HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-14 CC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
:tervil{e
'F.<taNi.<hd 185.-
Wednesday, March 14,2007
6:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Proposed Vacation of that Part of Westview Street from the West Line of
Lot 10, Block 9, Centerville, to a Point 160' East of Said West Line of Lot
10, Block 9
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES
1. February 14,2007 City Council Meeting Minutes (Tabled) (Documentation
will be provided at or before Council Meeting.)
2. February 28, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes (Pages 1-9)
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. City of Centerville February 29, 2007 through March 14,2007 Claims (Page
10)
2. Centennial Lakes Police Expenditures 03/02/07 through 03/08/07 Pages 11-
13)
3. Parks & Recreation Committee's Recommendation for the Centennial
Soccer Club's Use of Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park Fields (Pages 14-15)
VI. A W ARDS/PRESENT A TIONS/ APPEARANCES
1. Vice-Chairperson Kevin Amundsen, Parks & Recreation Committee -
Proposed Plans for Park at 1601 LaMotte Drive
VII. OLD BUSINESS
1. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendations:
Hanzal Subdivision
a. Res. #_ - Approving Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (Page 16)
b. Proposed Ord. #_ - Rezone from P-l (Public/Semi-Public,
R-5 (Single Family Residential Estate) to R-2 (Single Family
Residential) (Pages 17-18)
c. Preliminary Plat Approval (Pages 19-20)
d. Request for Variance (Lot 6) (Attachment A)
2. Adopt Resolution #_ Vacating Part ofWestview Street (Page 21)
(Cont'd)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed Credit Card Policy (Page 22-23)
2. Resolution Regarding Parking Restrictions on CSAH 14 (Pages 24-26)
3. Parks & Recreation Committee's Recommendation for a Pavilion at Laurie
LaMotte Memorial Park Not to Exceed $35,000 (Documentation will be
provided at or before Council Meeting)
4. Parks & Recreation Committee's Recommendation for a Pavilion at 1601
LaMotte Drive, Not to Exceed $35,000 (Documentation will be provided at
or before Council Meeting)
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTSIUPDATES
1. City Administrator, Mr. Dallas Larson
2. NMTC Update (Lakso)
2. Centerville Sesquicentennial
a. LaCompany
b. Aerial Photo Project
X. ADJOURNMENT
**REMINDERS**
Joint Work Session-Council/P & RIP & Z - March 21, 2007 - 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
City Council Meeting - March 28. 2007 - 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
Pandemic Planning at Centennial Lakes Police - 9:00 a.m. March 20, 2007
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28,2007
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION & MEETING
February 28, 2007
6:30 p.m.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regularly scheduled
meeting on February 28, 2007, at City Hall, 1880 Main Street.
PRESENT:
Mayor Mary Capra
Council Member Tom Lee
Council Member Jeff Paar
Council Member Michelle Lakso
::::Cil Member Linda Broussard ~@~
City Engineer Mark Statz
City Administrator Dallas Larson
City Attorney Kurt Glaser
ABSENT:
ST AFF:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Capra called the February 28, 2007 City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Capra indicated that page 14(a) is added under item V. Consent Agenda.
Mayor Capra added Item 3 under VII Old Business.
Mayor Capra added Item 1 under VIII New Business.
Councilmember Lakso added Item 4 Red Cross Update under IX,
AnnouncementslUpdates.
Motion by Council Member Paar. seconded by Council Member Lee. to approve the
af!enda as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES
1. February 14. 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of9
I
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2007
Mayor Capra requested the following changes:
Page 2, could not remember what she had changed.
Page 3, change events to mandates
Page 3, Paragraph 3 from bottom. Mr. Stoltzman attended a Police Commission
meeting and felt everyone was not on the same page in terms on a plan.
Page 4, Paragraph 9 change Commissioner to Councilmember Lakso
Page 7, last sentence add word commercial to park dedication fees
Page 9, Item 7 under motion: change to the petitioners would pay for costs even if
the project did not go through.
Page 11, add to first sentence under aerial photos - La to Company.
Motion by Council Member Lakso. seconded by Council Member Paar. to table the
February 14. 2007 City Council Meetine: Minutes. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. City of Centerville Februaryl5, 2007 through February 28, 2007 Claims
2. Centennial Fire District Expenditures through February 20, 2007
3. Successful Performance Review, Building Inspector Mr. Joel McPherson
Motion by Council Member Lee. seconded by Council Member Broussard. to
approve the Consent Ae:enda as presented. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
VI. A W ARDS/PRESENT A TIONSI APPEARANCES
None
VII. OLD BUSINESS
1. Ordinance #17 Second Series - 2007 Fee Schedule
City Administrator Larson stated the fee schedule had been submitted for consideration.
He said discussion occurred about commercial park dedication fees and if they were
comparable to surrounding communities. He stated Centerville is lower than some
communities, however, when these fees are raised it becomes a point of contention for
commercial development. He mentioned there is often a lot of press when fees are high
and cautioned Council that it could have an impact on development in the community.
Councilmember Broussard stated some communities base their fees on the per acre value
of the property. She pointed out that others use ten percent of the market value ofthe
land.
Mayor Capra asked if the fee schedule could be adjusted at any time.
Page 2 of9
)
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2007
City Administrator Larson replied the City could change the fees at any time with the
new fee applying to development from that date forward.
City Engineer Statz informed Council the summary is about three years old and was
written by a developer who challenged the park fees.
Councilmember Lee stated Council should keep in mind it IS trying to encourage
development.
Mayor Capra asked City Administrator Larson to point out the fee changes in the report.
City Administrator Larson replied most fees remained the same. He stated there were
changes to the electrical fees.
Mayor Capra asked if the electrical fees are changed by the electrical inspector.
City Administrator Larson replied they were.
Mayor Capra asked if a percentage increase was used.
Councilmember Broussard responded that was correct and mentioned the City never
really moved forward using this method. She asked about water usage rates and if the
rates were going back into the reserve. She questioned if the City was adequately
restoring the water fund reserves.
City Administrator Larson replied this is being looked at in relation to the cost by looking
at the rates and future projected needs. He indicated this would be brought forward in
the next month or two.
Mayor Capra stated she is fine with adoption at this time.
Councilmember Paar stated he is fine with this also. He indicated he would like the City
to do what it could to encourage development.
Motion by Council Member Broussard. seconded by Council Member Lee. to
approve Ordinance #17 Second Series. 2007 Fee Schedule. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Sedona Homes/Jackson Commercial- Final Plat & Developers Ae:reement
Mr. Glaser reported all issues have been resolved and only some language needs to be
fleshed out. He recommended Council approve the final plat and make a contingent
approval of the Developers Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney and City
Administrator.
Page 3 of9
3
City ofCenterville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2007
Councilmember Broussard asked what would be changed.
City Attorney Glaser took the Developers Agreement section by section and explained
the changes made. He stated plan approvals would be subject to the City Engineer's
review at all times and he would make the final approval. Mr. Glaser said the developer
is held responsible for all applicable laws and regulations of the City and County. He
stated there is a mechanism in place to ensure all items are completed. He stated the City
Engineer could access the developer's property and conduct inspections at any time. City
Attorney Glaser indicated the developer is not responsible for building a trail; however, it
would give the City an easement for the trail and a utility easement. He mentioned the
City would not accept the developer's improvements on private property for water,
sewer, or ponding, but if the landowner did not clean ponds the City could assess the
landowner.
Mayor Capra asked about the date the project is to be completed.
City Administrator Larson replied the pavement wear course would not be built on the
parking lot until summer of 2008. He stated the developer needed the rest of the
construction year to complete everything.
City Engineer Statz indicated the agreement could state a substantial completion by "X"
date and final completion by 2008
Mayor Capra stated the CUP is an annual permit and would expire at the end of the year,
if it were not used. She asked if this would impact the developer's agreement. She also
asked if the project is delayed, could the City decide not to approve the CUP.
City Attorney Glaser replied one of the conditions is the developer agreement would have
to come back for another CUP.
City Attorney Glaser continued explaining the items in the agreement. He stated a letter
of credit overall would meld the first developer's agreement into the current agreement
with the letter of credit so multiple letters of credit are not needed. He stated in the case
of a default, the City must give the developer time to make remedies. He explained that
whatever fees needed to be paid, the developer would be responsible for paying them.
He stated a site erosion plan is in place to keep the property clean and enforced. He stated
the park dedication fee credit has been worked out.
Mayor Capra stressed she would like the site erosion cleanup plan strictly enforced.
City Attorney Glaser replied there is a daily cleanup requirement.
Councilmember Broussard stated the insurance statements need to be increased to at least
$1 million. She indicated that from a City perspective, $1 to $2 million per person per
occurrence was the norm. She said she would also like to see the developer's work
comps.
Page 4 of9
f
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2007
City Attorney Glaser stated a proof of title would be submitted by the developer. The
CUP is broken out as part of the contract to be obeyed by developer. He stated the
developer would reimburse the City for Engineer and Attorney fees associated with the
agreement.
Mayor Capra asked about the CUP as it related to the expiration under Item I. She
pointed out that the developer had two years to complete the work, but the CUP must be
reviewed annually.
City Attorney Glaser stated these are mutually exclusive; if at the year point, certain
items in the CUP would not apply.
City Attorney Glaser informed the Council that open items include symantec issues of the
language to enforce the CUP as the way it reads because it implies that when an
occupancy permit is issued, the City is initially saying that whatever use the building had
at that point satisfied the CUP; this language needed to be changed. He advised that new
language was added to the agreement in that whatever is left over from the initial Phase I
agreement must be incorporated by reference to satisfy any left over requirements. City
Attorney Glaser stated that the easement to the pond was given to the City. He indicated
he would review these items more closely.
Councilmember Broussard asked if all the dollar amounts were forthcoming.
City Engineer Statz replied he would be reviewing them.
City Administrator Larson reported the letter of credit would be between $200,000 and
$250,000.
Mayor Capra stated she would not change the CUP.
City Attorney Glaser replied she should not in order to protect the City. He stated the
developer's agreement is much more detailed so as to hold the developer's "feet to the
fire. "
Motion by Council Member Broussard. seconded by Council Member Paar. to
approve the Development Subdivision A2reement and Final Plat subiect to the City
Attorney's final review. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Approve Extension of the Pre-Development A2reement Downtown
Redevelopment with Beard Group.
City Attorney Glaser stated he met with the Beard Group, Mr. Deike and Finance
Director Meyer. He reported the pre-development agreement has expired but things
could be done to get the project started, such as letting the Beard Group talk to the
landowners. He proposed that if Council would extend the pre-development agreement
Page 5 of9
:5
City ofCenterville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28,2007
to June 1,2007, the Beard Group would work down the list of landowners and have them
sign purchase agreements contingent upon the project going forward. He explained that
if the project did not go forward, the purchase agreements would be assigned to the City.
City Attorney Glaser explained this would get the project going, locks in land for
acquisition plans, and gives the City time to work out the development agreement. He
stated he is asking for an extension of the pre-development agreement to allow the Beard
Group to contact landowners in the name of the City with the reservation that if the
project did not go through, they assign their rights back to the City. He asked for a letter
of introduction from the City for Beard to present to the landowners.
Mayor Capra stated she was comfortable with signing the extension, but would like to see
the letter of introduction before it is signed.
City Attorney Glaser reported that while the redevelopment agreement is being
completed, other things could be done to get the project started.
Councilmember Lee mentioned that talking to the landowners could tighten up the costs
for the City.
City Attorney Glaser replied it would help the City in the long term.
Councilmember Paar stated that eventually this needs to happen.
City Administrator Larson stated the development agreement would probably be
available before June first; however, it would be helpful to do this to keep the project
moving along.
City Attorney Glaser informed Mayor Capra that he would draft a letter of introduction
for her for approval.
Councilmember Broussard said the City could not stop the developer from talking to
landowners now, but this would ensure the developer must assign rights to the property
over to the City if the project did not go through.
Councilmember Lakso stated she is comfortable with signing this extension.
Motion by Council Member Lee. seconded by Council Member Paar. to approve the
extension of the pre-development ae;reement downtown redevelopment with the
Beard Group until June 1. 2007. provided that any purchase ae;reements with
landowners in the City would be assie;ned to the City should the proiect not e;o
forward. Vote: 4 Ayes. 0 Navs. 1 Abstain (Broussard). Motion carried.
Mayor Capra stated she would like to see the letter of introduction before it goes out.
Page 60f9
Lo
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2007
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. On Sale & Sunday Liquor License - Scat Properties. Inc. doine: business as
Wisee:uys.
City Administrator Larson reported Wiseguys would be operated by new owners under
the same name. He stated the Police Department checked and indicated they saw no
reason not to issue a license to Scat Properties, Inc.
Mayor Capra welcomed them to the community.
Motion by Council Member Paar. seconded by Council Member Lakso. to approve
issuance of an On Sale and Sunday Liquor License to Scat Properties. Inc. All in
Favor. Motion carried unanimously.
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTSIUPDA TES
1. City Administrator Larson
City Administrator Larson reported the Anoka County HRA Board recommended
approval of a $200,000 grant for the downtown Block 7 and 8 and the recommendation
would go to the County Board for approval. He indicated the HRA Board also
recommended approval of the Beard Group for the housing development. He reported
that a grant application is also pending at the Department of Employment and Economic
Development, a decision is about a month away, and funding looks positive.
City Administrator Larson reported meeting with Xcel Energy about relocating utility
lines in downtown Centerville. He indicated another meeting is scheduled for the week
of March 5, 2007. He reported City Engineer Statz would locate the rights-of-way, the
easements, and work out the details. He said that construction would probably start in
April, weather dependent.
City Engineer Statz stated trees might be removed from the right-of-way areas as soon
possible.
City Administrator Larson stated the new plow truck has arrived. He said the old (1985)
truck would be advertised for sale in the League of Minnesota bulletin to see if there is
interest from another City.
Mayor Capra stated the Public Works Department did a great job getting the streets
plowed last weekend.
City Administrator Larson replied the only complaints were from the cul-de-sac areas as
there is no room to put the snow.
Page 70f9
-1
City ofCenterville
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2007
City Administrator Larson reported there is a park land dedication issue outstanding on
Peltier Preserve. He turned this over to the City Attorney.
City Attorney Glaser explained the park land was never dedicated to the City. He
informed Council the property has been sold to a third party that the City could not prove
it had ties to the developer. City Attorney Glaser stated the City had no recourse on the
current owner. He explained that the City has the right to bring action against the
developer. He stated the only thing the City could get would be money from the
developer who had a legal responsibility to donate land. City Attorney Glaser indicated
the City could do an assessment as to what it thinks it should have received, take a fair
market value, and equate it to the park dedication fees.
Mayor Capra stated she would like to know the value of what the City would go after
versus the cost to bring litigation against the developer.
City Attorney Glaser replied the City could ask the current owner for the land.
City Administrator Larson indicated the current owner is a builder and stated the issue is
with the previous developer.
Councilmember Paar asked if this is something the City should try as he did not want it
dragging out.
City Attorney Glaser stated it is worth sending a letter to request payment from the
developer or legal action could be taken.
Mayor Capra pointed out on a site map where the property is located. A discussion of
access ensued amongst the members.
Councilmember Broussard recommended the City start with the letter and estimate the
value of the property.
Mayor Capra would like to know the value versus the cost to pursue legally.
City Attorney Glaser pointed out there are some negotiating issues that could be pursued
with the current owner.
2. NMTC Update
Councilmember Lakso reported the franchise fee in the amount of $7,070.68 is coming
back to the City for the cable fund. She stated Council would receive the annual report
from North Metro. She stated there is also a DVD portraying the sponsors and revenue-
generating options. She asked Council to read the report as it is important to the
community concerning cable opportunities. She asked City Administrator Larson how
much money was left in the fund from 2006 and whether the fund was used to pay for the
hours of taping.
Page 8 of9
<t
City of Center vi lie
Council Meeting Minutes
February 28,2007
City Administrator Larson replied he was not sure of the dollar amount as it carries over
from year to year. He stated the fund had been used for equipment. The hours of taping
were not coming out of the fund; however it could be used for taping.
3. Centerville Sesauicentennial
a. La Company
b. Aerial Photo Project
Mayor Capra reported this is still a work in progress.
4. Red Cross Update
Councilmember Lakso asked Council if it was ready to sign the Red Cross proclamation
to get on board for the 2007 campaign. She reported the only commitment would be to
bring the Red Cross in to provide free one-hour seminars on such topics as weather
preparedness, emergency planning, and pandemics. She explained the Red Cross wanted
a designated contact person and would require a space to hold the seminars.
Councilmember Lakso volunteered as the contact person. She pointed out nine
communities have already signed the proclamation and 23 still need to sign.
Mayor Capra directed Councilmember Lakso and City Administrator Larson to discuss
the options. She stated she would like to do this as a fire or police district.
Councilmember Lakso stated she would bring more information to the Council.
Mayor Capra asked if the super rink skate night was held.
Councilmember Paar replied the blizzard happened instead.
Mayor Capra asked City Administrator Larson find out if the skate night was held and to
reschedule if needed.
XI ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Brassard. seconded by Paar. to adiourn the February 28. 2007 City
Council Meetine: at 7:35 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Dianna Wise, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 9 of9
~
6J
-':""'" "" .
e .. terVl,[[e
. D",JiIi.",d I.'"
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
03/05/07 4:23 PM
Page 1
*Check Summary Register@
Name
10100 MAIN STREET BANK
Paid Chk# 022160 AVLlC
Paid Chk# 022161 BONESTROO, ROSENE,
Paid Chk# 022162 BURSTEIN - GLASER
Paid Chk# 022163 CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE
Paid Chk# 022164 CENTERPOINT ENERGY
Paid Chk# 022165 CONNEXUS ENERGY
Paid Chk# 022166 DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Paid Chk# 022167 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS
Paid Chk# 022168 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
Paid Chk# 022169 IMAGE PRINTING & GRAPHICS
Paid Chk# 022170 J-CRAFT, INC.
Paid Chk# 022171 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT
Paid Chk# 022172 NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE
Paid Chk# 022173 OTTER LAKE ANIMAL CARE
Paid Chk# 022174 PC SOLUTIONS, INC.
Paid Chk# 022175 PERA
Paid Chk# 022176 TIME SAVER
Paid Chk# 022177 US BANK CORPORATE TRUST
Check Date
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
3/14/2007
Total Checks
MARCH 2007
Check Amt
5606.00 DEF COMP W/H 3-8-07
520,351.79 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT - SERV TH
58,974.97 CONDEMNATION MATTER - SERV THR
541,498.29 MARCH2007 POLICE SERVICES
$2,929.88 6970 LAMOTTE DR - SERV THRU 2-
$595.57 6800 - 20TH AVE RADIO FOR SCAD
53,841.35 TAX AND LICENSE FEE FOR 2007 S
$203.00 MICROSOFT EXCEL 3-6-07
$839.65 CHEMICALS
5490.35 ENVELOPES - PRESORT STAMP
563,060.17 PLOW - EQUIPMENT - NEW TRUCK
5450.92 DEF COMP W/H 3-8-07
$32.00 T BENDER & J MEYER LIFE INS
$151.92 ANIMAL IMPOUND FEE - 3-1-07
$4,400.00 PREPAID TECH SERVICE - AGREEME
$2,454.93 PERA W/H 3-8-07
5204.20 2-14-07 COUNCIL MEETING
5431.25 #801112000 - CV GO IMPRV BOND
$151,516.24
Note: There will be an updated list of disbursements for approval on 3-14-07.
JO
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT Check Register POLICE GL Page: 2
GL Posting Period(s): 03/07 - 03/07 Mar 07,2007 03:14pm
Check Issue Date(s): 03/01/2007 - 03/08/2007
Per Date Check No Vendor No Payee Invoice Description Inv Amount
GROUNDS MTC 415.83
03/07 03/08/07 6170 160250 PETTY CASH / BRITNI AUSTIN PHOTO PROCESSING 51.82
03/07 03/08/07 6171 160420 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE BY PHON POSTAGE 130.99
03/07 03/08/07 6172 160563 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT LLC CERTIFICATION 325.00
RADAR/LASER UNITS
03/07 03/08/07 6173 170180 QWEST PHONE 167.36
03/07 03/08/07 6174 190200 CITY OF ST PAUL BACKGROUND INVEST 125.00
TRAINING
03/07 03/08/07 6175 190375 SELECT ACCOUNT ANNUAL FEE 500.00
JAN/FEB SELECT ACCT 40.00
FEES
Total 6175 540.00
03/07 03/08/07 6176 190390 SHRED RIGHT SHREDDING 56.11
03/07 03/08/07 6177 190625 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC FEB FUEL 3,463.03
03/07 03/08/07 6178 200043 TELECIDE PRODUCTIONS, INC LAPTOP INSTALL 623.33
03/07 03/08/07 6179 210110 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED, INC UNIFORMS 3,863.89
03/07 03/08/07 6180 11653 AUTO-MEDICS INC FLAT REPAIRS 436.11
Totals: 32,284.77
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
I~
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT
Check Register POLICE GL
GL Posting Period(s): 02/07 - 02/07
Check Issue Date(s): 02/09/2007 - 02/28/2007
Page: 1
Mar 01, 2007 1 0:47am
02/07
02/07
02/07
Per
Date
Check No Vendor No
6139
6140
6141
Payee
Invoice Description
Inv Amount
9.50 M
25.80 M
21.09 M
56.39
02/13/07
02/13/07
02/14/07
Totals:
40345 DEPUTY REGISTRAR #150
10590 AMERICAN MESSAGING
160525 PRO-EX FILM & CAMERA
TABS 2001 MITSUBISHI
FEB PAGER SERVICE
20 ROLLS FILM
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
/3
MEMO
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kim Stephan
DATE: February 8, 2007
SUBJECT: Request from Centennial Soccer Club for Use of Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park Soccer
Fields for the 2007 Season
The Centennial Soccer Club has requested the use of the fields at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park in a letter
dated January 3, 2007. There are two parts to the request:
1. Requesting two fields, 25 x 40 yard open spaces, located east of the parking lot and bound by
the bike path, for the U2 - U8 age group, for games only. This request is for Monday - Friday
from 4 p.m. to dusk, April 28 through June 30, 2007. The Centennial Soccer Club will set up
goals and manage a reservation system to assign teams to specific dates and times for games.
2. Requesting one field, 70 x 60 yard open space, located south of the skate park, for the Ull -
U12 age group, for practice only. This request is for Monday - Friday 3:00 p.m. to dusk,
Saturday and Sunday from 8 a.m. to dusk, April 1 through October 29, 2007. The Centennial
Soccer Club will set up goals and manage a reservation system to assign teams to specific dates
and times for practices.
Council Member Lee mentioned that when the football season starts in August there will be no place for the
local youth teams to practice if all the fields are committed to the Centennial Soccer Club every day of the
week from April through October. The committee's concern with this was that the football association has
not asked for time or fields and the Soccer Club has. It was suggested the football representatives be made
aware they should be requesting time. In discussing this request however, some of the committee members
felt the fields should have some time left open for the public's use for such activities as softball, frisbee and
football. Overall, the committee felt a compromise would be to reduce the days in request #2.
Motion was made by Vice-Chairperson Amundsen, seconded by Committee Member Selander to
recommend to City Council approving the Centennial Soccer Club's request for dedicated use of the
soccer fields at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park as stated above in request #1, but recommend
amending the request in request #2 to the following days: Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday
with the hours as requested. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
1+
Centennial Soccer Club
PO Box 475
Circle Pines, MN 55014
January 3, 2007
Mr. Tedd Peterson & Ceuterville Park Board
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Dear Mr. Peterson and Park Board,
Thank you for your support of the Centennial Soccer Club in 2006. After researching the available park sites
in the City of Centerville and reviewing our field needs, the Centennial Soccer Club is requesting the
following sites and times for 2007:
1. Lamont Park: two, @25 yard x 40 yard open spaces located east of the parlcing lot Ixnmded by the
bike path; for U6 - U8 age group; the fields will be used for games only; goals would be setup; 2 fields
would be laid out in a North - South orientation and periodic field striping will be done; Mondays -
Fridays ftom @4:00 pm to dusk:; @ April2Slh to June 30th. Centennial Soccer Club will manage a
reservation system to assign teams to specific dates and times for garnes.
2. Lamont Park: one, @70 yard x 60 yard open spaces located south of the skate board park; for U I I -
U 12 age group; practices only; goals will be setup; the field would be laid out in an East - West
orientation; Mondays - Fridays from @3:00 pm to dusk and Saturdays and Sundays 8:00 am to dusk; @
April I st to October 29th. Centennial Soccer Club will manage a reservation system to assign teams to
specific dates and times for practices.
As in the past, we additionally request that these areas be mowed on a regular basis (depending upon weather
conditions) to keep the grass at a length that does not interfere with the playing of soccer.
The Centennial Soccer Club greatly appreciates the City of Centerville, Park Board Members and Publis
Worlcs Department St:atrs consideration in allowing our club and players to use these fields during our
upcoming season for the world's number one sport, soccer. I would also like the opportunity to attend the
next p~rtcs & Rec. meeting to introduce myself, discuss our request, and collaborate on future field
development. Plea.~ contact me with questions at 651-653-7435 or at fielddirectorcsc@comcast.net.
~cerely,
/'L-"') ./ -'~ ~ A
~--.~
/5
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
RESOLUTION #
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT "7381 OLD MILL ROAD" DESCRIBED ON
EXHIBIT "A" THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY WILL BE PLACED IN ZONING
DISTRICT R-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE P-l
(PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC) & R-S (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - ESTATE)
ZONING DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, subsequent to duly given mailed and published notice, the Planning and
Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 2, 2007 and considered public
comments regarding the aforementioned amendment and adopted its recommendation to
City Council supporting the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at their regularly scheduled meeting of March 14, 2007
considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and concurred with
their motion.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA:
1. The recommendation for rezoning of the subject property to R-2 (Single
Family Residential) is hereby approved.
2. That the City Administrator or designee shall ensure that the
comprehensive plan amendment as approved be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council for consideration and all documentation associated
with the same is hereby approved and shall be recorded and become
official record of the City of Centerville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council this 14th day of March, 2007.
Mayor, Mary Capra
Attest:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
IG>
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE #
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY
FROM P-l (Public/Institutional District) and
FROM R-5 (Single Family Residential-Estate District)
TO R-2 (Single Family Residential District)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. City Code Chapter 154, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by
rezoning from Residential R-5 and Public/Institutional P-l to Residential R-2, certain
property located within the City of Centerville, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, and
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Centerville referred to and described in
Chapter 154 shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the City
Administrator or the City Administrator's designee shall appropriately mark the Zoning
Map on file in the City Administrator's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning
provided for in this ordinance and all of the notations, references, and other infonnation
shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
of the City of Centerville.
,2007, by the City Council
Mary Capra, Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
97498
EBK 11/21/01
/1
EXHmIT "A"
Property in the City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota, identified by parcel numbers as
follows:
From P-1: PIN # 143122310022
From R-5: PIN # 143122420036
97498
E8K 11/21/01
iCZ
~~~~
~, I'#-"?\,....\)
~'T..?~J_I.O'.
--------~---
--------L ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __
/
/
/
/
/
/
$ /
/ /
"" /
l..
~" /
t.f
tis / .. \
{ / ,'~
\ / ",.--- SOUTI-l(RLy LINE
~ -L ~~T'
/,...- - - -
I
-
~ '"
/ "-
/( )
~ \ I
\ (
\ \
\ "" \
\
@CZ~
\
\
\
-\-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
NORT~
-
\ HWl - 890.0
\
"
~_.J
- -
,'...___NORTH LINE OF RLS NO. 48 AS MONUlAENTEO
_/_----------
EAST i4 OF SEC. 14, T31, R22
CENTER OF" SEe 14, T 31. R 22-1.... fa., ~ I ~~~~4~~\~~Tff; ---.......... ~1
NE CORNER COV"T lOT 3 ',r. 0 //;'\. I (ANOKA COUNTY MONUI.lENT) '~, /'
r _ _ ~9"29'45~ _ 26~5.~ -2 2~
T 'Se9'Je'4S-E - - 2~ll -'
, EAST -VwC)T OUARTER UNE
I, AS ESTABUSHED ON A
--- MEAN BEARING .mo USEe
FOR P~TTlNC IN S( .%
OF SEC. 14, T. 31. R. 22
_N~'45-W _
- -sB9'3.r4S";"E-
I,'
(
/,
1
I 33
I
~tf'r:~
ii'vI
/1 'j
w>'1,; / i
.:~,_/ I
~
33
'l
g
I:,
,-----
I
I
I
I"
@CZI~
I ~
" I
\1
\
f&I:zo~
\,
I,
( ,
< ,
\1 -<\0'0
'- 's'? \
Si-~
........
,., ..~ ,.. ,.... -,-.. - .., ... ..,
~.. ... , .., '. I ... ... ... , ,
...._".,.., L."L_'"
"..,.......-,..
......."... .
'.....,..... .
\ j
i//
//:2/
",0: '
t~(~
i
m
~
m
m
~
'"
-;i~E-
r:~~ ~,.. -~...'
- ...~....~
~//
. .~.
SOUTH .lINE or THE
NORTH-"299 FEET -1'\
Of RLS NO. 48 : 1
! /( ~ :
,
~
/'
"---- / /
,
@CZONJ:E:iJ
PRELIMINARY PlaT
-of- HANZAl'S ADDITION
-for-
JEFF & LAURA HANZAL
7381 OLD MILL ROAD
CENTERVILLE, MN 55038
PH4#: (651 )-653-2020
OWNER/DEVELOPER
EASEMENT DETAil:
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
1.-..0.00
I
500 ~
I
_ __ I _'~oo_ __ __ J
I
l___[~:______
ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA
(NOT TO SCALE)
BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINES AND REAR lOT LINES. ALSO BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH
AND ADJOINING ALL OTHER LOT LINES UNLESS OTHER\V1SE
SHOWN ON THIS PLA T. 10NING:
- EXISTING
Property is Zoned R-2. P-f, .& R-5
,
\ \'10:.
PARCEL f:
AU of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 48, files of the Registrar of Tilles, Anoko
County, Minnesota, Except the north 299.00 feet thereof.
EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
(PER TIm COMMITMENT NUMBER 4-345161
PARCEL 2,
Dullot A, ACORN CREEK SECOND ADDlnON. Anoka County, Minnesota.
t" \
PARCEL 3,
That port of Government lot 3, Section 14. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County.
Minnesota described os follows:
( ,
, -< ,
( , v
- I
'-
/
@CZO~
~
~ \ ',.....
, I
"" \f"" \
,,' ~
r,
,_ r
@Cz""D2i
'- ,
I.. ....: I :'- I r-
~ I J 1- .... f"
I ' I.. . 1- r\
I
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
-----,--
\
\
\ I
...-0' -r -
/'/',(<\'
/' _<x'"v,
( I.... v<_" \ ..
': >... ',,',/ \ ..,,-"....
- ....-.... I'"
_ 1:\ ',,:' '<~I
_ ...,,-.... r -
< (...." '" "_, -'," \
/-.... '< '" # < y'" <.... ") '" \
. _ " I ( # v' <-" v
\'!.':-, _, - .,) to, "v J
,''900 4. \/ ...
:_, ,.
......1 rRr-
\>; ... ~lONJ::D
..... '1:,:_.
l_,~' ...
,
\ ~/:--
<..
&
f
':'
--
'':'
".
:
( IN FEET )
I Inch. - 50 fL
to{",
-'
APPRO)(l/rAAT'E: CENT(R Of ---""
25 rOOT WlOE CR(EK
H'M.. _ 890.0
--
--
,:;::,. ----
-- -
,~'-
"
www.egrud.com
Professional land Surveyors
6776 lake Drive NE, Suite 110
Uno lakes, MN 55014
Tel.(651)361-S200 Fax (651) 361-8701
/'
/'
/'
/
/
S:Wcl\C0\06pn;I~l'l
Commencing ot the most westerly corner of Tract A, Registered land Survey No. 48;
thence on on assumed bearing of South 83 degrees 18 minutes 00 second5 East along the
southerly line of soid Troct A 0 distance of 355.00 feet to on angle point In said southerly
line and the point of beginning of the property to be described; thence South 42 degrees
10 minutes 00 seconds East along said southerly line 0 distance of .HO.DO feet to the
westerly line of said Tract A; thence South 00 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West oIong
said westerly line 0 distance of 52.00 feet to the easterly extension of the ncrther1y line of
Tract B. Registered Land Survey No. 48: thence North 89 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds
West along said north line and ils easterly elttension 0 distance of 106.50 feet; thence
northwesterly 72.66 feet along 0 non-tangential curve concave to the southwest with a
chord bearing of North 60 degrees 19 minutes 08 seconds West, 0 radius of 50.00 feet and
on included angle of 8.3 degrees 15 minutes 51 seconds to 0 point of reverse curvature:
thence westerly 69.84 feet along 0 reverse curve concave to the north with a radius of
100.00 feet and a central angle of 40 degrees 00 minutes 50 seconds; thence North 61
degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds West tangent to the previously described curve 0 distance
of 90.93 feet; thence westerly 41.87 feet along a tangential CtJrve concave to the south
with a rodius of 55.00 feet and on included angle of 43 degrees 36 minutes 54 seconds:
thence North 30 degrees 30 minutes 2.3 seconds East a distance of 246.91 feet to the
point of beginning.
- PROPOSED
Outlot A is proposed to be rezoned to R-2
SETBACKS:
- EXISTING
Front = .35 ft.
Side = '0 ft.
Rear = 25 it.
Creek = JOO ft.
Wetland = 00 ft.
- PROPOSED VARIANCE
Front on lot 6 = 20 ft.
MINIMUM LOT
REQUIREMENTS:
- EXISTING
Lot Width ",. JOO ft.
Lot Area '" 15,000 sq. ft.
Bul7dinq Size = 1.050 sq. ft.
Garage Size = 440 sq. ft.
LEGEND:
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENr SET. MARKED RLS/41578
-0-DENOTES ANOKA COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
-(iJ).DENOTES EXISTING WELL
is) DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
l;( OENOTES HYDRANT
~ DENOTES SOIL BORING
o DENOTES CA TCH 8A$JN
-If OENOTES WA TER SERVICE
"
M DENOTES GA TE VAL VE
r:8JDENOTES mANSFORMER
~ DENO TfS F1BEROP nc BOX
In DENOTES TELEPHONE BOX
ICl OENO TES CABLE BOX
lEI DENOTES ELECmlCAL BOX
->>------4. DENOTES 12~ & 16~ RCP
.. t~..30 DENOTES EXISnNG SPOT ElEVA nON
AREAS:
- EXISTING PROPERTY AREAS,
Total Property Area - 277,044:t Sq. Ft. (6..36:t Acres)
Total R/W = 16,IOO:t Sq. Ft. (O.J7:t Acres)
Total Uplond = 134.947::: Sq. Ft. (.3.10::t Acres)
Total \Vetlond = 122,008:t Sq. Ft. (2.80:t Acres)
- PROPOSED LOT AREAS,
LOT 7 ... 49,223:J: Sq. Ft. (1.13 Acres)
LOT 2 = S.....35J.:t Sq. Ft. (1.25 Acres)
LOT J - 40.022'" Sq. n. (0.92 Ac,es)
lOT... = JJ.20.3.:t Sq. n. (0.72 Acres)
lOT 5 - 47,3073:. Sq. Ft. (1.09 Acres)
LOT 6 = .38,837.:t Sq. Ft. (0.89 Acres)
:::::=:::::::~:::::: OENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
::::==:::=:::::DENOT[S PROPOSED CONTOURS
~ D[NOT[S PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
-..-..-..- DENOTES SETBACK LINE
--.- DENOTES WEltANO LINE
~ DENOTES PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA
:'!;.,c': ~~:~~~: ~:~:~~U:::~~CE
C::=:J DENOTES ~nLANO AREA
F~.;~~~if,1 DENOTES BfTU'JINOUS SURFACE
'UlI!!!IJJJJ!JJ DENOTES WEltAND FILL AREA PER PLOWE ENGINEERING
NOTES:
Field survey WQS completed by [.G. Rud and Sons. Inc. Q() 10-03-06.
Proposed contours. storm sewer, pending, wetland fill, and mitl'gation
areas provided by Plowe Engineering.
N.G. V.D. Vertical Datum
Bearings shown are en on assumed dotum.
Contours ore at 2 foot intervals.
Curb shots ore token at the top and bock at curb.
Wetland delineation completed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services
Compony. phone /952-401-8757.
Trees tagged with numbers 5.31-826 by Vernix Forestry Consultants,
phone 1763-767-1142. on 12-18-06.
This survey was prepored using a Title Commitment prepared by Burnet
Tille file number 4-34576. Contact the Post Clos,"ng Deportment with \llllll'l
questions or comments at (952)-844-62JO. ...""'~\~!!.~~O;';""
/"~/'~~ci:~'.."fr'\
-:! 4157& : -
-:. ~ CIRCle PINES :
~... <\'. M~ .,/ ...:
"~,!,D~~'~~~~:"'~'
""11111"-
OOAIW BY: NAA JOB NO: 064lJ2PP DATE: 11-27-06
CHED< BY...ER DI\lC NO: PREPlA T.J SCANNrD 0
, 1-02-0 R!'>'fSIOHS PfR CITY COU!.ffNTS NAA
2 -06-0 RE\4SICNS PCR CITY COUJJ!NTS NAA
J
NO. DATE:
DeSCRIPTION
BY
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that thIS survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I om
a duly Registered Land Surveyor under
the lows of the State of Minnesoto.
~aL9---
JASO E. RUD
Date: ... / C /,2oO-'?- License No. 41578
I I
I ~
.------. - --- -----
N
~~!:t~~~~~G. ~~f;f'2~~ CONTROL and MmGGRAAp1iHI7cOSNCALEPLAN A
City of Centerville, Minnesota V
GENERAL NOTES-
1) niE INf'OOMAllON SHOWN ON lHESE DRAWINGS CONCERNING TYPE AND
lOCATION OF DlSllNG UllUTIES IS NOT GUARANlUD TO BE ACOJRAlE OR
AU. IHClUSlVL THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE fOR WAKINCO HIS OVlN
OCTmMINATION AS TO THE l't'PE AND LOCATION OF UlIUTlES AS MAY BE
HEaSSARY TO AYOIO DAMAGE: TO THESE UTlUTlES.
2) CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL AT SSl-4M-OOD2 fOR EXlSnNG
UllUTY lOCAllCNS.
3) THE caiTRACTOR SHAll FIElD \'ERIFY SIZE. LOCATION, AND ELEVATION OF
EJaSllNG SANITARY SEVI9l. WATER MAIN. AND SiORM SE'MR AND NOnFY
ENClN~ Of NlY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO niE START Of
INSTAl.l.ATlCNS.
4) INSTAU.ATlCNS SHALl. CONfORtrA TO n-IE aTY ENGINEtRS ASSOCIATION Of'
WIHNESOTA (CEAt.l) STANDARD UlIUTY SPECF1CAllONS (1999 EDIT1OH) AND
tHE aTY OF' CENlERVlu.E STANDARD SPECIFlCA1l0NS.
5) CONTRACTOR SHALL. NOllFY CITY A MINlJ.lUM Of 24 HOURS PRIOR 10 ANY
INTrnRUPT'ION OF' SANITARY SEWER OR WATER SER'w1CE TO EXISTING
HOMES OR BUSINESSES. (651) 766-4029
6) SEE SHEET C2 FOR STORM WATER pO\.UJnON PRE\'DillON PlAN (S\WPP)
AND AOCtTlONAl EROSION CONlROl. DETAlLS.
STRFFT AND A1TIJMINOUS NOTFS'
t) ~~_~N~S1lNG Blnn.lINOVS AND CONCRETE CURB 10 PRC)W)E
2) REJ,lOVAl. AND DISPOSAL... a: EXISl1NG STREET l.IAtmlA.L.S AS REQUIRED
FOR CONSlRUcnON IS INClDEHT.AL
J) RESTORE DISTURBED STREET TO EXISllNG OR BEllER SEcnON AS
APPROVED BY ENGINEER.
4) CONtRACTOR SHALl. USE TRAFFlC CONTROL MEASURES (IN ACCORDANCE
'MTH THE .lr,IlNNESOTA IrotANUAL OF UNIFCBl TRAFFIC CONTRa.. DE\'1CESj
AS NECESSARY MiENE'w'ER GRADING. unuTY, OR PA'ANG OPERA'TIDNS
ENCROAOi ONTO ADJACENT S1REE1S.
STORY SF'WFR NOTF~'
1) STORW SEWER SHAll. BE R~ (Q..ASS v l.llNIMUM) OR HOPE UNLESS
OTHCRWISE NOlm ON PlANS.
2) STORW SOt!R LENGTHS lNCLUOE THE LAYING LENGTH or THE APRON.
3) ~~.CASnNGS ARE INSTAllED ll-lE ~LY ALLcr~ INLET PROTtCllON IS
~ !!\;!~
WOOD FlBER BlANKET TO BE USED ON All.
SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER AS INDICATED
Erosion Ctlntrol blanket Inatagatlon
1. Seed or.a flrIt, and place blanketl wIthin 24 hOl.lf1l of
.eed/n;.
Z. Anc:hor blank.t at the top of the .ope n a 6 Ine,
vwtJcol a10t, bocldill and compact.
J. Unroll In the ~Ion of ttl. Iil'Qtor flow; QYerlop end. 7
~.~: ~~:. :"~~"':1=.-:7LJ foet.
~ YttIen bklnkO'ta ar1I placed Itlh91e at)4o, o,"","~ 7 Inche.
GrId staple ~ J feet.
6. Lay blonkelJi lOOllely and malntaln direct eontoet with
tJ10 aolL 00 not atretch the blanket.
I
81OfllTRATlON BASIN
(SEE Pl.Nl FOR SIZE
ANO l.OCATIOH)
2'-3'
AGGRECAlt SHAU BE l)lE FUl..OYolIotG;
'"-1.~" DCI.I9l.L WASI€D Sl~E
-<lR-
'/4.-1/2" ....AS-IED RIVER RU't PEA CRA'ofl.
BIOFILTRATlON BASIN
NOT TO SCAU:
WEllAND FILL 9,057 sqft '(!JjjjOiil/iA
WETLAND MITIGATION 9,105 sqft ~
PUBLIC VALUE CREDIT (TO OUTLET) 9,065 sqft
(INCLUDES POND AND INF. BASIN TO 890 CONTOUR)
2: 1 MITIGATION REQUIRED 18,114 sqft
2: 1 MITIGATION PROVIDED = 18,170 sqft
LEGEND:
-.-
->>-
->-
Existing Wotermoin
Existing StO/'"m Sewer
Exlstlng Sanitary Sewer
Proposed Wotermoln
Propo~ed Storm Sewer
Proposed Sanitary Sewer
Existing H)'dront
Proposed H)'dront
Existin<) Sanitary Manhole
Proposed Catch Bosin,IMonhole
:;;t
~
~
Clilll
-0-
Direction of Surface Orainoge
Proposed Contour
Existing Contour
Slit Fence
(U1.~.f...ceto'_(I.bolh
::'~I'Ol;lKtlo" ond ....,1"" -.trol
Proposed Spot Elevation
(lolot-=Pr-l>poNdIPOl~tiOll.
tho,"" _ -,-.f 11;01'10;1<;..,
b/tl,mInou._~.Ofqutt...JN
.-o1N. oil........ lUlled.)
Existing Spot EleY'Otion
.<",'
~
SOIL BORING LOCA TlON
~~
PlAN ....
~.,.("''"''->
~-
-~-
SEe. A-A
=.>-0
/lC/F'-~F' ~ur
NOT TO SCALE
EROSION CONTROL ev..~KET (FOR SEEOlNC)
(e.G. ECONOJUTE OR smAW-COCONUl lllANKEl)
18" SOIL 8l[t<<) f'l..~noN WED!A. (SEE NOTE '4)
OVER EXCAVATE aEOS TO A UINIoIIJIr,l DEPTH
or 8. lU\lEOIAmv PRIOR TO PUoClNG
F'l.TRATION t.€DIA ~ EROSION Ell..ANKEl'.
ACCRECAlt am wI 6. PCRrOAATE'D
OAAlNTILE w/ SOCK (SEE OETAIl AT LETI)
R1l"ln1 'lRAl1nN RA";I~ Nt')Tf'O';.
I) 8AS1N TO REIoI~N UNUNEO.
2) COtHRACTOA SHAll. EXERast CARE TO
MIN.'IolIZE CQ.lPACllON OF SOlS.
3) ANAl a:lAOE ONLY UPON sTAS1UZAnON or
UPSTREAU AREAS,
4) PROv.Ot '8- SlIBCUT AND BAOOlU. TO
FlNlSl-Cl CRACE: w/ PUHTlNG WEOIJI4 (wtU.
BLENDED Ir,HXnJRE C>>': 40X SOli COURSE
WASHED SANO CR HAll\'[ SOIL, JOX WnOOT
GRAO('2 Ca.lPOSl AND JOl'; NAll\'[ TOPSOI.
BY VCtJJI.4E)
~) SEED \llll)l IolIXTURE 328 AT 88 US/ACRE.
6) NO l.IlNlNC ~ SANDY SOlS IS ALl.0'f,(D t<i
INFlllRAT10H BASltl.
~_..J
-
'i'
~ I~
( IN nET)
tinch-60ft.
Mllin~M..:e aNI Evaluation orSccdi"~ SIIUC'U
YCMiI (sprinlICcdillg)
Prepafll and:Jeed silo Aprill S-JIIty 20
. Mow21O)ti~a(30d4ysa~)wilhDlOwcrdm6.lJinehc5ofrlbogJl)~d
. DFtionaJmol.,;nlioeulySeplelllber
. SpoCspray"'CCdyspe<:ieslllebasthillles,removoinvasiveshNbl{bucl..-thoro)
Ye.rl(!aU,cedifl&l
. Prepareand$<<ldsileSeplember2O-Oclobcr20
. Mow21O)limes(30daysa~rl)with mo_rdock6-8inehesofrlhe lfCund
. Spot 'PfSy....ffdy Sf'Kies web as thistlu, ~rnove illYuve shrubs
Year 1 Eval\<ion
eo..cr~psho"Id~J.lowinlwitllia.2l'onkJarplantin,
. NaIIWIl'&Sssc-edhnlJ'm.,.onlybc4-6inc:h~ltaIl
Seed~ll&s,hould be $pACed I~ irothq.arwr in uchdrill row irdnll seWed
Flush lfO",th offoxlllillnd olber mnUlIs may indic.ate need fOf mxe ~qllCnl mov.;1I&
Y_2
Mow<n= wiLlI IIlQ_r clcd. 6-3 iridIC. oalhe ,round prior lo:JeC:d lei orwoedy ~iCl
. Spot spny ....-eedy specias 11 ~eded
. Some lia IIIIY DOl rcqwre ma.ivte..oco iD)'Car.2 dcpcadin. on scc:dliag ~c.ou
YCllr2EYllwlion
Co\o,.rcropwiUbegono:un!euwi.lerwllul_.u:wd;nlfa!lpl.&cltint
Qru:se.,foraUo,el"m~I-6~bcl.partin4riUtows.bu.tstiUshorl
$om, Oo~en should be bloomiq
flu,,, lltowth arfonailllld oCber lUUluals may ir.dieale nud!Or more l'requenl mowiog
Year)
fo.forlsilesoonolrcquiremuchrnainlenance
MowonlyifpeUl$If)'toc;anlTOl weedy annuals
Spot Ipnlyweedy speduu Deeded
PlanlinplllooldlooJr;uin\lended wilh a diverse oUlttUte 01 native srauesllld forllc
<-,-
MowinllnolD<<~oronlYfKc.asWnally
SpollpnlyillS of_eds if-.ded
Opbor..lbuttlinl in I l-5 yeurotatiOllallernatin, spl'il\Jlnd Ii.Ubunu
0pti00aI t.aying in a ).5 year rotatioo laIC: summer or e.ariy !"all. Allcmac.: willI bumin, or
lUbs!ilulefot"b..,,;"I
CROSS SECTION A-A
888
887
886
885
884
o
20
(FEET)
30
i
~o
" '
~
\
f=>
.
\, '
---
". ... --;- ~-
/ ~-~
,
/'
, "
, ,-.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
:_, '" /
, J..r--' r-..../
1 1::"/;:' ,....
/".... ,~ J...,.... '",
/ ~,.,
, , ,
I
--"'--.z.
"-
"-
" /
" /
'\
\
\
\
\-- -- --
\
\
\
\
\
\...----
.to,.o'l
'~,
1-., '",
t...... t~
,
1/' ,..._
, ....
~
BAFFLE WEIR DETAIL
(0(",
"
""=
I) ALL waco SHALL BE ItEDIIJOOO OR ~U1t'O WOOO S\JlTAfL[ F"OR
COlTACT \IIInt CSlOONO.
2) AU. FASlDo'ERS SJolALl eE HOT-OIPF'(D GALVANllm.
Ilre.:<Itll
--';";'--
-~--
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
.....-
/'
/
/
-'
\ 7
..
I
I I
I
,.. I
I
I I
\
I hereby certify that this pIon was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision ond that I om a duly licensed Professional
Engineer un er ,the lows of the Statr of L1innesoto.
PREPARED FOR.
DRAWN BY: ~
aTY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE, RCWJ COM'-lENTS
RE\1SE POND TO INCl.UOE FUTURE DE'lnOf'MENT, RCWO COMMENTS
UPOA TED EAS(t,(fNT UNES
REDUCE l.ltnGAnCN AREA; UPSlZE POND UVE STORAC(
UPOA TED EAS(IolENT UNES
Cl
CHECKED BY: C.G.s.
PROJECT NO: 061097
DATE
DATE: 10/31/06
JEFF AND LAURA HANZAL
7381 OLD MILL ROAD
CENTERVILLE. IIN 55038
PHONE: (851) 853-2020
PLDWE
ENOINEERDlO
6776 LAXE DRIVl! NB. surrs 110
UNOlJ\Kf3., MN SSOl4
PHONE: (6S1))61.1210
PAX: (6S1)361-l701
SHEET
RE'YlSION
OATE:
ATTACHMENT A
Planning & Zoning Commission Report and Recommendation.
The Planning & Zoning Commission met on January 2,2007, continued on February 6,
2007, and again on March 6, 2007 to consider a request of Jeff and Laura Hanzal, for a
variance to allow a front-yard setback of 15 feet from the front property line, rather than
the normal thirty-five feet on the property consisting of .89 acres identified on the
preliminary plat for Hanzal's Addition as Lot 6, Block 1.
Findings:
1) Subsequent to the hearing of February 6,2007, applicant revised their variance
request to reduce the needed variance to 10 feet, proposing to place the structure 25
feet from the front property line.
2) The Planning and Zoning Commission heard and considered all testimony of
interested persons submitted in writing and in person during the public hearing and
input process.
3) The applicant provided evidence that the home could not reasonably be constructed in
another location on the lot, given the difficult grades of the lot and constraints
associated with setback from Clearwater Creek.
4) The applicant did provide evidence to support a finding of "undue hardship" as
defined by Minnesota Statute 467.357, subd 6, and City Code Chapt. 154, Sec.
154.310, Subd. A, and specific findings in this regard are:
a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
The Commission find., that the topographical conditions of this property severely
limit where a home can be built. Regulations of Rice Creek Watershed District that
prevent additional fill to reclaim more land. The combination of topographical
conditions, setback regulations and building size regulations comhine to make the
property unbuildahIe without a variance.
The Commission also find., that lacking a variance, the only way that the .89
acres of proposed lot 6 can be used would be to remove the existing home located to the
north of the proposed lot in order to move that northerly property line to increase the
buildahIe area. The Commission.linds that it would create an undue hardship to require
that the existing home be removed in order to avoid the required variance.
b. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district.
The Commission finds that the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a
desire to increase the value or income potential of the lot. The Commission specifically
finds that extraordinary circumstances related to topography make a variance necessary
to provide a reasonable use of the property.
c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not
been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Special
circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and do not
result from the actions of the petitioner.
The Commission finds that the hardship is caused by a combination of topography
and setback regulations and is not caused by actions of the petitioner.
d. The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare and safety and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The
proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
surrounding area or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the
residents of the city.
The Commission finds that the variance will not adversely affect public health,
welfare or safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the neighborhood. The Planning Commission finds that the variance if granted would
not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties and will not
unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area.
The Commission finds that sight lines of other property owners would not be significantly
impacted by the proposed structure and that the location of the lot on the outside of a
curve would substantially negate any sight-lines issues of locating closer to the front
property line.
e. Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted
use in the zoning district that the subject property is located. Granting the variance
requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the City
Code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Literal interpretation of
the provisions of the City Code would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the same district.
The Commission finds that the use proposed is for single family home, which is
permitted in the R-2 zoning district in which the property (building site) is located. Other
properties in the district enjoy a reasonable opportunity to construct a single family use
and to deny this same opportunity would create an undue hardship.
5) The Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the variance proposed
is the minimum necessary to accomplish the permitted use.
6) Surrounding property owners expressed concerns that the additional traffic and speed
of the traffic would adversely impact the neighborhood.
The Commission finds that the addition of five more homes that would be allowed
by the plat and more specifically the variance to allow a single home on lot 6 would not
appreciably affect traffic or traffic speeds and may in fact be calming to trqffic by adding
more activity along the street.
7) The Commission has identified conditions that will mitigate any adverse impact that
granting the variance would have on the adjoining properties and such are included in
the recommendation. .
RECOMMENDATION.
The Planning Commission recommends that the variance be granted to allow a front-yard
setback of 25 feet, subject to the following:
1. The applicant will be required to satisfy all building permit and City code
requirements for the construction of the proposed structure which will be built
according to the submitted plan dated March 6, 2007, which is hereby adopted as
part if this recommendation.
2. Front yard as shown on the approved site plan shall not be diminished and all
useable green space in the front and side yards shall be retained as shown on the
site plan and not be reduced by construction of any additional buildings in the
future.
3. The total floor area of the dwelling to be constructed on the property shall not be
less than 3000 square feet.
4. This variance shall expire if the approved plan is not implemented and the home
constructed within twelve months of the date of the approval by the City Council.
5. The variance is granted specifically to the applicant and a building permit
implementing the variance will only be issued to Mr. Hanzal who will construct
the dwelling in accordance with the conditions of the variance.
March 6, 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission
Dallas Larson, Administrator
.
1"
!"""~~
M
il;lli
J
'ill'
W;i
II
OJ
U
,..:... ::.
~
m~
~~:..iIi. ...
L..
nft
'u
-......:..
~
!!I
@
q~j1;
\Jj)
~
!!I
~
900
, Vl.~
,. {II -1-'"'
-~;0:' - "~
!;~~j C""
"df#f
;tfClt 0F
.$~ ~
~ .:
o :J
:cg
"'00:::
c CIJ
COO)
t)i9
CIJ 0
:J 0
O'"u..
CIJ CIJ
0::: 1-
C1JCO-l-'
U :J 0
CO'"......I
.!:2 Cf) S
1- CIJ CIJ
~:6 z
E
CO
1-
0)
CO
.-
o
\0
..c
-I-' *'
.-
~
Vl
-I-'
.-
u.. Vl
CIJ CIJ
1- E fj!;
:J 0 Cl.
-I-' .-
U :c ..c
:J CJ)
1- 0) "'0 "lQ ~~
-I-'
Cf) C 1- C ~ ~ m
.- CO 0
CIJ "'0 :c
.- ~ !II
C Vl
..c m
:J CIJ :J
-I-' ~
0 -
~ :J U "
1- "'0 C 'ill< ~
1- @
w
0 :J c:: 0 m I
:c (f) ::> u
6':M . . . . w
T"'"'I N ('V') V Ln
""
m
m
'"1c",, a"
Wt1~ @ff~
~mi' -#k
(g] I
~~J~ llil,
&i-&:~\U
,
fufu
*;!,LO) 1j,~!i1
w- ii"
'+-J
'0) ............
~@!!@ r-T"
,............, *E~ '(j)
0) *,",u
ID\>kC' '10"'"
~ :G~?!!!( >r,
C,O \D
ro ~ 9!~ d::
.- M ............ d::
ro "1:J 'fJiOJ g
~ 0) sOl 0
'.' (f),.CO \.0
o.(f) ro r-I
OLb~l9N
il,.. 11.;11' en ~ ~
o I O..c
I ~ $,0) ..c (j)
""-"" ~ -I-J .-
I ~ ,,,a.. S .c
· Q;) ..c' LL
I "'0
I ~ +-' OJ-g
'iiJ ~:5i 8
(f)~ffi~~~
+-'::l ............ -
o !+-' .~ .c jg
J:? .~ ~ ~ ~
Lnb
N(/)..
HB
@!!
D
Q .
0);;;..
!\\iL!:b)J';'
~"'1 8
Q;)0d::
Wi.,............
O'!' cr
.* (j)
~.d;L
-O,;','N
QJm 0... d::j
M
(f)p a::
(f)!il' OJi' (j) ""'-. %8
Ol CJj
CO!! 0 (j)
l..:r' \.0
(/)COr-lO
I' 19 N \.0.
W 00
~~~OJ
a.. O..c .~
+-,i1:5 (j) (j);.
::l c c
o $" i.I: 0
..c "'0 :p
+-'i! OJ"! "'0 CO
~ :5i 8 ~,
~ t ~ ~,
::l CO C CO
+-' -I-J . - -I-J
Q;) oCOo
3LIt H :E f-
w'
+-'
. (f)P . . .
"St:;l.. ,",,'
'1rw .... 1ft
~ro ,,:::J
.88 ~~.. Ill:)~
..... QJ
S::::'b
fu:::J
.S
~.I'::j'%%
'''''"@ ~
~ e-
II :>~& ,&f:I)
~ ..
W'1U ·
f:l)QJO)
o ...c;: !!&
Ln .~ .-
'E) C C .*,,!!L
~ ij:: ..c
ffi!!m 11&. U
WOO)
..cLO.~
+-'(0
iP f:I) ~wl if~)
+-' W.-
W '" " "0
QJ..c:=
E~w::J "
i~l..c
W, ~,:i' "' lIi~ ~
5- .,,, ~
~F? ~t:.)1,. --
~-- . ""'TID-~\JI -Ak ~
ffi ~2:ID.
5-W-
."" ~ · -0
'%iai V-'. == "~ '"~
.~ &t~m~. II
G: W~W
.-- ~ "?~
-
. 1)'R 3>
. '&I wy
^
"':. l
< 1". /
'"'- //
,<
.;0
C)
b> ~
0\
............. '" "..... ..
.. ...... '" ...............'...H.....t'......:~.......
~::... .
".
~ ...~.......~..... .
. B.
.. ......~....................._....
... ,..".. .. ......
~. '4
".
.....
......
......":....
11
%1
<1M
1f;
01
.. I
C
--
-g,
:J
o
- I.' =-~
-.........-- -
L.
:Jill
CJ)D
I
W$;C_ ~
:::>
, .... tom
1-
eu
..c
OJ
::}
-0
C
::}
1m; ....
;1'-...
~ L{")
~
d'V')
IN
'\.0
I~
,
'OJ
1+-1
;::}
1+-1
" eu
1+-1
!U)
!
leu
I +-I
10
I(J)
OJ
C
C
.-
~
"OJ
W:V')
::J""O
OJ&
OJ 9t$
-0
..0 _
,co at
""c t
"0 \I-
CJ) OJ
co 1-
OJ co
1- CJ)
o OJ
+-JU
+-Jc
::J co
0. .c
OJ~
..0 0'
o~
c+-J
C "
CO \I-
U 0
~~
1- .-
OJ+-J
0..13
o OJ
1- 1-
0. 0.
1-
OJ OJ
..c +-J
I-c
__0:";:('<
aJi~~%'p
tn'",;.
:J
Q)'"
..0
co ,.
C:.'lRS~
0....
\EY'
tn'
co
Q)
1-
co
.~ r
Q)
E
o
..c
>-
-== 1M!
E
~
I
Q)
0) .
...,
e::;;"U
'Vi.;::
...,
CO....tn
1- !t:-a
SO)
e::
\..0 .-
...,e::
o 0
....J N
0)....>-
e:: .-
.- E
tn
::>~
.
UJ
LL.
@ [I '--'"
>-
U
8m m '" e::
..., ,Q)
e:: 0)
EiWI ~
Q) e::
tn Q)
HJ!!~'f;E
Q)
U Q) 0)
......... 0). CO
E CO'e::
e:: CO
""0 'co ~
OJ 1-1
CJ) :-am >-
~ ~ ~
U, ~
V') T'-i W
0. .::2....!ii;; E
..c Q)' UJ
CJ) Q) -
1- CO
""0 U!i; 1-
rn ~ ~
..c .- Q)
OJ ~. LL.
..c
~1W' II .
()J
~.:fi 0
':JI - %i~ Q)
CO ItW:;C @ ..0
:-a .;::::;" Q) @ w:
e:: C e:: -
CO OJ 0
Q)~ ~.~ '
c. OJ .-
CO OJ" ... CO
-~,\~
tn ~ -
Q) +-J CO
:S11 ~ m
-;;&
...,. - .-
U: CO..:-a
CO;I. "1'5th e::
d% ~ +-J'. :J
QJ Eo 0
C t:
-
c:
QJ
+-J
Ae::
"'QJ
U
~
o
ctn CO QJ
._ = > ..c
U <(~ OJw I-
..c
II .;;;~I I;-
3: Ii
Q) II
E .
Otn ^,
.!:! d,Q)itt%
>-........E""
-== ..0
E I.!:! W
-"!r't1@ I
~O)
I .e:: =
Q) jG)~; 1i.@;I~.,
O)'.e:: !~
e:: :J
'-...0 ".0
tn.,I,1- ,.w=,.,
I~.
a3; ::J .~
tn .VA~ 'f
o..t~ ~
-~c. q~ ~
o Q)
1-0)
c.lThCO
oj ..cQ) -0
tn 0
~, I-w~ ~
',#l
.;
~t!
w
, Mi
@
..c
(J)
"'0 .-
1- ... ""!'-
eo ~~,eo
..ci'ii'~
.' .t~c
OJ +~LW
::J E
"'OC
c+,9
::J;j+1-
.-
ct,>
eo C
OJ OJ
>"'0
OJ C
.-eo
Qj~
1- eo
"'01-
- ::J
::J-I-J
~ r~
OJ ~
U .-
c-e
eo,)t~ OJ
.-
1-
eo 0
> 1-
(J)c..
~-:~ -- OJ,
..c
c
Q.
. ......
Vl
:::J
t+f
UJI
,~~-
~-=- ..-
0:
l:)"
tw
',' ',~
,,( %? .,.. !;li:
~'it6'
"\Ji~!f ~
%':- .
~m::"
(J)
OJ
.-
-I-J
-
::J
U
:1'
.-
"'0
eo
U
.-
-I-J
U
eo
1-
c..
OJ
1-
OJ
E
c
OJ
>
OJ ·
OJ
.... U
~ c
eo eo
-.J .-
1-
eo eo
-I-J ~
o eo
(J) OJ
OJ 1-
C eo
c
.- c
~eo
eue
"'0 -I-J
c(J)
~ '::J
-J ....@ 1
;p .., 00
.
eo
u
.-
-I-J
U
eo
1-
c..
C
eo
..c
-I-J
.
OJ ,OJa
1- f.AiP
o ::J
E OJ
-
(J)..Q
OJ eo,.
(J) C..!........'.
(J)ii
OJ 0;
1- (J)
"'0 eo
"'0 OJ
eo 1-
OJ eo
U (J)
c ~
.~ 0
1- =
eo eo
> +J~
-I-J
o ....
J2~
.-
O~
M ::J
U
OJ.-
~ I
..c ._
1-"'0
.
OJ
..c
-I-J..c
(J)
Ol~
C
.-
""0 ..c C
~ OJ eo
::J OJ
..... (J) "'0 "'0
>- C 0
OJ31U
EIDCl
o ..c c
j:j -I-J . C
eo,@ ~@ 0
~ ~ 1-;::; ."._- ~
'-I-- -- ~>:Mo
~ .~ ~
-I-J .-
C eo U
o
.OJ
""0 , Iii' ..c
OJ C -I-J
(J) eo
eo ._
,..,..... .. '. ~ ~%%?+
U-I.G .......
ffl~
C;
'~
'=
..
.~
~
~
"C
~
.....
~
Q
..
<U
.....
.....
<U
~
l:I'l
'"
~
~
=
..
o
.....
.....
<
=
~
w!
o
==
=
~
..
~
Fj~
I,
D
ID
Larkin
Hojfu1o~
I..arkin Hoffman Daly & lindgren Ud.
1500 Wells Fargo plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55431-1194
GENERAL: 952-835-3SOO
FAX: 952.896.3333
WEB: www.Iarkinhoffinan.com
February 28, 2007
Members of the City of Centerville Planning Commission
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Re: 1 O-Foot Setback Variance for Lot 6 of the Hanzal Subdivision; Our File: 31,607-00
Dear Members ofthe Planning Commission:
Our client, Jeff and Laura Hanzal ("Hanzal"), have applied for a variance from the City of
Centerville (the "City") R-2 Single-Family District setback requirements. Under the City Zoning
Code (the "Zoning Code"), the R-2 District requires a 35-foot front setback. Hanzal initially
applied for a 20-foot variance but are now reducing their request to a 1 O-foot variance from the
front setback requirement.
At the last Planning Commission on February 6, 2007, the Hanzals presented the variance request
for Lot 6 of a six-lot Subdivision at 7381 Old Mill Road (the "Site"). The Planning Commission
found that the initial 20-foot variance satisfied the last four of the five total required findings
outlined in the City's variance application. The Planning Commission then tabled the application
regarding the first variance finding in order to allow the Hanzals time to determine the minimum
setback variance for Lot 6. As requested by the Planning Commission, the Hanzals have
reengineered the building plans for Lot 6 and have reduced their request to a 10-foot variance.
Even with the reduced variance request, Lot 6 continues to meet all other City requirements,
including the minimum building size. Lot 6 now provides a 1,300 square foot building
foundation, which exceeds the 1,050 square foot building size requirement under R-2 District
regulations. This amended variance request is illustrated on the enclosed Site Plan for Lot 6.
This letter amends the current application pending before the Planning Commission from a 20-foot
variance request to a 10-foot variance from the R-2 District 35-foot setback requirement.
Moreover, this letter explains that the Hanzal application satisfies the hardship standards under the
City's first required variance fmding as well as summarizes the fmdingsfor the other four variance
requirements.
1".. Description of the Site.
Lot 6 is.the.Site's southernmost lot. The southwestern edge of the lot abuts Clearwater Creek.
Lot 6-is subject to Rice Creek Rules that require 100-foot drainage easement from the centerline of
Clearwater Creek. Rice Creek Rule E.4. The lOO-foot drainage easement significantly impacts
Lot 6 compared to the rest .of the subdivision because it effectively removes approximately. four-
fifths of the buildable area on Lot 6. In addition to the 100.:footdrainage.easement, there is also a
Federal Emergency Management Agency {FEMA) Floodway ~ine that similarly reduces the
Members of the City ofCenterville Planning Com:inission
February 28,2007
Page 2
buildable area for Lot 6. Despite the impact of the unique natural features of Lot 6, the property
meets all other City regulations, including the minimum building size. Lot 6 allows for 1,300
square feet at the foundation level. .
2.. . City of Centerville Variance Requirements.
Under Minnesota Law, variances from the literal provisions of a zoning ordinance may be allowed
if "strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
individual property under consideration." Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. 6. The City's variance
application requires that the following conditions must be satisfied in order to grant a variance:
a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions
of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be
. strictly enforced.
b. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel ofland, but would correct
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district
c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
d. The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare and safety and will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
e. Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use
in the zoning district that the subject property is located.
As discussed above, the Planning Commission found that the Hanzal's initial20-foot variance
request satisfied the last four conditions and in discussing the first condition requested that the
Hanzals attempt to reduce the variance to 10 feet. The Hanzal' s amended 10- foot variance
satisfies the first variance condition as well as the four other conditions.
a. Because of the particular physical surroundings. shape or topographical conditions
of the parcel or lot. the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship. as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience. should the applicable ordinance be
strictly enforced.
The proposed 10-foot variance would relieve an undue hardship on Lot 6 that is due to the
property's natural environmental features. Under Minnesota Statute 9 462.357, undue
hardship means: (1) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use ifused
under conditions allowed by the official controls; (2) the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, imd (3) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Members of the City ofCenterville Planning Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 3
First, the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if required to adhere to the
35-foot setback. In Minnesota a finding of undue hardship requires a "showing that the
property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by
the ordinance." Rowell v. Board of Adjustment, 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn. App. Ct.
1989). The Hanzals are requesting the variance in order to use the property for a single-
family home. Without the variance the lot cannot support a building pad that meets the
City's minimum building area of 1,050 square feet. Using Lot 6 for a single-family home
is a reasonable use in a single-family zoning district. Second, under Minnesota law, even
mere practical difficulties may justify an area variance. See id. A variance from the City's
setback regulations is an area variance. See id. The 10-foot variance addresses more than
practical difficulties, it allows a reasonable use - a single-family home in the R-2 District.
Next, the setback difficulty for Lot 6 is due to circwnstances unique to the property. The
topography of Clearwater Creek and resulting drainage easement and FEMA Floodway
line significantly impact the shape and buildable area for Lot 6. The variance addresses
these unique characteristics to allow for a reasonable use on the lot.
Finally, the 10-foot variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Site
and surrounding area is zoned single family. The proposed zoning for the Hanzal
Subdivision is R-2 Single-Family, which is also the zoning designation to the west ofthe
subdivision. The neighborhood across the street is also zoned residential.
Based on the above findings, the proposed 10-foot variance satisfies the undue hardship
requirements under both the City Zoning Code and Minnesota Statutes. The other four
required variance findings are discussed below.
b. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel ofland. but would correct
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this propertY but not applicable to other
properties in the vicinity or zoning district.
Similar to the undue hardship standards discussed above, the 10-foot variance would
address the extraordinary circumstances caused by shape of Clearwater Creek. The
topography of the Creek determines the location of the 100-foot drainage easement. The
10-foot front setback variance allows a single-family home in the R-2 District that meets
all the other requirements under City Zoning Code. Lot 6 is the only lot in the subdivision
requesting this variance.
c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The hardship for Lot 6 is a combination of the impact of the regulations governing
Clearwater Creek and the minimum front setback requirements that together limit the
buildable area. The 10-foot variance allows a single-family home in the R-2 District.
Members of the City of Centerville Planning Commission
February 28,2007
Page 4
d. The variance will not adversely affect public health. welfare and safety and will not
be detrimental or iniurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
The variance will not adversely impact public health, welfare or safety. First, the variance
allows a single-family home in a single-family residential district. Second, as discussed
during the February 6th Planning Commission meeting, in order to address any concerns
regarding line of sight the engineers for the Hanzals calculated the line of sight for the 20-
foot variance. The engineers calculations illustrated that the 20-foot variance would not
impact the line of sight primarily because Lot 6 is on the outside curve of Old Mill Road.
Finally, the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The variance has been
reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet in order to bring the house more in line with the
surrounding homes.
e. Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use
in the zoning district that the subiect prooerty is located.
The 10-foot front setback variance will allow a single-family home in the single-family R-
2 District. The desired use is allowed under the Zoning Code.
Conclusions
The Hanzal's 10-foot front-setback variance request meets the requirements for a variance under
the City Zoning Code and State Statute. The Hanzals are proposing a reasonable use - a single-
family home in a residential district. The geography of Clearwater Creek creates a unique lot and
the variance addresses the difficulties arising from the property's topography and natural features.
In their attempt to address the City's and neighbors' concerns, the Hanzals have reduced their
initial variance request to 10 feet. Finally, the Hanzal's variance request more than meets the
undue hardship requirements, it allows a development that builds off the existing residential
character of the neighborhood and enhances the surrounding area. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions regarding the variance application or this letter.
Sincerely,
JOUen'f~~
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
Direct Dial: 952-896-3232
Direct Dial Fax: 952-842-1735
Email: jvossen@larkinhoffman.com
cc: Jeff and Laura Hanzal
Dallas Larson, City Administrator
City of Centerville Mayor and Councilmembers
1122706.1
~
. ...~4'/
........,... ......
\
\
F
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
. .
~~....................
I/l .. ";'"
/. \~..
. .
.l .....
:. .
. \
\...~
"\
~
I ,
,^ ~
...............- .906......
:r.~
<t.~
'At,.
I
,
,
~ -'
,
...~.;...!..:.~')..._... I
" - ..........
" I
I
I
I
'~
~1
I
".
\
.... ,
, ,~
".
Teresa Bender
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
JEFFERY J HANZAL LAURA J HANZAL U1hanzal@msn.com]
Monday, February 26, 2007 2:38 PM
TBender@centervillemn.com
dlarson@centervillemn.com
Hanzal Lot 6 Diagram
~~~"'.
-.
t.- ~
.' M:!~
HANZAL-LOT6.pdf
(152 KB)
Teresa,
The new diagram of Lot 6 is attached.
for next weeks meeting. The requested
(instead of 15ft as previously noted) .
Please include this in the P&Z packet
variance is now 25ft from the ROW
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more.... then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtagl&FORM=MGACOl
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information
please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
1
:!!...
.~
ll!k. .
.
. It .
. i 892.0J
.892:0
.ll!k. .
. .
. .
..
. &..
,<.
.cl!.. . .
. .
.~
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 6, 2007
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on March 6, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chair Brian Hanson
Vice Chair: Jennefer Klennert-Hunt
Commissioners: Ben Fehrenbacher
D. Love
Mark Pangell
Robert Wright
Thomas Wood
MITU@~[~)[?@W@@]
ABSENT:
None
COUNCIL:
Mayor Mary Capra
ST AFF:
City Administrator, Dallas Larson
City Attorney, Kurt Glaser
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
II. APPEARANCES
None
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Mr. Jeff Hanzal - Request for Variance (7381 Old Mill Road) Continued from
February 6. 2007.
Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
Chair Hanson reminded everyone the topic for discussion was the variance and previous
meeting topics would not be re-addressed.
Mr. Jeff Hanzal, 7381 Old Mill Road, appeared before the Commission to present his
updated proposal for consideration. He discussed the variance request, how the square
footage requirement would be met, how the structure would fit with the surrounding
homes, and justify the undue hardship on Lot 6.
Page 1 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
Mr. Hanzal stated the structure meets the 1050 square foot foundation requirement and
the 1650 finished square feet requirement regardless of the building technique. He
pointed out the surrounding home sizes range from 1918 square feet to 3386 square feet.
Mr. Hanzal stated his proposed structure on Lot 6 would be either a 3460 or 3090 square
foot structure and would fit within the neighboring developments. Mr. Hanzal displayed
the new Lot 6 diagram, stating Outlot A would not be used.
Mr. Hanzal confirmed, under Minnesota State Statute 462.357, an undue hardship means
the property could not be put to reasonable use if strict interpretations of the ordinances
were followed. He indicated the hardship is caused by circumstances unique to the
property, such as the Rice Creek 100 foot drainage easement, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency requirements, and the City of Centerville requirements that impact
the shape and buildable area of Lot 6. He stated the variance would not alter the essential
character of the locality as the site and surrounding area are zoned for single-family
residential use. Mr. Hanzal stated the proposed single-family home would be at the upper
square footage relative to surrounding homes.
Mr. Hanzal concluded the variance would relieve an undue hardship created by the
properties natural and environmental issues. He pointed out the ten foot variance
addresses more than practical difficulties; it allows a reasonable use of the property. Mr.
Hanzal stated his attorney's findings indicate the proposed ten foot variance satisfied the
undue hardship requirement of both the City Zoning Code and Minnesota Statutes.
Mr. John Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, pointed to the site map and talked about the
Hanzal property. He said the property would not be divided into lots until the City
Council approves the request; it is currently one large 4.6 acre lot. He stressed that
creating a non-conforming lot (Lot 6) would not meet the setback requirements.
Mr. Krueger implied special conditions exist that are particular to the property. He
indicated it ties into the State Statutes that say the actions of the landowner by the way it
is subdivided creates a need for the variance on Lot 6. Mr. Krueger sited four court
cases to justify his statements. He pointed out that creating a non-conforming lot (Lot 6)
would set precedence. He stressed that most of the people in the neighborhood are
against this and want to know why the Commission is trying to find ways to push this
request through. Mr. Krueger stated this could be a PUD or rezoned and he would like
to see a covenant for an R5 home on the lot.
City Attorney Kurt Glaser stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had the authority
to go either way on this. He mentioned some of the court cases referenced by Mr.
Krueger predate 1995. He explained the old rule was that when an individual purchase a
property, they also bought the problems. He stated that when determining if undue
hardship was created by the landowner, the statutes now address what warrants an undue
hardship.
Page 2 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
City Attorney Glaser conveyed that Lot 6 is a unique situation because of the existing
house on the property and the area to the south. He clarified there are two ways to look
at this; one being to have five lots and a large area to the south because of the current
wetland conditions. He said that secondly the southern lot that is landlocked by setbacks
could be developed using the plan presented by the Mr. Hanzal.
City Attorney Glaser recommended, from a legal perspective, the Commission make very
detailed findings as to why the decision was made. He stated clear and detailed findings
of fact need to be evident in case of litigation. He indicated there are many facts before
the Commission; consider them all carefully.
Commissioner Wright asked if the total property is one lot, and if, by subdividing the lot,
a hardship would be created.
City Attorney Glaser replied the Courts stated the old rule was not fair and if there are
other factors, the property owners deserve a variance. He explained the old rule did not
serve as an automatic bar.
Commissioner Wright asked if Mr. Hanzal created his own problem by subdividing.
City Attorney Glaser replied this situation is unique because there is an existing home on
the property. He stated it is up to the Commission to decide.
Commissioner Wright asked if the Commission could decide Mr. Hanzal created his own
hardship by subdividing.
City Attorney Glaser replied that was an option.
Mrs. Ladine Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, stated she lives across the street from Lot 6
and asked if Mr. Hanzal had two years to start or finish the construction. She stated
because this is a nonconforming lot, a speculative home would have to be built within the
time frame. She reiterated the lot has no back yard, a small front yard, and no buyer for
the house. She expressed concern at having a home built that might sit empty.
Mrs. Krueger pointed out the road curves and the house would be at the curve. She stated
the point is safety with the house being so close to the road. She mentioned her other
concern is why a variance that has been opposed so strongly is still being discussed. She
asked what is so special about granting this one when others have been denied.
Mrs. Norma Essex, 7333 Old Mill Road, stated she is concerned about the home sitting
empty also. She said the back yard is useless, floods, is full of mesquites in the summer,
there is no room for storage, and the fill would not settle for a very long time. She said
she did not understand why Mr. Hanzal wants to build on an unbuildable lot. She
suggested they could give the lot to the Rice Creek Watershed District and build on the
Page 3 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
other five lots. Mrs. Essex stated Mr. Hanzal had other options and the lot could be used
for other purposes.
Mr. Kevin Malan, 7354 Old Mill Road, stressed the point that this is a self created
hardship.
Mr. Hanzal responded to the comments stating the lot to the north of the existing house
could be zoned R2. He asked if it would be considered a spot zone. He said if he did get
the variance and built house, the risk is his. He stated they have tried to address the
concerns of the neighbors and find something everyone could live with. He pointed out
Acorn Creek Second Addition on the zoning map and stated it was created by a developer
who received variances on two lots.
Mrs. Essex commented the developers did not create the hardship. She stated the only
changed was to the outlot that was already there.
Chair Hanson asked if the two lots were divided before the developer came in.
Mrs. Essex replied they were. She stated the triangle outlot was created by the developer
to redirect the road.
Mr. Hanzal responded he got his information from 1995 minutes.
Mr. Malani pointed out in the previous minutes, a discussion ensued on any approvals
and that there could have been a mistake in rezoning the area. He said if the house did
not fit, it should not be approved.
City Administrator Larson stated this is a zoning issue.
A discussion on the R2 zoning commenced.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated the Commission always looks at the size of the lot,
however, as surveys are done, items come up. She indicated that the Planning and
Zoning Commission needs to clarify where the home would be built.
Motion by Commissioner Love. seconded by Commissioner Panl!:ell. to close the
public hearinl!: at 7:15 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Hanson brought the discussion back to the Commission.
Commissioner Wright stated the hardship is caused by Rice Creek, not a City ordinance.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher replied it depends how it is looked at.
Chair Hanson restated each criterion and asked for final discussion or comments.
Page 4 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
Commissioner Wright stated the new information on whether the property owner
purchased the problems is negated by the new rules. He indicated it is one big lot and by
subdividing, in his mind, it is a self created hardship.
Commissioner Pangell agreed it is one large parcel of land. He stated that if Rice Creek
would not change their standards for setbacks, why should the City of Centerville.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher reported he researched what other ordinances in past have
been similar. He believes this is an undue hardship in that he would have to tear his
home down to make the lot larger.
Commissioner Love stated since there is a home on the property already; it makes it
difficult to split up.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated this IS a legal lot and fits the requirements; the
question becomes is it a buildable lot.
City Attorney Glaser stated the water setbacks have not always been as deep as they are
now. He mentioned that when the streets were put in they might have been back to 50
feet. He stated it is a balance between the City and owner to. be able to use the land
wisely.
Chair Hanson stated he looked at it and took it out of the setting. He said the creek is
what makes it unique. He mentioned Rice Creek Watershed District decided how close a
property owner could build to the Creek. Chair Hanson stated that if the Commission did
not grant a variance, it would be something to take a look at because precedence had been
set previously.
Commissioner Pangell asked what if the decision was wrong in the past; should the
Commission keep approving the variances because of precedence. He stated there is
uniform opposition to this.
Commissioner Love responded the law sets the precedence unless the Planning and
Zoning Commission hears something strong enough to say it was wrong.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt said the Commission must look at each situation
individually. She said the Commission needed the comments and feedbacks so it could
reach consensus and say it made the right decision no matter what it was.
Commissioner Pangell stated the court cases and the Planning and Zoning Code are two
different things. He stated the term precedence is judicial.
Commissioner Wright reiterated his comment about a self created hardship by
subdividing a larger lot.
Page 5 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
Commissioner Love pointed out he is concerned with the possibility of legal
ramifications. He stated that whatever is decided, a legal situation for litigation is set up.
Mr. Terry Sweeny, 7154 Brian Drive, stated he believed the variance was set when the
setback was different. He said this is not comparing apples to apples; precedence was not
set. He stated the lot was there, the creek was changed, which made the lot unbuildable
and therefore is not a self created hardship. He stated the lot was plotted and then the
creek was changed.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated the roads were in place and did not change.
Commissioner Wood stated that if the Planning and Zoning Commission went with the
variances set by Rice Creek, how many of the current homes in the area would be less
than 100 feet from the creek. He asked if that was any different than the Hanzal property.
He mentioned the current homes still enjoy that domain for the same purpose Mr. Hanzal
proposes. He said the new laws are there for a reason. He stressed the Mr. Hanzal did
not move the creek or the road; he did not create the hardship. Commissioner Wood
stated there is more than one way to look at this. He asked what is in the best interest of
the City of Centerville.
Chair Hanson asked what year Old Mill Road changed.
Mrs. Essex replied it must have been 1994.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated she went to the Hanzal property and measured it to
see what the setbacks were.
Commissioner Pangell stated this situation is very common on lakefront property. He
said older homes are grandfathered and new homes must meet the new setback
requirements.
Mrs. Essex stated her home is sitting where the road used to run.
Chair Hanson asked if road changed to the north.
Mrs. Essex replied it did not.
Chair Hanson broke down the criteria for a hardship and a discussion ensued on the
criteria and whether the property met the criteria for a hardship. There was extensive
discussion on whether or not this hardship was created by the Mr. Hanzal. The outcome
was Rice Creek Watershed caused the hardship on a conforming lot by increasing the
setback requirement. The creek causes a topographical hardship.
Page 6 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
City Attorney Glaser read from the Statute and stated the property in question could not
be the plight of the landowner, is unique to the property, and not created by the
landowner.
A discussion ensued on the hardship criteria to be met.
City Administrator Larson stated a condition of approval could be that the house
proposed must be the house built.
Commissioner Wood asked if a condition that the home not be built until the lot is sold
could be added.
City Attorney Glaser replied he was not sure.
Chair Hanson stated Mr. Hanzal had the right to tie up their money the way they see fit;
the risk is theirs to take.
Commissioner Wright stated a neighborhood did have the right to be concerned with a
home sitting empty.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he would be more comfortable if the condition to sell
and start building within one year was added.
City Attorney Glaser stated if Mr. Hanzal agreed, it could be added. He explained Mr.
Hanzal could also request an extension.
Chair Hanson said the concerns for safety are all speculation as to what type of buyer
would want the property or home. He stated people with children would be taking on the
responsibility of safety.
Commissioner Love stated the lot did meet the criteria, however there must be conditions
attached.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher agreed.
Commissioner Wright said he would stick with his belief it is a self caused hardship.
Commissioner Pangell stated he believes it is a self created hardship due to where the
landowner decided to divide the property.
Chair Hanson said he believed it met the hardship based on the issues created by Rice
Creek.
Page 7 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
Commissioner Wood stated he believes it meets the criteria for a hardship due to Rice
Creek and that it is a legally conforming lot. He indicated that if the proposed house is
built he would support approval of the variance.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated Rice Creek and the existence and location of the
current home create the hardship. She said it met all criteria other than the front set back
and believed it would fit in to the neighborhood as proposed.
City Administrator Larson reminded the Commission that City Attorney Glaser advised
them to create detailed findings of fact. He passed out a draft findings and
recommendation for the Commission's consideration. He stated that since this has gone
on for three months, it is time for a decision.
The Planning and Zoning Commissioners read the proposed recommendation for
approval with conditions.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt commented the minimum size of home should be added.
Commissioner Wood would like the minimum to be 3000 total square feet.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher said he wanted to add the 'no spec home' provision and to
establish minimums.
City Administrator Larson replied minimums could be specified to off-set the impacts on
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Love commented it was more than fair to say a minimum of 3000 total
square footage, not counting the garage.
Commissioner Wood recommended 'greater than or equal to' a total of2800 square feet.
He said the condition could stipulate that it is a walk out also.
Commissioner Pangell asked who would follow up and make sure all the conditions were
met.
A discussion on the minimum square footage arose.
Commissioner Love asked why the Planning and Zoning Commission was afraid to
approve the proposed plans submitted by Mr. Hanzal. He stated the proposed house did
not decrease the value of the neighborhood and is larger than the other homes in the
neighborhood.
Mayor Capra interjected that Mr. Hanzal would own that home until it was sold;
therefore, paying taxes and two house payments.
Page 8 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
City Administrator Larson displayed the County records indicating the sizes of the other
homes in the area. He confirmed the Hanzal' s proposed home is larger than the other
homes in the neighborhood.
City Attorney Glaser recommended using the term 'floor area' as stated in the Code.
City Administrator Larson stated a condition to consider might be to require the
petitioner build the home and not sell the lot.
City Attorney Glaser recommended keeping it specific to the land or specific to the
applicant.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt asked if this meant the applicant could not sell the vacant
lot.
City Attorney Glaser explained ifhe sells the property, the new owner would have to start
over.
A discussion on property and home building specifications and how to word this ensued.
City Attorney Glaser indicated a condition that a building permit would only be issued to
Mr. Hanzal could be added.
Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated another fact is that Mr. Hanzal is homesteaded next
door and it is unreasonable to expect them to tear down their home.
City Attorney Glaser asked if there was any other way to put a home on Lot 6 without
tearing down the current home. He said to wipe out a home creates in itself an undue
hardship.
City Administrator Larson asked Mr. Hanzal if he had a revised plan.
Mr. Hanzal said he would provide a plan sheet and date it March 6, 2007.
Motion bv Commissioner Love. seconded bv Commissioner Fehrenbacher. to
recommend I!:rantinl!: the proposed variance with the stated findinl!:s and
recommendations. Vote: 5 Aves. 2 Navs Panl!:ell and Wril!:ht. Motion carried.
City Administrator Larson commented this item would be on the March 14, 2007 City
Council agenda.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Comprehensive Plan Review
a. Consultant Selection Process
Page 9 of 11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
This will be discussed at the combined City Council! /Planning and Zoning Commission
work session on March 21, 2007.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. B & R Properties, 6805-20th Avenue - Site Plan Approval (Building Addition)
City Administrator Larson indicated this is a request for approval of a site plan at B & R
Properties at 6805 - 20th A venue.
Commissioner Wood mentioned there were concerns with the soil conditions.
Chair Hanson asked if there was a setback issue.
Commissioner Wood replied there was with the tree line.
City Administrator Larson stated there was a condition on the last approval to implement
additional landscaping. He said he asked B & R to submit a revised site plan to indicate
the location of the trees. He commented it did not make sense to provide additional
landscaping if there are trees that would prevent the plantings from getting sunlight.
A discussion on the Site Plan commenced.
City Administrator Larson pointed out where the building encroaches into the wetlands.
He said B & R must get a release from Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated he
believes Rice Creek would release it after easement issues are resolved.
Commissioner Wood asked if the City require B & R to get flood plain insurance.
City Administrator Larson replied that would be an issue for the property owner.
Commissioner Pangell asked about the parking issues.
City Administrator Larson replied additional square footage would increase the parking
requirements. He explained the requirements are three parking spots per 1000 square
feet of building.
Discussion ensued on parking requirements and where parking could be located.
Chair Hanson stated R & B needs to come to the Commission and answer specific
questions.
City Administrator Larson replied he would contact R& B. He stated the builder is
anxious to start and asked if the Commission is willing to meet with R&B before the
Page 10 of11
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2007
combined meeting. Council agreed. B & R will meet with the Commission at 6: 15 p.m.
on March 21, 2007.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
City Administrator Larson stated there are three proposals from consultants for the Comp
Plan. He reported the subcommittee of Council/Planning and Zoning Commission would
interview and make a recommendation to P&Z would then recommend a consultant to
City Council. He stated he anticipates having someone hired by mid April. City
Administrator Larson mentioned the proposals indicate cost ranged from $18,000 to
$28,000 for the work.
Chair Hanson said he was very pleased and proud of how the Hanzal issue was handled
by the Commission. He stated the Commissioners did a fantastic job and stuck to the
facts.
Mayor Capra agreed and stated the Planning and Zoning Commission took the brunt of
this matter.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. February 6. 2007 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
Motion by Commissioner Klennert-Hunt. seconded by Commissioner Love. to
approve the Minutes of February 6. 2007 as presented. Vote: 6 Ayes. 0 Nays. 1
Abstain (Chair Hanson as he was not in attendance at this meeting). Motion
carried.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Wood seconded by Commissioner Pane:ell. to adiourn the
March 6. 2007 Plannine: Commission meetine: at 9: 12 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Dianna Wise, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 11 of 11
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on February 6, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
Vice-Chair Jennefer Klennert Hunt
Commissioner Ben Fehrenbacher
Commissioner D. Love?
ABSENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON: Council Member Linda Broussard
ST AFF:
City Administrator Dallas Larson
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
II. APPEARANCESIPRESENT A TIONS
None
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. MI". JeffHanzal- Request for Variance (7381 Old Mill Road) Continued from
Previous Meeting.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Hanzal, 7381 Old Mill Road, addressed the Commissioners and the audience. He put
forward a power point presentation on the application request for a structure variance of
20 feet for Lot 6. He indicated the front setback would be 30 feet from the curb to the
closest point of the structure due to its position outside the horizontal curve.
Mr. Hanzal stated Centerville is nearly fully built-out so it is important to maximize the
use of the remaining land to enhance the tax base. He reported the City would benefit
from the additional license and building pem1it revenue, and the increased property
Page 1 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
values that would positively impact Centerville's bottom line. He pointed out a
significant amount of the proceeds from Lot 6 would be used to subsidize the neighbor's
assessments for Old Mill Road utility and road improvements.
Mr. Hanzal discussed the property value concerns by providing photos and diagrams of
the property. He compared setback elements of Lot 6 to those of the Deer Pass and Eagle
Pass developments. He indicated surrounding property values would be protected by
covenants and the fact that Lot 6 had the potential to support a 3350 square foot home,
which is at the upper range of homes in the surrounding area.
Mr. Hanzal addressed safety concerns stating the driveway redesign would accommodate
a larger green space where children could play. He stated the driveway would provide
two parking spaces that would not encroach on the Right of Way. Mr. Hanzal displayed
a line-of-site diagram and photos of the curved road to depict how safety was a prime
concern.
Commissioner Pangell asked Mr. Hanzal what the setback was at Deer Pass. Mr. Hanzal
replied it was at least 34 feet from the curb.
Mr. Hanzal explained how approving the variance would comply with the five criteria
outlined in Minnesota Statutes and City Code 154:
1) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions
of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguishedfrom a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
Mr. Hanzal stated the bend in Clearwater Creek renders the lot unusable for reasonable
residential use without a variance. Mr. Hanzal reported the variance would relieve the
undue hardship and support residential development in a similar manner to others
commonly enjoyed in R-2 districts.
2) The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct
extraordinmy circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district.
Mr. Hanzal indicated the majority of the surrounding areas are not subject to watershed
or wetland restrictions. The variance would correct those uncommon extraordinary
circumstances. Such variations have occurred and were approved in other developments
where similar circumstances are found.
Mr. Hanzal stated the proposed variance is not exclusively based on income alone. The
variance is being requested because the characterist5ics of the lot should be enjoyed by
potential owners.
Page 2 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Mr. Hanzal reported a good portion of the proceeds would benefit many parties including
the City of Centerville, neighbors being assessed for Old Mill Road improvements and
decrease the overall tax base.
3) The alleged difJiculty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Mr. Hanzal stated the hardship is the result of factors not created by persons having an
interest; including: the bend of the creek, the re-routing of Old Mill Road during the
Acorn Creek developments, and ordinance restrictions of the City of Centerville and the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Hanzal stated there was no indication the lot contained a hardship until the
preliminary plat was drafted in late 2006. It is impossible for a common person to
foresee a pending hardship as complex as this without the ability or knowledge of the
situation.
Mr. Hanzal indicated he had no experience with development nor had any indication
from the previous owner that there were issues; therefore, prior knowledge would be
impossible.
Mr. Hanzal stated the two out lots were purchased for $1.00 in order to attach the
mortgage to the legal property parcel that contained the residential structure. This is not
an indication that there was prior knowledge of the hardship.
Mr. Hanzal indicated his knowledge was limited to the City's zoning ordinances allowing
the land to be used for residential building purposes.
4) The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety and will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Mr. Hanzal stated the variance would support the increase to surrounding properties and a
decrease in the overall tax base. He indicated the structure and driveway would be
developed to accommodate all R-2 guidelines with the exception of the front setback.
Mr. Hanzal reported the structure and driveway have been designed to maximize green
space and retaining walls have been designed as low as possible for public and
emergency personnel safety.
5) Variances will not be granted that allow a lIse that is otherwise not a permitted use in
the zoning district that the subject property is located.
Mr. Hanza1 stated the lot and structure would be for single-family, residential use only, as
commonly enjoyed in other R districts. He stated he purchased the property knowing the
City's zoning ordinances supported the use of this property for residential development.
Page 3 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
In conclusion, Mr. Hanzal addressed the letters of opposition. He stated the safety issue
of the small front yard is not an issue because there are 38,000 square feet in the back
yard for play. He addressed the police patrol issues indicating if the structure is closer to
the road, criminals would have a better place to hide is unfounded. Mr. Hanzal stated he
believes the high speeds on Old Mill Road would be lessened once the property is
developed.
Mr. Hanzal stated there is no way one could find the lot required a variance until the
engineer was out to look at it. He indicated he understood the concems of the neighbors
and he is sensitive to them.
Mr. Jon Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, asked Mr. Hanzal how large the garage would be.
Mr. Hanzal replied it would be a two car garage.
Mr. Krueger asked about the designated flood plain area in the back yard. Mr. Hanzal
replied it is a flood plain only to a point.
Mr. Krueger asked if the back yard would be a flooded area and if the house could be put
in line with the others in the neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt commented to the audience that the letters from the neighbors
have been addressed.
Mrs. Norma Essex, 7333 Old Mill Road, stated she was told by the Rice Creek
Watershed the flood plain is seven feet.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal to comment on the size of the proposed
retaining wall.
Mr. Charles Plow, Sr., Plow Engineering, responded that the height of retaining wall
varies to meet the needs of the grade based on the property survey.
Mr. Krueger stated he lived across the street from Lot 6 and opposed the variance
because it would not fit the neighborhood. He reported the other driveways in the area
have a 50-foot setback from curb and this one would be only 30 feet. Mr. Krueger
mentioned the line of site is a matter of opinion as there is a bend in the curve and a hill
where cars could not be seen until the last minute. He pointed out traffic from Eagle
Brook Church use Old Mill Road as a shortcut. He indicated traffic speeds would
increase because of the additional traffic.
Mr. Krueger stated he is here to address the needs of the community and the
neighborhoods. He stressed Deer Pass development is a cui de sac with no through
traffic and Eagle Pass is a mix of townhomes and single family homes with winding
streets; they do not compare with the neighborhood. He pointed out some lots are zoned
rural and Lot 6 would be zoned R-2. Mr. Krueger stated the garage would not compare
Page 4 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
to others in the neighborhood and the foundation would be smaller than others in the
neighborhood. He asked how the hardship could not be considered a financial gain.
Mr. Krueger asked if a variance was requested from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Hanzal replied it had not.
Mr. Krueger pointed out on the diagram where the driveway was located.
Mr. Hanzal stated it would be at 30 feet from closest point of the structure.
Mr. Krueger stated the neighbors want him to follow the same guidelines they had to
follow. He stressed he wanted the house to conform to the other homes in the area. He
mentioned that a portion of the property was an outlot at one time and considered not
developable.
Commissioner Pangell asked Mr. Hanzal if the house would it be in a registered flood
plain if it were set further back and if so, why would someone want to build there.
Mr. Plow Sr. reported other similar situations had sought a variance from the Rice Creek
Watershed and were turned down; therefore Mr. Hanzal did not pursue it.
Mr. Krueger stated the 20-foot variance is huge and unprecedented indicating that if he
wanted to add onto his garage and add 20 feet he should be able to.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt replied that the Commission is very concerned with setting a
precedent, and wanted to make sure there is a good reason to grant the variance.
Mr. Krueger pointed out the Commission must look at what the neighborhood wanted.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher replied that the Commission must consider what is best for
the City as a whole.
City Administrator Larson reminded everyone the issue to be addressed is whether the
request meets the criteria to qualify for the variance
Mrs. Ladine Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, stated this is not an easy thing to oppose
because they have a great relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Hanzal. She indicated there is
a safety issue as children would play in the front yard in the summer because the
mosquitoes are so bad in the back yard. She reiterated that the Deer Pass and Eagle Pass
developments are not relevant to Lot 6 and to compare them is misleading. She stated
neighbors believe their homes are their investments and are here to protect them. Mrs.
Krueger asked the Planning Commission to help them protect their investments by
considering all the reasons brought forward in totality.
Page 5 of 12
City of CentervilIe
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Commissioner Love asked if the foundation size is 1,117 square feet and the R - 2
requirement is 1,050 square feet, could the house and garage be pushed back and still
meet the R-2 requirements.
Mr. Hanzal replied it might be possible but the house would still require a variance.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked if the other driveways he was comparing to were PUDs
(Planned Unit Developments). Mr. Hanzal replied yes.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal if he had considered a PUD. Mr. Hanzal
replied yes, but he was not sure it was right for this lot. He indicated that if he did a PUD
the house would be fine. He stated he wanted individual family homes to conform to the
rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Hanzal also replied to the statement about his back yard,
indicating it remained dry 90 percent of the time. He stated the garage size is a matter of
preference.
City Administrator Larson explained what a PUD was, for the benefit of the individuals
in attendance.
Mr. Krueger mentioned developers are required to pay Park Dedication Fees or donate
land. He stated the outlot could be donated for City park land.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher asked Mr. Hanzal if the appropriate covenants would be put
in place if the variance is approved. Mr. Hanzal replied the covenants would be strictly
followed.
Mr. Kruger asked if Mr. Hanzal's other lots could be split equally so variances were not
required. Mr. Hanzal replied this would require moving or tearing down his house and
that is not an option.
Mr. Kevin Malani, 7354 Old Mill Road, stated granting Mr. Hanzal the 20-foot variance
would put his house right in front of him when he opened his door.
Mr. Tom Wilharber, 6849 Centerville Road, stated he had served on the City Council for
18 years, served as the Mayor for five years, and also served on the Planning
Commission. He reported this area was intended to be zoned only R-5, so he is surprised
at the R-2 designation. Mr. Wilharber pointed out the lot was never a buildable lot; it
was always an outlot. He stated Eagle Pass was a planned development with coved
streets to allow more homes to be built and Deer Pass is on a cuI de sac which allows
shorter lots.
Ms. Sandy Salazar, 7336 Old Mill Road, stated she is concerned for the safety of children
and the fast traffic on the road.
Page 6 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Mrs. Krueger addressed the Commission again and displayed photos of what the
neighbors would be looking at. She pointed out how close the houses are to the street at
30 feet and at 50 feet. She mentioned the homes are not all set back at the same footage.
Mrs. Essex stated everyone in the development had a two car garage, two cars and room
for storage. She stated the future owners of Lot 6 would not have enough room for more
than two cars and no extra storage space. She stated extensive flooding did occur in this
area on many occasions during the year. She emphasized the area could not be used
during the summer because of the mosquitoes and bugs. She indicated safety is a large
issue for her. She reported that when they built their home, they had to comply with the
current conditions and did not get a variance.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the Commission would consider the five criteria for
. .
approvmg a vanance.
Commissioner Pangell stated the Commission had already recommended the change to
an R-2 zoning designation to the Council.
Mr. Plow, Sr. stated the Rice Creek Watershed District had not given their final approval
of the development plan, but he expected it soon.
Motion by Commissioner Pan2:ell. seconded by Commissioner Love. to close the
public hearin2: on the request for variance at 7:50 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the first criterion to be met is: Because of the particular
physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the
proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished ;;"0111 a mere
inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced.
Commissioner Love reiterated the most important issue to determine IS if an undue
hardship exists.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher agreed and stated he was unsure if the fact that Mr. Hanzal
did not know of the hardship qualified as meeting the criteria for an undue hardship.
Commissioner Love asked if there were records indicating the City Council designated
the property as not developable.
Mr. Wilharber replied it should be in the early records.
City Administrator Larson stated the City would have commented on the portion that was
not buildable-the remnant portion left over after development of the land across the street,
but that it did not affect the rest of the lots.
Commissioner Love stated he did not look at it as a whole.
Page 7 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
City Administrator Larson responded it is irrelevant now and must be looked at as a
whole.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated her issue with undue hardship is that it is often hard to
know if a property is in a floodplain by just looking at it.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stressed he did not want to set a precedent of "did not
know" as an undue hardship.
Commissioner Love stated the Commission must set exact variables.
Commissioner Pangell stated each situation is unique.
Commissioner Wright agreed.
Councilmember Broussard recommended that the Commission look first at the criteria
the variance did meet.
Criteria 5: Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a
permitted use in the zoning district that the subject property is located.
All commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Criteria 4: The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety and
will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Pangell stated he lives on an inside corner on Eagle Pass. He mentioned
the line of site is often a problem and agreed an inside corner is a positive in Mr.
Hanzai's favor. He stated the iine of sight appears to not be a problem.
Commissioner Wood stated he lives at 7307 Deer Pass Drive where his children play in
the back yard of the house. He indicated he did not see the safety issue as the
responsibility of the owner as long as they met the criteria of the state.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he appreciates the safety of children, but the
assumption that there would be children on the property is not at issue.
All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Criteria 3: The alleged dtfjiculty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not
been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated this is a Rice Creek issue and Rice Creek usually does
not give variances so it is not worth pursuing.
Page 8 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Commissioner Wood indicated water management and Rice Creek are strict. He stated
the property had no where to go back.
All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Criteria 2: The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct
extraordinGlY circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district.
All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he is not sure, based on the second half of the
statement, that it met this criterion.
Councilmember Broussard asked Mr. Hanzal if it is possible to build a house on the lot
without the variance.
Mr. Hanzal replied the house could not be built without the variance.
Councilmember Broussard stated it did not render the lot unbuildable. She suggested
looking at where the City ordinance and Rice Creek differ on what is unbuildable.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated basically the lot is unbuildable.
All Commissioners agreed it met the criteria
Criteria 1: Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance 'would relieve an undue hardship,
as distinguished Fom a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
el?forced.
Commissioner Love stated what gave him pause, is that not knowing is not an excuse. He
indicated that an individual buys a lot with a vision of what could be built on it. He
indicated they would not know about potential problems until the engineering process
began.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated it gets back to the creek and road determining where the
house could be built.
City Administrator Larson interjected that perhaps there is some variation of this; that
would make it more bearable, such as entrance to the garage or something else that would
reduce the impact.
Page 9 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Council member Broussard gave examples of a variance that was granted and one that
was not as a point of reference for the Planning Commission to consider in making their
decision.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated that when looking at the six lots, it is a line proposed
by this development; however the question is if the Commission did not approve the
variance, did it prevent the development of Lot 6. He stated he would like to see it
developed but did not want to set precedence.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal why the line is proposed at the current
location.
Mr. Hanzal replied that the line is to meet the setback requirements.
Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Hanzal if it is possible to reduce the foundation and put a
sunroom on the side and go up two stories, to match the other houses in the area.
Mr. Hanzal stated there is a recommended three season porch that could be changed to a
four season porch. He stated the house is proposed back as far as it could go.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated a variance would still be required.
Commissioner Wood mentioned the smaller foundation would move the house back.
Commissioner Pangell asked if this could be a side lot variance instead. Mr. Hanzal
replied it could be set two feet further back bringing the house 32 feet from the street and
17 feet from the property line.
Commissioner Pangell recapped; stating all members of the Commission agreed on
Criteria two, three, four and five, with number one the only criteria at issue.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated the issue is the 20-foot variance request.
City Administrator Larson suggested the Commission could indicate it could live with
"X" amount of variance but not 20 feet because at some point it becomes too much.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked for specifics on the side setback areas. She indicated
the result is there is no way to satisfy this with a side setback and the conclusion is there
is only one place the house could be built.
Commissioner Wood stated he would like to table this and see what other options Mr.
Hanzal could come up with.
Councilmember Broussard suggested it could be forwarded to the City Council without a
recommendation and with the stated concerns. She stated this would give the Engineer
time to research other options.
PagelOof12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
City Administrator Larson discouraged this option. He encouraged the Planning
Commission to forward a finding and recommendation.
Mr. Plow, Sr. presented the option of using five-foot side setbacks making the total
distance from house to road 35 feet.
City Administrator Larson stated the hardship is the inability to use the property due to
circumstances outside the control of the property owner.
Commissioner Love stated City Administrator Larson's definition clarified what the
hardship is. He indicated he would be okay with this if the house could be moved back,
but it must decide how far.
Mr. and Mrs. Hanzal stated they did not have a problem with the smaller foundation size
and a ten foot variance.
Motion by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Fehrenbacher, to table
discussion of the request for variance until the March 6, 2007 meeting. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Sedona Townhomes - Final Plat
City Administrator Larson indicated he had reviewed the final plat for the Sedona
Townhomes and he is unaware of any concerns.
Mr. Keheler addressed the Commission and indicated that the final plat is very similar to
the preliminary plat.
Commissioner Love questioned Councilmember Broussard in regards to Council's
desires for recommendations submitted to them by the Commission.
Councilmember Broussard replied she would discuss this with Council.
City Administrator Larson stated there would be a joint meeting with the Council and
Zoning Commission in the near future. This could be a discussion point at that meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Love, seconded by Commissioner Fehrenbacher, to
recommend Approval of the Sedona Townhomes Final Plat. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Comprehensive Plan Review
a. Consultant Selection Process
Page 11 of 12
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 2, 2007
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on January 2, 2007, at 6:30 p. m.
PRESENT:
Chairperson Brian Hanson
Commissioner Jeff Hanzal
Commissioner Robert Wright
Commissioner D. Love
Commissioner Thomas Wood
Commissioner Mark Pangell 0
~~:~~:;::;~~:~ ~e;nn~~~r~~~:~~~r H. unt ..':::".:::::' f'c.' O:Olr:vvepi:i:
/10.,:.:.:.'....'...'. P..:.....,...,.. "....'.0.'...' '.'.'. ..,....,....,.
......... ....0...... ...... ...... ...... ..
None :i'!j:,i)?:"'" "
...., ........ ...
.... ..., ..
.., ..... ...., ..
.' ..
.- ..
..... ...
.' "H
ABSENT:
COUNCIL:
Council Member Broussard
STAFF:
Mr. Dallas Larson
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
II. APPEARANCES
None.
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Mr. Jeff Hanzal - Rezone Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary
Plat & Variance (7381 Old Mill Road)
Chair Hanson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jeff Hanzal of 7381 Old Mill Road addressed the Commission and explained his
request for rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Plat and Variance.
Mr. Patrick Fruth of 7384 Old Mill Road asked if there would be future development
plans for this property or why R-2 is being requested.
Pagelof8
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2007
Mr. Hanzal explained that their home and most of the property is zoned R-2 and they are
not planning anything additional other than what is shown on the proposed Plat.
Mr. Hanzal explained that they are attempting to rezone the smaller portions that are R-5
to have them match the R-2 of the remainder of the property.
Chair Hanson asked what the minimum lot size is for this development.
Mr. Hanzal indicated that the smallest lot is .72 acres.
Mr. Jon Krueger of 7368 Old Mill Road said that he feels that the development should be
R5 for 17,500 square feet minimum and the building size concerns him because they
were required to have a 1,200 square foot foundation for their house and R2 only requires
1,050 square feet. He then said that 440 square feet of garage is required for R2. He
further said that he is concerned with his property value by adding these smaller homes
and garages.
Mr. Krueger indicated that this development will increase noise, light, density and an R5
lot would be less of an impact to their development. He also said that he is concerned
about drainage issues.
Mr. Krueger indicated that there is a water pipe on the outlot and Rice Creek uses that
outlot to get water into the creek but his main concern is that this will bring down his
propel1y value by going with a smaller size house. He then said that he feels that the
variance for the driveway should not be allowed because he was required to follow code
for a 35-foot driveway and it causes him concern for safety hazards and there will be
nowhere to park.
Mr. Krueger indicated that he would like all of the property to stay R5 rather than be
rezoned to R2.
Council Liaison Broussard indicated that the lot size IS almost double the R5
requirements.
Mr. Fruth asked what will be done with the drainage pipe.
Mr. Hanzal indicated that it flows into the creek right now and their plan will redirect the
drainage to a holding pond west of Lot One.
Chair Hanson asked what the property north and south of the Hanzal property is zoned.
City Administrator Larson explained that across the street is R5 and the other area is R2.
Mr. Hanzal indicated that the R2 zoning does not guarantee a small home. He then said
that the homes in Peltier Preserve, which is zoned R2, are nice large homes and they plan
large homes in their development as well.
Page 2 of8
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2007
Ms. Norn1a Essex of 7333 Old Mill Road asked how far back is it from the road to the
bluff at the north and south end.
Ms. Essex indicated that they are concerned with putting homes 10 feet closer to the road
than they are. She then said that the whole creek area is prone to flooding with heavy
rains and snowmelt in the spring.
Mr. Hanzal explained that the home would be 15 to 20 feet back from the road and noted
that they have the flood way delineated on the plan.
Commissioner Love asked which areas are not R2 because most of the property is R2.
City Administrator Larson pointed out the R5 and PI zoning area of this property on the
map.
Mr. Kevin Kowarsch of 7354 Old Mill Road indicated that he lives across fi'om the south
lot and said that his major concern is the driveway since he lives across from it. He then
said that he feels it will be an eyesore looking at a building that is 15 feet closer than
required by Code. He further said that something like that will increase on street parking
and safety hazards for his kids and other kids in the neighborhood.
Mr. Grant Peters of 1817 Revoir Street questioned the R2 versus the R5 zoning as the lot
size seems to be in line with the neighborhood. He then asked why this needs to go to
R2.
Mr. Hanzal said the intention is to zone it all the same rather than having two parts of the
same lot zoned separately not to allow for smaller lots and smaller homes.
Mr. Peters asked if the value of the properties on the opposite side of the street would be
affected by R2 zoning versus R5.
The Commission said it would not.
Mr. Peters asked how the bluff drop ofT will be filled.
Mr. I-Ianzal indicated that a retaining wall would be engineered to address the fill in that
location.
Ms. Jodi West of 1825 Revoir Street said that she is concerned with the home being
closer to the road and she is concerned about her property value.
Chair Hanson said that usually there would not be a devaluation of property adjacent to
this property if it is rezoned to R2. He then said that the types of homes may affect
values.
Page 3 of8
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2007
Commissioner Wood indicated that lot size and value of the home is considered when
valuing real estate rather than the zoning to determine the value.
Mr. Kevin Kowarsch indicated that his concern is that the home would be 15 feet closer
to the street.
Mr. Hanzal explained that he spoke with Mr. Larson and there may be an opportunity to
bring the driveway in from the side to alleviate that concern.
Mr. Hanzal indicated that they are concerned about the neighborhood and are attempting
to do whatever can be done to make this development a nice development to enhance the
area.
Mr. Peters asked for a diagram showing how the home would sit on the lot.
Mr. Hanzal explained that a side loading garage has been considered for that lot.
Ms. Essex asked if the Commission have been out to view the property.
The Commissioners indicated that they had been out to the property.
Ms. Ladine Krueger of 7368 Old Mill Road said that a nice house could be put on these
lots but putting a large home on a smaller lot means there is no room for them to play and
they will be out in the street playing and that concerns her because Old Mill Road is not
safe for the kids to play in.
Commissioner Wood asked whether there would be covenants in place for the size of the
homes and other amenities.
Mr. Hanzal indicated that there would be covenants in place for the lots.
City Administrator Larson asked the Commission to consider whether the variance
should be approved prior to receipt of a specific plan for that lot. He then noted that if
this is recommended for approvaL Council will not approve it until or if public utilities
are available.
City Administrator Larson explained there are time constraints for making decisions on
whether the utilities will be extended and Council may be asking Mr. Hanzal for an
extension.
Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt. seconded by Commissioner Love. to close
the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Klennert Hunt asked to do this one step at a time. She then said that the
goal is to make sure there are not islands of zoning by themselves and the street is a
natural border so it seems to make sense to move the small pieces of R5 zoning to R2.
Page 4 of8
City of Center vi lie
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2007
Commissioner Love indicated that the zoning makes sense because the property is owned
by the same property owner and the road makes a natural break.
Motion by Commissioner Klennert Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to
recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezonin2. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Liaison Broussard asked what happens to the lot if the variance is not approved
for it.
Mr. Hanzal indicated that it would be added to his property, which is the existing lot.
Mr. Hanzal indicated that the lots will be fairly pricey and he does not see anyone putting
a small home on them.
City Administrator Larson asked for a site plan that shows exactly where the home would
go and shows how much variance is needed for the driveway and how much green space
would be available to the family to use.
Mr. Fruth asked if the rest of the lots would be approved.
Chair Hanson said that would be up to the Council.
Commissioner Wright said that he is concerned with the setbacks for officers for
patrolling and for safety in the neighborhood.
Motion by Chair Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Pan2ell, to recommend
approval of the Preliminary Plat and Table Variance Request for 7381 Old Mill
Road. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
City Administrator Larson indicated that this would be before Council on January 10,
2007.
Council Liaison Broussard asked how the Commission feels that the Variance meets the
state statute for hardship.
The Commission discussed criteria two.
City Administrator Larson said that the floodway boundaries and steep grades would
make the property unique.
Council Liaison Broussard asked if this is detrimental or injurious to the adjoining
property and whether approving the variance would create a safety hazard for the people
that build a house on that lot.
Page 5 of8
City of Center vi lie
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2007
The Commission agreed so long as the home is set properly on the lot to allow it to be
used properly there would be no safety issues with creating this lot.
The Commission agreed that this meets the requirements to grant the variance.
Chair Hanson indicated that he would like to ensure that the driveway is situated
properly.
City Administrator Larson said that the City should limit the variance to the smallest
variance required.
Council Liaison Broussard recommended requmng plantings for screen1l1g the home
from across the street.
Council Liaison Broussard indicated that this would not change the line of site down the
street because there is not one because of the curve in the street.
The Commission and Council Liaison Broussard discussed undue hardship and how it
applies to this property.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
I. Comprehensive Plan Review
The Commission asked that the tables, years and number of acres be updated by Staff.
Commissioner Love indicated that he would like to adjust the figures for commercial on
Page 39.
Chair Hanson agreed.
City Administrator Larson indicated that Council wanted to wait with that but it may be
possible to move some of the property along 14 to commercial.
Commissioner Love would like to consider making land along 20th A venue commercial
rather than industrial.
Chair Hanson would like the section to the north to be commercial rather than industrial.
City Administrator Larson indicated that when the Planner comes on board he/she will
review and make recommendations for changes.
Chair Hanson questioned whether it is necessary to state the type of housing.
Staff will have the Planner take a look at that statement for updating or removal.
Page 60f8
Engineer: Plowe, Lino Lakes
Submittal: Plans, Drainage Calculations
Plan Sheets: Grading and Drainage, Preliminary Details
Date of Plans: 11-27 -06
Date Received: 11-30-06
Summary of Recommendations
The approximately 7.4 acre development site with one existing home is located east of Clear Water Creek
along Old Mill Road in Centerville. The reconstructed area of Old Mill Road and a portion of the site in the
north west quadrant are proposed to drain to an infiltration basin which drains to the existing wetland west
of the site. The remainder of the site is proposed to drain directly to the wetland.
Based on our review of the Hanzal development, we offer the following comments. Some of the
recommendations were discussed in a telephone conversation on 12-01-06.
1. Storm sewer calculations should be included with future submittals
2. Grading around the baffle weir should be adjusted to prevent flow around the weir. Clarification
of the baffle weir detail is necessary.
3. Although not required, a small infiltration basin or other BMP is recommended adjacent to the
wetland mitigation area west of lot 3 to treat the impervious areas from lots 3 and 4 before
entering the wetland.
4. The infiltration basin is sized to adequately treat the runoff from the 1" event from the impervious
surfaces from Old Mill Road which meets City and MPCA NPDES requirements. It was
assumed that roughly 710 feet of Old Mill Road from the south end of the Hanzel property and
including the parcel north of the Hanzel property with an urban section 36 feet wide would be
routed to the infiltration basin.
5. Soil borings should be included in future submittals.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc.
www.bonestroo.com
51. Paul Office:
233~ w~~ H:g~WJ1 35
s: P::1L:!, ~.~~l ~51~:1
PIlene: 651-636-4600
r~r' fi51-6:u\.1111
Milwaukee OffIce:
12075 N. Corpora" Parkway. Sle 200
~/eG~:n, WI 53092
Phone.lbl-b4HeJI
,., 262-2Jl-4901
Rochnter Office:
112 7" St...l NE
Rrx;tleSler. \IN 5590S
PIlOfle: ;Qf.2e2-2100
F., 507-282-3100
Willmar Office:
205 5" S~reet SW
Will'T':3', '.ltl.! 51:201
pnone: 3:i()..2i4.S1,,,7
F., 320-21J.9458
St. Cloud Office:
3721 23~ S.eel S
~t C'0'.~. MN :ki}Ol
HlOrIe. jLtI.,,'-4~OJ
Fax. 320-251-6252
libor1yVdl< Office:
1RfiO WP.~1 Winchester Rd. Ste 106
Gr~Y"I~h." fi(i(l10
;'''O(l~ 04;.54t)ooii4
Fd': 8J7-548-697S
("
n Bonestroo
-=- Rosene
~ Anderfik &
. \J' Associates
Engineers & Architects
2335 West Highway 36 . St. Paul. MN 55113
Office: 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
RECEIVED
DEe 07 2006
December 4,2006
Dallas Larson
Administrator
City ofCenterville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
CENTERVILLE, MN
Re: Preliminary Plat Review
Hanzal's Addition
Project No. 000616-06154-0
Dear Dallas:
We have reviewed the following documents:
· Preliminary Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Mitigation Plan - Signed and dated 11/27/06
(Sheet C I)
· Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan - Signed and dated 11/27/06 (Sheet C2)
· Preliminary Plat - Signed and dated 11/27/06
We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters:
Plat
· Wetland delineations are subject to review and approval by the Local Governing Authority
(LGA) and Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel (WCA TEP).
· Under the heading "Areas", lot 4 should show an acreage of 0.72 instead of 10.72.
· In the legend, the description for the well symbol should be corrected.
Gradine:/Drainae:e/Erosion Control/Wetland Mitie:ation
· Proposed wetland impacts and mitigations are subject to review and approval by the Local
Governing Authority (LGA) and Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel (WCA
TEP).
· Drainage calculations and proposed ponding have been reviewed. See attached memo from
Bonestroo's Water Resources staff.
· Several retainine walls are shown. If the heieht of an v of these walls should exceed four feet.
Alternatively, a I O-foot easement along the north side of Loll could be granted instead of the 5-
foot easement shown.
· Under the heading "General Notes", change "City of White Bear Lake" to "City of Centerville".
General
· The plat should only be approved in conjunction with a developer's agreement which commits
the developer to being assessed or otherwise levied the costs or portions of the costs for the
adjacent public improvements including streets, storm sewers, sanitary sewer and water main.
The city should be ready to make said improvements prior to the expectation of building permits
for the plat.
. We have not reviewed the plan for proper setbacks or other zoning ordinance issues. This review
should be completed by City Staff or a qualified planning consultant.
. Future submittals will be subject to further review.
If you have any questions, please call me at (651) 604-4709.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INe.
~,,/~
Mark Statz, PE
City Engineer
attachments: Review of Drainage Cales and Proposed Ponding/Infiltration
cc: Paul Palzer, City of Centerville Public Works Director
Craig Schlichting - Plowe Engineering
Jason Rud - EG Rud & Sons, Inc.
JeffHanzal - Developer
RJG
file
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
NOTICE
Hanzal's Addition
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF the following Wetland Replacement Plan application as required
by the provisions of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 as amended:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT:
(LGU)
RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (RCWD)
4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive
Blaine, MN 55449
PHONE: (763) 398-3070
FAX: (763) 398-3088
LGU OFFICIAL: Ken Powell, Permit Coord.
NOTICE MAILING DATE:
January 8, 2007
COMMENT PERIOD ENDING DATE:
January 28, 2007"
· Applicants must satisfactorily address substantive issues/concerns raised during the comment
period by Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members and RCWD staff prior to their application
being considered by the RCWD Board of Managers. RCWD staff comments/concerns on the
replacement plan are identified in this notice and the District Engineer's Report. RCWD staff may
issue another notice and accompanying comment period if the replacement plan changes and/or.
the applicant submits additional information to address issues identified by the TEP or RCWD
staff. Contact the RCWD Permit Coordinator if you have questions about this process.
APPLICANT NAME:
Jeff & Laura Hanzal
7381 Old Mill Road
Centerville, MN 55038
RECEIVED
JAN 0 f; l007
PERMIT APPLICATION #:
06-118
PERMIT APPLICATION NAME:
Hanzal's Addition
CENTERVILLE, MN
PROJECT LOCATION:
Sec. 14,7 T31N R22W, Centerville
COUNTY:
Anoka
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
A wetland replacement plan application has been submitted for the proposed filling of 0.21
acres of Type 6 wetland associated with a 6-lot subdivision and development of 6 acres of land
in Centerville. Proposed wetland impacts are due to grading for house pads, driveways, and
~"I"'\"""" rOluo,.. ....i...u::30L'" O~:u",I..,,....ornQn+ fnr \au:~tl~nrl imn~,....te ic: nrnnnC:Qn h\1 ,..rQ~tinn n ?.d. ~rr,::a,c. nf
replacement wetland. Such a barrier could include an extension of the stormwater pond to the
south and/or a permanent berm of some type. .
A COpy OF THE COMPLETE APPLICATION CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RCWD OFFICE LISTED
ABOVE. PERSONS INTERESTED IN COMMENTING ON THIS APPLICATION MAY DO SO IN
WRITING TO THE RCWa OFFICE BY THE COMMENT PERIOD ENDING DATE.
C: MN Board of Water and Soil Resources, A TTN: Lynda Peterson
Metro HQ, MNlDepartment of Natural Resources, A TIN: Wayne Barstad
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, A TTN: Tim Fell
Anoka Conservation District A TTN: Dennis Rodacker
Consultant, Plowe Engineering ATIN: Craig Schlichting
Consultant, Kjolhaug Environmental A TTN: Melissa Barrett
Applicant, A TIN: Jeff & Laura Hanzal
RCWD Engineer/File
T:~ta6h4ied 1S::;
J~S(J ;,\.fain Sln'r'l. (.ctll,'n,.,"llr, :H'V 5503..'<(
(j; f...J2t).J.!J: \lr ;Fd( 1i51-4.!lJ-/;()29
January 8, 2007
We, Mr. & Mrs. Jeff Hanzal, agree that we are waiving the time period requirements per
Minnesota State Statute 15.99 and its amendments, for the City to act on our requests for:
Rezone & associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Plat Approval
Variance Request
I, Mr. Jeff Hanzal, agreed to allow Council to delay consideration of Rezone and
associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and plat approval at Council's January 10,
2007 meeting due to the Planning and Zoning Commission's action to table consideration
of the submitted variance request. All requests were submitted to the City on November
27, 2006 for consideration. Mr. Hanzal has acknowledged that Council must delay
consideration of the submitted plat until such time municipal improvements are .ordered
by the Council.
( Deleted: installed
We, Mr. Jeff Hanzal and Mrs. Laura Hanzal, understand that plat approval can not be
granted until municipal improvements are approved per City Code, Chapter 153.
1/7b
D1/'lQL
Da
January 6, 2007
To Members of the City Council
RE: Variance for lot six of Jeff and Laura Hansel's property
Placing a house only 25 feet from the street is too close (includes the boulevard). Our
house is 50 feet from the road induding the boulevard. That leaves very little space for
sidewalk and landscaping. Our sidewalk extends more than 5 feet from the house.
If a two -story house is placed on the lot; it would look over-powering and appear closer
to the street than it actually is. It definitely would be out of place in relations to the other
homes in the area.
Now that the lot is an R2, the owner can put in a two-car garage. Everyone else has a
three-car garage. Everyone has at least two vehicles. The third garage is filled with a
snow blower, lawn mower among other things and a number of residents have run out
of room and built storage buildings.
Where will the people put a storage building on that lot? We are not allowed to put
structures within 100 feet of the creek middle. Will the cars have to park in the
driveway? Where will the cars park if there are more than 2 adults or teenagers with
cars?
How high will the retaining wall be? A retaining wall would have to be on the south side
and west side of the house. The driveway would need to have fill and it would sit 22
feet from the bottom of the hill.
The area floods with snow melt and heavy rains. I have seen Jeff's back yard under
water almost to his back door. We have 24 steps going down the hill and the water
comes up to the second step.
When we first moved in our house, we intended putting rocks on the bank to avoid
erosion. We had bids sent to the watershed district. We were told the rocks would have
to go up 7 feet. That was the level of the flood zone.
~.
4
'L ..L..:.... _-_- I
- -:::- ~ ~..- J I
\~I~~ ,;':_ ~_
\ l~rl/!' ~'1
,
"If
J-
~ !.
.....
-0 "%- \,.
....~'
j' ~
I
,.
-.
I
;1'4"
r
,. I
.... .
- ..
-I
..",.- ~ --
-
,
I
,
-r
,
/J _+ ~
Planning and Zoning Officer,
February 1, 2007
We are writing this letter in order to address the major issues for the Hanzal
Development near 7381 Old Mill Road. Our main issues and concerns for the
development are the re-zone and the variance request for the property. We live at 7368
Old Mill Road so this will have a huge impact on our quality of life. We are not against
development at the property, but will want the development to conform to the ordinances
and codes as we also had to when we built our house in 1998. We are listing the
following concerns that would like the P & Z Board to look at when making their
decisions:
t.-::J
1. Our neighborhood ~ zoned R-5, we would like that to stay the same
across the street. Main concern is the lot and house structure must follow certain
restrictions to comply. Ground Level structure must be minimum 1200 sq. feet and
have three car garage of 600 sq. ft. area in garage.
2. Variance set-back issue is a major concern. Currently all of our
houses/garage structures are set back from the street curb of more than 50 feet. City code
requires set back in R-5 and R-2 to be a minimum of35 feet from the right of way
easement on the street. (That usually equates 50 or more feet from the curb because of the
easement.) Hanzal is requesting a 20 feet variance which would mean the house/garage
would be 30 feet away from the street. The following are serious concerns when it comes
to a variance that great:
a. Safety is a major problem. Front yard would be very small and
kids would be in the street more. Ifa child were to ride their bike from the driveway,
there is no sidewalk there, thus an increased chance to being hit by a vehicle.
b. Parking another issue. Driveway would be short, like the ones
in North and South Robin Lane neighborhood. Cars would be parked on the street more
like there. Cars in the driveway would be obstructing view for motorists because they
would be in the right away more.
c. Police patrol issues. Structure would be 30-40 feet closer to
the street and thus blocking clear view down the neighborhood.
d. Old Mill Road is a major traffic route to the north in Lino
Lakes. Cars tend to go 30-35 mph and the road design there is a curve and a hill from the
south. Cars coming from the south would not see the house until the last minute. Traffic
has increased ever since Eagle Brook Church has opened to the north. Having the house
that closc to the rO~ld v..'ould ~ncr~~l~e to eh:1nce nfh::v:ng a ',,'ehicle s!rike it. (There \V2..'\
- There's a house in Forest Lake built on an irregular lot with
variances and still sits vacant three years later. (21640 Imperial Ave.)
4. When our development was built in the early 1990's by Rehbein
Development (Acorn Creek), the out lot considered the major portion ofHanzal's lot #6
was deemed not developable by Rehbein and the city council.
5. Also in the Variance code book a developer can not take an existing lot
(7381 Old Mill Rd.) and attempt to split it and then claim hardship in order to make a
new lot from it. Hanzal is attempting to split this lot from his existing house and is
claiming hardship to get the variance.
In closing, we are writing this letter to address some major concerns. This
proposed development has the neighborhood very divided with the majority against the
variance issue. Ifwe wanted our house to be close to the street we would have moved to
St. Paul or Robin Lane in Centerville(R-4, manufactured homes). Having a
house/structure not conform to city codes and the surrounding homes is not only a quality
of life issue but also a crime. We are not against having a house built on lot #6 or the
other lots; we just want them to conform to the others in the neighborhood. IfHanzal
could get a variance from the RCWD to allow the house be closer to the creek, we
believe a house could be built similar to ours and have the necessary set back as the city
code states. Therefore we are asking the Commission to deny the set back variance and
either keep the area R-5 zoned or at least have covenants in place so the
houses/garages(1200 sq. feet/3car stall) will conform to the neighborhood.
.- -'-7 -- c::
SinCerelY;-~' <.~ ~~.~ -7 ~
Jon ger. y/
'. ~{'sl""? /1-ic.Ur-<-
Ladine Krueger
7368 Old Mill Road
Centerville, MN 55038
651-407-9369
January 26 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission!
City Council Members
My name is Kevin Malani and I live at 7354 Old Mill Road in Centerville. I am
writing this letter with the support of many other residence in the immediate area. This
letter is in response to the proposal by Jeff and Laura Hanzal to build a single-family
home in the lot directly across the street from my property and south of their residence at
7381 Old Mill Road. We are very concerned with the Hanzals proposal because it
includes a variance to the existing code for development in the area. They are requesting
for a variance to allow for the new construction to be 15 ft from the easement instead of
the required 35 feet. This ultimately would allow for this new construction to sit
approximately 20 feet closer to the street than any other residence in the development. In
reviewing their proposal we are asking that their request be denied. To support our views
we have listed our concerns.
Our first concern is with having a non-confonning home in the area. For good
reason, city codes usually require basic unifonnity in residential developments so that
other homeowners can walk out their front doors and view the entire block without
difficulty. If granted this 20 foot variance, residence both south and north of this new
construction would be looking at the side or back of this house. Also, this new
construction will almost certainly have some type of walkway built from the front door as
well as some type of landscaping in the front. These logical additions to the new home
would ultimately bring the appearance of the home even closer to the street. In addition,
if the city decided to use the easement for a sidewalk (or some other use) the house would
be less than 15 feet from it. We strongly believe that a home given such a large variance
would change the landscape to the degree that the esthetic appearance of the area would
be greatly affected in a negative way.
Our second concern is with security in the neighborhood. Police rely on the
unifonnity of home being the same distance from the street when patrolling an area;
especially at night. The proposed new construction would block the view of officers
patrolling in either direction. Additionally, it would be easier for a criminal to hide
behind a house that protrudes out 20 feet. Granting this variance would reduce the
visibility of the officers patrolling the neighborhood while giving criminals an advantage.
Granting this variance would infringe upon the security of our neighborhood.
time would create a narrow one lane to pass through either way. Given the contour of
that stretch of Old Mill Road would almost certainly lead to accidents.
Our fourth and most important concern is with the safety of the residence of the
new construction, their children as well as other children in the neighborhood. The road
in front of the lot curves towards it and with the new construction being only 30 feet from
the street. . . there is a greater chance a driver losing control of their car driving up through
the lawn and into the house. Additionally, we all know that children love to play with
each other and they all love to play in their front yards. We also know that it is
impossible to watch them all the time. With a front yard that is only 30 feet from the
street there is an increased risk of those children playing to close or even in the street and
being hit by a car. With a shortened front yard there is naturally less playing area and
naturally less reaction time a driver would have to react if a child was running towards
the street. This is a serious concern of many parents including myself (a parent of 3
children) who would be devastated if something tragic happened in my own front yard.
Additionally, it has come to my attention recently that this lot was once owned by
the developers of the homes in the area some years ago. They and the City Council at
that time had come to the conclusion that this lot should not be developed. With that in
mind, they sold this small piece ofland to the former owner of Jeff Hanzals' house at a
very reasonable price. It seems to me that if the owners of the development couldn't
build there why should we consider it now. I believe they realized that developing this
lot would not be good for the community nor its residence.
II
Finally, I leave you with this question. I ask you who would be responsible if
something tragic happened? Would it be the Hanzals for asking for such an extraordinary
variance for this new construction? Would it be the residence of the area for not doing
enough to stop it? Or would it be the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
for granting the variance to allow this new construction to take place in light of the
concerns perceived in this letter? I believe the answer is all of us in some way would be
responsible. We are asking that you reject the requested variance for the aforementioned
reasons. We are asking that you support the sanctity of our community as well as the
safety of our residence and our children.
Th~nv vnll fnr vnnr tlmp
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A resolution vacating part of Westview Street
WHEREAS, it has been proposed to vacate the following described street, and
WHEREAS, following duly given notice, the City Council of CenterviIle has held a
public hearing and considered comments and objections thereto and found that the
vacation of said street is in the public interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CENTERVILLE, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that following described street is
hereby vacated:
Westveiew Street between the west line of Lot 10, Block 9, Centerville and a point 160
feet east of the west line of said Lot 10, and subject to the City retaining an easement for
drainage and utility purposes over the southerly 30 feet thereof.
Adopted by the City Council of Centerville this _ day of
,2007.
Mary Capra, Mayor
Attest:
Dallas Larson, City Administrator
I, Teresa Bender, duly qualified and acting City Clerk for the City of Centerville,
Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution
duly adopted by the City Council of Centerville and on file in this office.
Date
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
d-{
RESOLUTION NUMBER
ESTABLISHING
CREDIT CARD USE POLICY
WHEREAS, MN Statute 471.382, the City Council authorizes the use ofa credit card by
any City officer or employee otherwise authorized to make a purchase on behalf of the
City.
WHEREAS, vendor credit policies often make it impractical to open an account for
charge purchases especially for small or infrequent purchases, and
WHEREAS, the most cost-effective purchases can often be made from vendors that do
not provide open-account charges.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CENTER VILLE, MINNESOTA:
1. The use of a city credit card is hereby authorized. If a City officer or employee makes
or directs a purchase by credit card that is not authorized by this Policy, the officer or
employee is personally liable for the amount of the purchase. All purchases by credit card
must otherwise comply with all statutes, rules and policies applicable to City purchases.
The City Council shall approve the establishment of all credit card accounts.
2. Bills from credit card companies do not contain the detail necessary to satisfy the
requirement that claims presented to the City for payment must be in writing and
itemized. Therefore, invoices and receipts for all items charged must be retained. A list of
all credit card charges will be included with monthly expenditures for council review and
approval. (MNStatCh475)
3. Credit card use must comply with laws concerning borrowing. Credit cards will not be
used for carrying debt. The entire card balance shall be paid in full each month.
4. Employees authorized to use the City credit card(s) include the following positions:
Administrator, Finance Director and other employees when specifically authorized
by the Administrator for a specific purchase.
5. In addition, fuel credit card(s) shall also include the following employees or
volunteers who are members of: Public Works Department. Purchases shall be for vehicle
fuel, oil and other items related to the operation of the vehicles of that department only.
6. No employee will intentionally use a City credit card for personal purchases. Each
employee will sign the sales slip and indicate the vehicle and/or department that the
purchase applies to.
Credit Card Policy.doc
Page 1 of2
.~~
7. Supporting documents and/or invoices will be submitted to the City Administrator's
Office to be reconciled with the credit card statement and attached to the claim for
payment processing. Department Heads shall review all credit card purchases made on
behalf of their department and recommend or deny approval for payment.
8. The Administrator's Office shall keep a record of all persons issued a credit card or
having authorization to use a City credit card. Authorized persons will receive, sign and
file an acknowledgment form regarding credit card use.
Adopted by the Council this
day of
,2006.
Mary Capra, Mayor
Attest:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
Credit Card Policy. doc
Page 2 of2
cD
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A resolution designating parking restrictions on certain streets.
WHEREAS, Anoka County has highways in the City of Centerville including County
Aid Highway (CSAH) 54 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 14, and
WHEREAS, Anoka plans to reconstruct all or portions of such highways in the next two
years, and
WHEREAS, Anoka County has requested that certain portion of such highways be
restricted for parking.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Centerville, Minnesota,
that the city hereby establishes parking prohibitions on the following highways in the
City of Centerville:
a. On CSAH 14 from Mound Trail to Centerville Road - No Parking for eastbound
and westbound sides of roadway
b. On CSAH 14 from Progress Road to Mill Road - No Parking for eastbound side
of roadway but permitting parking on the westbound side.
c. On CSAH 14 from Mill Road to 21st Avenue - No Parking for eastbound and
westbound sides of roadway.
d. On CSAH 54 from yet unnamed street referred to as on CSA 14 reconstruction
plan as "Northern Lights Blvd" (and on city records as "Backage Road") to N.
Robin Lane - No Parking for northbound and southbound sides of roadway.
Adopted by the Council this 14th day of March, 2007.
Mary Capra, Mayor
Attest:
Teresa Bender, Clerk
Memofrom Dallas:
These parking restrictions have been requested by Anoka County. YOll may wish to
challenge these, especially in the downtown area between Progress Road and Dupre.
~t-)
__~--\J
!:~
$i'
::~
~j5
~ n
I 0
) z
, tn
I c=
rot
of ...;
, -
I Z
I C)
---
r--"'L
\ \,.. \=
...J \ \l:.=- ~ -
...,..-.--...,.. -----
,J.-""t\"'-r-L_
J ~ \-
--
r---I
IJ \
-I-
I
LI
en
H
G')
Z
....
Z >
:") to) Z
o
~
>
o
o
c:
Z
-I
-<
I)~
~C
en
I:;j
....
-a
......
Illoz
g
-a
r-
~
----
\
I
----
I I
..
-Q}I
}I'3J.VM~V310
MATCH LINE STA. 139+00.00
SEE SHEET NO. 246
Q~~
d5
---
i =
u(l)
I
I II
r I,
t---L
I ,--
I , "I
I rl-'
1 l ~- ·
. - - \
_ a~.J1iW
~~
-
i i
o
~ .!
- I
.
u
....
....
u ~ 5
5 ~ ~
-c -I :::lI
.J Q. a:
@s i ~ ~
I 15 e i=
~ j: ~ ~
c ; 0 -
~ fS ~ ~ ~
~ ~ Q. ~ ~
IE f ? ~ u
- 0 ....
II II CD ::II ....
? ? .... ffi ~
- Go..~
10 0.... 0
.... . m c ~
. 0 -c ~ w
I ! S ~ ~ t
.... .J ~ ffi 0
~ ~ s ~ f ~ ~
.... .... li1 ::z: W 0 I
en.... ........ I.L.
C ............ ~ ~
w ~ ~ w & Q. ....
CJ . ... Cl 5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ; ; ~ = ~
.J .... ... .... c ~ ...J
~ ~ ; ; ~ 5 a
_ en e I.LI LrJ CI) -c is
\ enz-c>>1I <<en
~ )of D. : -c .... m
o D.NIdIl
~1iJ Z @8~H9@€l;
C-8 ~CD
W~
.
-.
~
Cl
Z
H
U
-c
55
-1
------ -
I /~-------7""
.J ,/1--' / /~
I ILl I II
\\- //
,~/--/~{,/ (\
__h """
"
"
/' \
..
r
'\
~V>
FEBRUARY 2007
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
1. Financial Statement & Budget Report
2. Bank Reconciliation & Fund Cash Balance
Prepared By: John W. Meyer
Finance Director
f~1fll~Jlit~fj;}
~
General Fund
Monthly Financial Report
Month Ended February 28, 2007
~~: ~of. ear~~
~ <.
:lII;~- .\ 6.67,%~
z.......'
MTD YTD Budget Variance % of Budget
2/28/07 2007 2007 +(-) Used
Revenues:
Property Taxes 0.00 15,255.29 1,915,900.00 1,900,644.71 0.80%
Other Taxes & Assessments 0.00 0.00 46,000.00 46,000.00 0.00%
Licenses & Permits 29,676.35 39,463.85 160,000.00 120,536.15 24.66%
Building Inspection 9,706.60 17,454.10 110,000.00 92,545.90 15.87%
Fines & Forfeits 2,484.18 5,857.51 40,000.00 34,142.49 14.64%
Intergovernmental 0.00 0.00 117,000.00 117,000.00 0.00%
Fire Relief Aid 0.00 0.00 95,000.00 95,000.00 0.00%
Charges for Services 25.00 29.75 2,000.00 1,970.25 1.49%
Interest Earnings 3,584.29 6,027.72 58,000.00 51,972.28 10.39%
Miscellaneous Revenues 173.61 186.29 15,000.00 14,813.71 1.24%
Refunds & Reimbursements 0.00 5,184.84 4,000.00 (1,184.84) 129.62%
Fund Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Revenues 35,943.43 72,005.25 2,357,900.00 2,285,894.75 3.05%
Expenditures:
Current
General Government
Mayor and Council 2,509.56 4,258.87 35,000.00 30,741.13 12.17%
Elections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Planning & Zoning 265.75 919.29 20,000.00 19,080.71 4.60%
Administration 28,757.90 50,829.08 385,000.00 334,170.92 13.20%
Financial Administration 3,000.00 3,000.00 18,000.00 15,000.00 16.67%
Assessing 0.00 0.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.00%
Legal 0.00 9,652.00 65,000.00 55,348.00 14.85%
City Hall 2,636.04 4,899.10 40,000.00 35,100.90 12.25%
Total General Government 37,169.25 73,558.34 581,000.00 507,441.66 12.66%
Public Safety
Police Protection 54,062.00 108,124.00 649,000.00 540,876.00 16.66%
Fire Protection 0.00 24,737.50 194,000.00 169,262.50 12.75%
Building Inspection 10,403.43 21,033.34 158,000.00. 136,966.66 13.31%
Electrical Inspection 1,958.40 1,958.40 9,000.00 7,041.60 21.76%
Civil Defense 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00%
Animal Control 0.00 151.92 2,000.00 1,848.08 7.60%
Total Public Safety 66,423.83 156,005.16 1,016,000.00 859,994.84 15.35%
Public Works
Public Works 11,632.77 21,816.21 175,000.00 153,183.79 12.47%
Engineering Services 392.45 392.45 25,000.00 24,607.55 1.57%
Recycling 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00%
Streets 0.00 273.04 80,000.00 79,726.96 0.34%
Street Lighting 2,445.05 6,666.50 30,000.00 23,333.50 22.22%
Total Public Works 14,470.27 29,148.20 315,000.00 285,851.80 9.25%
3/8/2007
8:22 AM
budget GF 2007.xls
7-=-l-rL.....
MTD YTD Budget Variance % of Budget
2/28/07 2007 2007 +(-) Used
Culture and Recreation
Park/Rec. Committee 0.00 180.00 3,000.00 2,820.00 6.00%
Park/Rec. Programs 1,554.00 10,284.07 15,500.00 5,215.93 66.35%
Park Maintenance 2,055.53 3,796.22 67,000.00 63,203.78 5.67%
Total Culture and Recreation 3,609.53 14,260.29 85,500.00 71,239.71 16.68%
Community Development 37,513.33 39,257.63 0.00 (39,257.63) 0.00%
Economic Development
Economic Development 0.00 552.18 6,200.00 5,647.82 8.91%
EDC - Frozen Fete Des Lacs 0.00 0.00
EDC - Business Directory 0.00 0.00
EDC - Business Promotion 0.00 0.00
EDC - Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Cougar Cash 0.00 0.00
Total Economic Development 0.00 552.18 6,200.00 5,647.82 8.91%
Unallocated
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Refunds & Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
City Summer Festival 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00%
Total Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00%
Total Current Expenditures 159,186.21 312,781.80 2,028,700.00 1,755,175.83 15.42%
Capital Outlay
General Government 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00%
Public Safety 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00%
Streets and Highways 0.00 58,490.00 113,000.00 54,510.00 51.76%
Culture and Recreation 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00%
Total Capital Outlay 0.00 58,490.00 148,000.00 89,510.00 39.52%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 159,186.21 371,271.80 2,176,700.00 1,844,685.83 17.06%
EXCESS (DEFICIT) OF REVENUES (123,242.78) (299,266.55) 181,200.00 441,208.92 N/A
OVER EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Operating Transfer In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
Operating Transfer Out 0.00 0.00 (181,200.00) (181,200.00) N/A
Sale of General Fixed Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING 0.00 0.00 (181,200.00) (181,200.00) N/A
SOURCES (USES)
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF (123,242.78) (299,266.55) 0.00 260,008.92
REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES OVER EXPENDITURES
AND OTHER FINANCING USES
PREPARED BY: JOHN W. MEYER, FINANCE DIRECTOR
3/8/2007
8:22 AM
budget GF 2007.xls
r.::;;:" _.-.'~'7::::;:;~;,-f'':,.~'';1;X;~ ",.;.,'
r.' u.yf2?7id~feqj'j
::. _:'~~..-'~~.~~"'~:
Water Fund
Monthly Financial Report
Month Ended February 28, 2007
''?~4tO{"Ld<4~ .~-~~,~.~~~~;~~~:~
'.1.. ,tqij\.16.67O/o1
".:."-.........~~""'-'---"...~_.ld
MTD YTD Budget Variance % of Budget
2/28/07 2007 2007 +(-) Used
Operating Revenue:
Charges for Services 29,200.88 44,848.16 225,000.00 180,151.84 19.93%
Total Operating Revenue 29,200.88 44,848.16 225,000.00 180,151.84 19.93%
Operating Expenses:
Salaries and Benefits 5,595.37 11,446.40 70,000.00 58,553.60 16.35%
Professional Services 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 0.00%
Supplies 7,301.37 9,956.72 55,000.00 45,043.28 18.10%
Other Services and Charges 1,465.00 1,465.00 6,000.00 4,535.00 24.42%
. Utilities 477.28 728.05 3,000.00 2,271.95 24.27%
Depreciation 0.00 0.00 30,500.00 30,500.00 0.00%
Total Operating Expenses 14,839.02 23,596.17 199,500.00 175,903.83 11.83%
OPERATING INCOME 14,361.86 21,251.99 25,500.00 4,248.01 83.34%
Nonoperating Revenue (Expense)
Interest on Investments 1,256.45 2,038.72 15,000.00 12,961.28 13.59%
Special Assessments 782.76 1,110.54 30,000.00 28,889.46 3.70%
Hook up Fees and Unit Charges 4,030.00 8,060.00 35,000.00 26,940.00 23.03%
Other Equipment (84.24) (84.24 ) 0.00 84.24 0.00%
Interest Expense 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Refunds & Reimbursements Rev 17.60 22.19 0.00 (22.19) 0.00%
Refunds & Reimbursements Exp (4,759.28) (4,759.28) 0.00 4,759.28 0.00%
Total Nonoperating Revenue 1,243.29 6,387.93 80,000.00 73,612.07 7.98%
(Expense)
INCOME BEFORE OPERATING 15,605.15 27,639.92 105,500.00 77,860.08 26.20%
TRANSFERS
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
NET INCOME 15,605.15 27,639.92 105,500.00 77,860.08 26.20%
CREDIT FOR DEPRECIATION ON 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
CONTRIBUTED ASSETS
NET INCREASE IN RETAINED 15,605.15 27,639.92 105,500.00 77,860.08 26.20%
EARNINGS
PREPARED BY:
JOHN MEYER
FINANCE DIRECTOR
3/8/2007
8:34 AM
budget report water 07.xls
~~..~--
',~tA.:w;rdtt/it:~
""-'"":J:sa:..I",.I"'.,,, ,
Sewer Fund
Monthly Financial Report
Month Ended February 28, 2007
~o~year:~=-"\;
~~:.:~1?67'O/o
,.....4,-;.......-.!'..:.... . _.;.-....
MTD YTD Budget Variance % of Budget
2/28/07 2007 2007 +(-) Used
Operating Revenue:
Charges for Services 45,569.74 66,091.28 260,000.00 193,908.72 25.42%
Total Operating Revenue 45,569.74 66,091.28 260,000.00 193,908.72 25.42%
Operating Expenses:
Salaries and Benefits 5,676.79 17,385.44 65,000.00 47,614.56 26.75%
Professional Services 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00%
Supplies 808.66 1,072.98 10,000.00 8,927.02 10.73%
MCES Disposal Charges 12,344.38 24,688.76 149,000.00 124,311.24 16.57%
Utilities 366.04 525.70 1,000.00 474.30 52.57%
Depreciation 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00%
Total Operating Expenses 19,195.87 43,672.88 260,000.00 216,327.12 16.80%
OPERATING INCOME 26,373.87 22,418.40 0.00 (22,418.40) 0.00%
Nonoperating Revenue (Expense)
Interest on Investments 4,947.76 8,421.83 30,000.00 21,578.17 28.07%
Special Assessments 0.00 327.78 40,000.00 39,672.22 0.82%
Hook up Fees and Unit Charges 4,333.50 8,667.00 50,000.00 41,333.00 17.33%
Other Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Interest Expense 0.00 0.00 (9,000.00) (9,000.00) 0.00%
Refunds & Reimbursements Rev 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Refunds & Reimbursements Exp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Nonoperating Revenue 9,281.26 17,416.61 111,000.00 93,583.39 15.69%
(Expense)
INCOME BEFORE OPERATING 35,655.13 39,835.01 111,000.00 71,164.99 35.89%
TRANSFERS
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
NET INCOME 35,655.13 39,835.01 111,000.00 71,164.99 35.89%
CREDIT FOR DEPRECIATION ON 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
CONTRIBUTED ASSETS
NET INCREASE IN RETAINED 35,655.13 39,835.01 111,000.00 71,164.99 35.89%
EARNINGS
PREPARED BY:
JOHN MEYER
FINANCE DIRECTOR
3/8/2007
8:42AM
budget report sewer 07.xls
2007 MONTHLY CASH/GENERAL LEDGER BALANCE RECONCILIATIONS
2007 Interest 1/31/2007 2/28/2007 3/31/2007 4/30/2007
Bank Checking Statement Balance $ 2,231,704.28 $ 2,184,289.31
Outstanding Deposits $ 992.34 $ 0.02
Outstanding Checks $ (94,070.87) $ (886,419.20)
Monthly Interest $ 15,637.60 $ 8,899.97 $ 6,737.63
Net Checking Account Balance $ 2,138,625.75 $ 1,297,870.13 $ $
Investments
Mainstreet Bank Flex CD
Beginning $ 265,934.53 $ 265,934.53
Other Tansactions $
Monthly Interest $ $
Ending Balance $ 265,934.53 $ 265,934.53 $ $
Mainstreet Bank CD's
Beginning $ 3,000,000.00
1000669381 CDARS
4.24% 1000532637 CDARS
5.41% 1001349356 CDARS $ 3,000,000.00
Other Transactions
Monthly Interest - CD $ $ $ $
Monthly Interest - CDARS $
Ending Balance $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ $
Mainstreet Bank - Subtotal $ 5,404,560.28 $ 4,563,804.66 $ $
Smith Barney
Smith Barney Money Fund
Beginning $ 10,969.20 $ 15,887.73
Monthly Adjustments $ 14,564.12 $ 4,918.53 $ 9,645.59
Other Transactions
Ending Balance $ 15,887.73 $ 25,533.32 $ $
Smith Bamey Gov't Bonds
Beginning $ 1,770,493.16 $ 1,770,493.16
FHLB DTD 9/29/03 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
FHLB DTD 6/30/03 $ 100,411.37 $ 100,411.37
FHLMC DTD 8/14/03 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
FHLMC DTD 6/30/03 $ 99,750.00 $ 99,750.00
FNMA DTD 2/7/03 $ 205,000.00 $ 205,000.00
FNMA DTD 3/30/04 $ 100,000.12 $ 100,000.12
FNMA DTD 4/8/04 $ 200,394.17 $ 200,394.17
FHLB DTD 4/19/04 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00
FHLM DTD 11/28/03 $ $
FHLM DTD 3/25/04 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
FHLM DTD 3/17/04 $ 99,937.50 $ 99,937.50
FHLM DTD 3/24/04 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
FHLM DTD 2/27/03 $ 165,000.00 $ 165,000.00
Other Transactions
Monthly Adjustments $
Ending Balance $ 1,770,493.16 $ 1,770,493.16 $ $
Smith Barney CD's
Beginning $ 475,100.00 $ 475,100.00
Direct Merchants Bank $ $
Capitol One Bank $ $
Hemisphere Natl Bank $ 96,000.00 $ 96,000.00
Lehman Brothers Bank $ 96,000.00 $ 96,000.00
CIB Bank $ 89,100.00 $ 89,100.00
Compass Bank $ $
1 sl. Natl Bk of Nevada $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00
Cole Taylor Bank $ 96,000.00 $ 96,000.00
Other Transactions
Monthly Adjustments $
Ending Balance $ 457,100.00 $ 457,100.00 $ $
Smith Barney - Subtotal $ 2,243,480.89 $ 2,253,126.48 $ $
Total Cashllnvestments Per Statement $ 7,648,041.17 $ 6,816,931.14 $ $
General Ledger Cash Balance $ 7,648,041.17 $ 6,816,931.14
Total Monthly Interest & Adjustments $ 30,201.72 $ 13,818.50 $ 16,383.22 $ $
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
03/06/07 3:33 PM
Page 1
Cash Balances jwm
MTD MTD Current
FUND Descr Account Debit Credit Balance
Last Dim 10100
GENERAL FUND G 101-10100 $60,090.04 $174.700.53 S 1,449,459.11
MOUND TRAIL DEBT SERVICE G 306-10100 SO.OO $0.00 S22,878.11
21ST AVE IMP DEBT SERVICE G 308-10100 $0.00 SO.OO $41.447.89
JOINT POLICE STATION 2005A G 309-10100 $0.00 $6,247.13 $26,320.18
MUNI STREET IMP DEBT SERVICE G 312-10100 S292.79 SO.OO S314,414.19
IND PARK TIF 1-4 DEBT SERV G 317-10100 $0.00 $0.00 $15,494.40
PARKVIEW DEVELOPMENT DEBT SERV G 324-10100 $0.00 $0.00 $2.365.45
ELEM WATER MAIN EXT DEBT SERV G 325-10100 $0.00 SO.OO $6,463.41
G.O. Bond Pheasant I 2001 G 327-10100 $962.71 $0.00 $421,138.50
G.O. Bond Hunters Cross I 2000 G 336-10100 $140.92 SO.OO $61,963.97
CSAH 14 VVATERMAIN G 339-10100 $0.00 $0.00 -SO.o7
PHEASANT MARSH II G.O. 2002 G 342-10100 S1.658.86 $0.00 $725.397.51
PEL TIER PRESERVE DEBT SERVICE G 345-10100 $0.00 $0.00 -$23,381.26
Hunters Crossing II G.O. Bond G 346-10100 $15.419.69 $786,825.00 -$97.810.90
GO Bond 2006A (Hunter3/back) G 348-10100 $243.78 $0.00 $179,561.85
PARK CAPITAL PROJECT G 402-10100 $350.00 $0.00 $61,611.86
21ST AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS G 408-10100 $0.00 SO.OO $1,090.71
MUNI STREET CAPITAL PROJECT G 412-10100 $256.38 $0.00 $112,136.68
PEDESTRIAN TRAIL WAYS G 414-10100 $0.00 SO.OO $12.817.25
STORM WATER IMP PROJECTS G 415-10100 $5,820.30 $2,316.87 $309,575.45
PHEASANT MARSH III G 443-10100 $115.45 $1,615.58 $49,007.31
HUNTERS CROSSING PHASE II G 446-10100 $0.00 SO.OO $45,103.63
CENTERVILLE TOWN OFFICE PARK G 447-10100 $0.00 $0.00 $8.437.00
HUNTER'S CROSSING 3RD ADDN G 448-10100 S388.81 SO.OO S170,043.00
2006 Municipal Improvements G 449-10100 $290.39 S3,279.16 $124,076.39
WATER FUND G 601-10100 $35.403.69 S19,731.29 S564,338.53
SEWER FUND G 602-10100 $58,225.80 $22.570.67 $2,194,594.70
CABLE TV FUND G 614-10100 $7,070.68 $554.09 $18,386.29
Last Dim 10100 $186,730.29 $1,017,840.3 $6,816,931.14
2
$186,730.29 $1,017,840.32 $6,816,931.14
Or. Ro 'er B. Worner, Su erintendent
(763 792-6010
SCHOOL BOARD
MEMBERS
CHAIRPERSON
Dennis Halverson
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Christina Wilson
CLERK
Suzy Guthmueller
TREASURER
Bret Shroyer
DIRECTOR
Karen Lodico
DIRECTOR
Barb Regnier
CENTENNIAL SCHOOLS
Independent School District No. 12
4707 North Road
Circle Pines, Minnesota 55014-1898
(763) 792-6000 Fax: (763) 792-6050
www.isdI2.org
February 26,2007
Mayor Mary Capra and City Council
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Dear Mayor Capra and members of the City Council:
On behalfofthe School Board of Centennial School District #12, I am writing to inform you that, at their
regular meeting on Monday, February 26,2007, the School Board formally recognized Police Chief
Robert Makela, officers, and staff of Centennial Lakes Police Department for "continuous, exemplary
support of and professional dedication to the safety, security, and welfare of Centennial School District
#12's students, staff, parents, and community members." (Attached is a copy of the Certificate of
Appreciation for your examination and public acknowledgement).
Thank you, Mayor Capra, and members of the City Council for the quality relationship that exists between
the Centennial School District, the City of Centerville, and the Centennial Lakes Police Department. We
are grateful for the opportunity to work with you in serving the young people of our community.
Kindest regards and best wishes.
Yours most sincerely,
~
RBW:dkh
c:
School Board
Executive Cabinet
. '-~RECE'VE
FEB 2 8 2007
CENTERVILLE. MN
M
~
......
U
.-
..
......
rI..l
.-
~
JIIIIIIIIIIIl
o
o
.:
u
rJl
JIIIIIIIIIIIl
~
.-
=
=
Q.I
......
=
~
U
=
Q
.~
~
=
.~
~
QJ
-
~
~
<
~
Q
QJ
~
=
~
=
.~
~
-
QJ
U
~
~
~
~
~
.....
~
1::
~
~
::t
~
~
::
~
~
o ~
~ ~
]~
E ~
~ ~
[~
~
::
~
-S
~
~
1::
~
~
~
~
~
. ....
~
s::
o
.- .
~ ~
U Q)
. - .r:J
] a
""d Q)
...... a
(lj
s:: ~
o .~
.- s::
~ ;:j
~ a
~ 8 a
t-: ~ 8
~ ~6]
."'U c.,..... Q) (lj
L'\ 0 a v~
~ t5E
o Q) Q)
0. ~ ;....
g. ""d [
rJ'J s:: ~"
~(ljc.+-;
;.... "(lj
~ .0 t)
0. .;:: "
a ;:j ~
~ ~ E
rJ'J""d
Q) ";:j
" .0 ~
~ Q) rJ'J
o ~ ,..rJ'J
;:jrJ'JC"'l
.S Q) ~
E-Bt)
o .-
n 0 ~
'-' ~ ~
;.... .~
c.8 Q
Q) ......
""d 0
;:j 0
~ ~
.- U
~ r/J
;.... ......
OJ) (lj
Q) .-
;.... s::
Q) s::
U Q)
s:: ~
.- s::
rJ'J Q)
U
~
;::
~
~
.~
~
~
~
t-:
~
~
~S
;::
;::
~
~
;::
~
~
~
.~
;...."
Q)
s:: ~
;.... s::
~.g
. s::
c:o E
;.... s::
Q) .-
bI)[)
o 0.
~ ;:j
. r/J
;....
""d
;....
(lj
o
c:o
......
o
o
~
U
r/J
......
(lj
.-
s::
s::
Q)
E
Q)
u
t-
o
o
N
"
\.0
N
~
;:j
;....
.r:J
Q)
~
.;:::l
. ',]tervi{{e
CITY OF CENlERVlLLE
'L..;Jl1l~islil'd IS;.-
MONTHL Y ENGINEER'S REPORT
For March 14, 2007 City Council Meeting
Italics = New information.
Normal = No change from last report.
1. Pheasant Marsh 3rd Addition (000616-03134-0). The Contractor has a couple punch list
items remaining. They need to finish additional grading to lower the pond elevation and clean
out some flared end sections. James R. Hill is working with the Developer and the Contractor
on getting a price and a schedule to complete the work. After reviewing the Sewer Televising
Tapes it was found that the lines were filled with sediment and debris. Therefore we were
unable to determine if any damage was present in the pipe. As a result, the tapes and reports
were sent back to the Contractor to redo the televising after the lines are cleaned so can view
and inspect the pipe. Developer's Engineer is currently working on the Record Plan Drawings.
2. Hunters Crossing 3rd Addition (000616-05141-0). All work has been completed for the year.
After reviewing the Sewer Televising Tapes it was found that the lines were filled with sediment
and debris. Therefore we were unable to determine if any damage was present in the pipe. As
a result, the tapes and reports were sent back to the Contractor to redo the televising after the
lines are cleaned so we can view and inspect the pipe. All quantities have been agreed on to
date with the Contractor and payment has been made. The Record Plan Drawings are currently
at Public Works for any final comments to be added.
3. 21st Avenue/Backage Road (000616-05143-0). All construction will resume in the spring to
finish the project. The Contractor has finished all punch list items that can be completed at this
time. We have agreed on all quantities with the Contractor of the work completed to date. We
will work on a Pay Request to pay for all completed and approved work. We are also currently
reviewing televising tapes and reports, upon completion we will allow Public Works to review
and comment. The Backage Road is still currently blocked off.
The county has finally made their decision on the addition of a 2I-inch storm pipe to parallel
the 42-inch pipe installed through the new Backage Road property. We will be getting a cost
from our contractor to complete this work and lookingfor the County to pay for it.
4. CSAH 14 (000616-04139-0, 000616-06144-0, 000616-06150-0).
Forcemain
We are making revisions for the final plan and spec. submittal.
Water Main
We are making revisions for the final plan and spec. submittal.
StreetscaDe
We are making revisions for the final plan and spec. submittal.
5. 2006 Storm Water Analysis (000616-06146-0). We have submitted a final draft of the report
to Dallas for his review prior to presentation to the Council.
~., Old Mill Road Improvements (000616.06147-0). If it appears that the developer has
satisfied the planning commission and will have a viable plat, we will need to order the
improvements and continue the Chapter 429 assessment process to ensure services will be
made available to any approved plat.
7. Fairview Street Improvements (000616-06148-0). We have provided the City with a
feasibility estimate for the improvements so that staff may negotiate assessment waivers with
the adjacent property owners. The Plans and Specifications are approximately 85% completed
We will be sending the plans to the Public Works for any additional comments or concerns. We
plan on having the Final Plans and Specifications approved on the March 28 City Council
Meeting.
8. Block 7 Redevelopment Grading and Utility Improvements (000616.06152-0). All
underground installation is completed. Contractor will do final project testing and cleanup in
the spring. We are currently also working on a Record Plan Drawing, before completion we
will have Public Works review and add any additional comments.
9. Centerville Townoffice Park 2nd Addition (000616-06152-0). Approval of the preliminary
plat and conditional use permit has been given contingent on final issues involving the
developer's agreement and plan. We are reviewing cost estimates and construction plans to
meet our requirements.
10. Hanzal's Addition (000616-06154-0). Revised versions of the plat and grading plan have
been submitted and are being reviewed.
11. 1601 Lamotte Park Property (000616-07155-0). The parks commission has obtained quotes
for some park shelters. More information will be available at the council meeting.
12. Downtown Overhead Power Relocation (000616-07156-0). Our surveyors are working on
property and easement research to draft and stake easements for the power line re-route. We
will be meeting again with the utility companies in mid March to update progress.
13. Miscellaneous
· We submitted a scope of services and engineering proposal for the production of a
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan. This would layout,
conceptually, the sewer, water, storm water, and street systems to allow continuity and
reliability of theses systems as they are designed and constructed in phases. Included
with this proposal is a separate estimate to complete an EA W if it is necessary.
- End of memo-