able to determine
whether it is dangerous or not and said his motion was to ask Council to carefully
consider the lighting and make a decision.
Page 19 of24
Ms. Halstrom said it was a shame that the City is concerned about Rice Creek Watershed
District and OSHA requirements but is not concerned for citizen safety.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that he took offense to Ms. Halstrom' s comment and said
it is not fair to generalize in that manner. He then clarified that the Commission has said
that the matter warrants some investigation and discussion to determine if there is a need
for lights.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that there are other streets in the City that are dark and that
have safety issues. He then commented that he is employed as a health and safety
manager and spends his days ensuring people's safety and to make the statement that the
Commission does not care about the citizens of Centerville is wrong.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the Association has been waiting a long
time to have its lighting issues discussed.
Ms. Halstrom asked whether it would be possible to install stop signs at the crosswalk
where residents cross to the park.
Commissioner Wilharber told her the Association can petition the City for a stop sign and
the City will look at it. He then said he agreed with the comments of Chairperson
Hanson and commented that the City is always looking for volunteers and he has served
the City in various capacities for 28 years and things can be done if residents want them.
He further commented that a stop sign may be good for the safety of the neighborhood.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Council usually follows the
recommendation of the police department when it pertains to stop signs. She then
commented that the police department has indicated that a stop sign may not add much
safety to an intersection because it gives residents a false sense of safety because they
think cars will stop and they do not always do so.
Commissioner McLean commented that the four main intersections should be looked at
it.
Commissioner Kilian thought the idea of the curved roadway was to slow people down.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated the City Council could lower the speed limit if it
chose to do so.
Commissioner Kilian commented that it would be difficult to exceed 30 m.p.h. on the
curved road.
VOTE: Ayes - 4, Nays -1 (Wilharber). Motion carried.
Page 20 of 24
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that Mr. Michaels had sent in a letter asking that he be
allowed to either leave his storage shed in its existing location even though City Staff has
said it must be moved because it is too close to the house, or to have an extension to
spring to move the shed because new grass has been planted and he does not want to
disturb it.
Commissioner Wilharber asked how close the shed was to the house.
Commissioner Kilian indicated it must be 6 feet or less away from the house if the
inspector cited it.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Staff had told Mr. Michaels that he did
not need a permit based on the size of the shed. She then indicated that the shed had
fallen down and was rebuilt. She further indicated that Staff did not have information as
to the close proximity of the shed to the house when the resident called to ask if he
needed a permit and determined he did not need one based on the size of the shed.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that the addition to Ordinance #4 to require a
nominal fee for a permit for this type of matter would eliminate this type of problem in
the future.
Commissioner De Vine indicated he felt the Commission should allow him time to spring
to move the shed. He then commented that there is another resident in the City that
received a letter from the City telling him his shed needed to be moved within 30 days.
He further commented that the shed has been there since the resident bought the home
and nobody complained. He did say, however, that the resident had pulled a permit to
add onto the house and the changes to Ordinance #4 gives the building official the
authority to cite for other violations.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the City was trying to improve the
ordinance going forward by making changes. She then commented that the situation, as
described, may be stretching the intent of the Ordinance.
Commissioner DeVine said he thinks it is weird that the building permit generated the
letter for the shed. He then commented that he thinks a witch hunt is going on in the City
because letters were sent to a lot of people wasting a lot of taxpayer money when the
letters were not correct. He further commented that he had received a letter indicating his
signs were illegal and they are not.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the City had been running without a
chief for too long and said that now that there is a City Administrator things should get
back to normal. She then commented that Council had directed the building official to
take a look around when at a resident's home for any obvious violations that could cause
a safety issue.
Page 21 of24
Commissioner De Vine commented that he was told that the building official just signed
the letters and did not generate the complaint.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that someone had to tell someone else to produce
the letters.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated he should be required to move the shed but
should be given an extension of time to do so. She then indicated that for every time the
City does not hold firm to the Ordinance it will have to be defended again and again.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he did not think everything was black and white.
Commissioner Kilian indicated he is tired of hearing "why should I have to if he does not
have to."
Commissioner DeVine indicated the Committee needed to look for a new member.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the Committee is allowed, in its bylaws, to
remove someone for failure to attend meetings.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that Mr. Michaels would need to come before Planning
and Zoning to request a variance to leave the shed in its current location.
Commissioner DeVine questioned how the City could make Mr. Michaels tear down his
shed knowing he had received information from City Hall concerning the requirements
for the shed.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Staff had given him correct information
based on the fact that the size of the shed did not require a permit and Staff was not aware
of the location of the shed.
Commissioner Wilharber asked if the City was going to apply its witch hunt to all
properties in the City.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that anyone who gets a letter will assume
they are part of a witch hunt.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he is curious as to how many other properties are out
of compliance with City Code. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated there may
be a lot of them.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that those other properties have not asked for a
building permit.
Page 22 of 24
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that it is an efficient use of Staff time to
have staff look around when out at a property for violations rather than make a specific
trip.
Commissioner Wilharber suggested the City should ask him to come in and ask him ifhe
wants to pay $175.00 for the variance knowing he may not get it or ifhe just wants an
extension to move the shed.
Motion by Commissioner Wilharber. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to ask Mr.
Bill Michaels to come in and explain to the Planning Commission whether he wants
a variance to leave the shed in its current location or an extension of time to spring
to move the shed and to ask him how close the shed is to his home and when he
called in concerning rebuilding the shed. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that Barry Brainard had sent a letter to the Planning
Commission resigning his position due to family obligations.
Commissioner Wilharber thanked Mr. Brainard for his years of service to the City.
Commissioner McLean indicated that Mr. Brainard brought a nice perspective to the
Commission.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked City Administrator Moore-Sykes to research
whether the Planning Committee is allowed, by its bylaws, to remove a member for
failure to attend meetings. She also asked City Administrator Moore-Sykes to put in a
notice of vacancy.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. October 2, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Wilharber requested the following changes: On Page 2 correct the
spelling of "Letendre" and "Stella". On Page 5 correct the spelling of the names.
Commissioner McLean requested the following change: On Page 13 insert the word
"Commissioner" before his name.
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to approve
the October 2. 2001 Meeting Minutes as amended. All in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Kilian abstained from voting as he was not in attendance at that meeting.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the Commission was comfortable with
having a list of the Ordinance #4 changes being made up to send to Council.
Page 23 of 24
Chairperson Hanson indicated he would like the list e-mailed to him along with the
minutes taken by Mr. Palzer at the work session to make sure that the discussion from
that meeting matches the list. He then asked that any comments of Committee members
be e-mailed to him for consideration.
City Administrator Moore-Sykes indicated she would e-mail the information to the
Committee and asked that Committee Members e-mail any comments to her to forward
to all Committee Members.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Kilian. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to adjourn the
November 6. 2001 Planning Commission Meeting at 9:50 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 24 of 24
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PARKS AND RECREATION AGENDA
November 7, 2001
6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
APPEARANCES
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
October 3,2001 Parks and recreation Meeting Minutes
October 16, 2001 Parks and recreation Meeting Minutes
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Trail Map Brochures
2. Satellite Enclosures
3. Update on Trail access for Emergency Vehicles
4. Update on Sheahy Land
5. Larson Landscape & Nursery
6. Centennial Hockey
7. Satellites Removal
NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Monthly Financial Statement
2. Wheel Park
3. Staff Liason
APPEARANCES
ADJOURNMENT
NOT APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
October 3,2001
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Parks and Recreation Committee
of the City of Centerville held their regularly scheduled meeting on
October 3, 2001, at City Hall, 1880 Main Street. Chairman Doug Porter
called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.
Present:
Doug Porter
Wayne LeBlanc
Tom Lee
Karla DeVine
Kathy Peil
Absent:
Brian Walter, Linda Broussard-Vickers
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
Motion by Ms. DeVine, seconded by Ms. Peil, to approve the August 1,
2001 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes.
All in Favor: Porter, Lee, DeVine, Peil
Abstained: LeBlanc
TRAIL MAP BROCHURES
After discussion, Chairman Porter will make recommendations to the
Engineering Group.
SATELLITE ENCLOSURES
As Mr. Walter was unavailable, this item is tabled until the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
A request to allow emergency vehicles to drive on park trails was discussed.
Ms. DeVine to investigate current ordinance and update the committee at the
next regularly scheduled meeting.
SHEARY LAND
As Council member Ms. Broussard-Vickers was unavailable, this item is
tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
WHEELS PARK PAY PHONE
As the city council amended their vote regarding the pay phone at the
Wheels Park, Mr. Peterson will order the installation at his earliest
convemence.
NEW BUSINESS
THE "SHORES" DEVELOPMENT
The committee view the preliminary plat, discussion ensued.
LARSON LANDSCAPE AND NURSERY
Chairman Porter to investigate.
CENTENNIAL YOUTH HOCKEY
Chainnan Porter to draft a letter stating terms and conditions of rink use.
DNR GRANTS
This item is tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
SATELLITES
Public Works is instructed to have all of the park satellites removed for the
season.
Motion by Mr. LeBlanc, seconded by Ms. Peil, to adjourn.
All in Favor: Motion carried Unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
NOT APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
October 16, 2001
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Parks and Recreation Committee of the City
of Centerville held an emergency meeting on October 16, 2001, at City Hall, 1880 Main
Street. Acting Chairperson Karla De Vine called the meeting to order at 7: 15 p.m.
Present:
Tedd Peterson
Tom Lee
Karla DeVine
Kathy Peil
FEE SCHEDULE
Motion by Ms. Peil, seconded by Mr. Peterson, to recommend council amend the
Fee Schedule to reflect the changes as noted on the attached copy.
All in Favor: Motion carried Unanimously.
ORDINANCE 8
Motion by Ms. Peil, seconded by Mr. Peterson, to recommend council amend
Ordinance 8.2102 to include pedestrian trail under line 3 as noted on the attached
copy.
All in Favor: Motion carried Unanimously.
THE SHORES PRELIMINARY PLAT
Motion by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Lee, to approve the preliminary plat as
marked to include a trail per attached copy. Developer to install said trail per city
standards.
Note easement concerns on lot 3, on the attached copy.
All in Favor: Motion carried Unanimously.
Motion by Ms. Devine, seconded by Mr. Lee, to adjourn.
All in Favor: Motion carried Unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.