HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-04 P & Z Packet
~ Pve~5 '7 hlv'.
Il/tLW~ .
.
'E...\-;-,d:lf.:,iled- .i/,~:;;
~Yaij 130ckv
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4,2001
6:30 p.m.
J.
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
n. PUBLIC HEARING (S)
m. APPEARANCES
IV.
OLD BUSINESS
0,,(.'
.,-\(..1-
f'lt-o.....,o
V.
~.. Ordinance #4 Amendments
ii': Zoning Map Modifications ~
NEW BUSINESS ......-~~.*
v( Consideration of Cable casting Meetings ~ NO ~ ~ ~.", ~ G. LN'"'
l2:" ...,.. Extension Requests - Non-Compliant Shed~ . . _ j"'o-v- 'i' ~ Co : ~c) I
3. :Jo..xv..uur\f ~ - fbrf M"'~ If:, .Ja.n. I . I
DISCUSSION ItEMS I
VI.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. November 6, 2001 Planning and Zoning Meeting lYlinutes
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
-{Om ~ ~ ~~
G~ ~ - fz07~.
TJ.:/..
0e-,u 7f- its
p: "Z- y,
p~? ~/5
r.cwb - ~~
~c.k 1'+
tervi[[e
'Esta6{ished lJi,l
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4,2001
6:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC HEARING (S)
III. APPEARANCES
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Ordinance #4 Amendments
2. Zoning Map Modifications
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Cablecasting Meetings
2. Extension Requests - Non-Compliant Sheds
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. November 6, 2001 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
-'
MEMO
DATE:
October 29,2001
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM:
Kim Moore-Sykes I~
RE:
Ordinance #4 Revisions
I...........................................................................
Enclosed you will find a summary ofthe changes that were made to Ordinance #4. I
know that the Commission had asked that the revisions be e-mailed to Commissioners
but Staff found that Table A did not list the revisions but the zoning districts with
setbacks and/or square footages of each districts.
The City Clerk will be e-mailing Ordinance #4 in its entirety. If you have problems
opening it in e-mail or do not receive it, please call Teresa. She will make arrangements
to get a copy to you before the next Planning and Zoning meeting.
~
-'
AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE #4
FOURTH ADDITION
1. Division 30: Non-conforming Uses and Structures: Page 20: The time
frame for an abandon or discontinued use has been extended to 12
months rather than 6 months under state statute.
2. Division 75: Final Grading and Landscaping: Page 26: After "grade as
specified" the following language should be added "except during
inclement weather an escrow shall be deposited with the City as approved
in the fee schedule.
3. Division 080-100: Industrial District - Item "Special Requirements":
Page 33: This section should be deleted in its entirety as Division 135-140
on Page 48 is more comprehensive and complete.
4. Division 110: Sign Regulations: Page 38: This section should be deleted
due to Ordinance #39, Signage.
5. Division 135-140: Outside Storage: Residential Districts: Item C: Page
48: The heading should he changed to include dwelling units in the M-l
District.
6. Front yard set back on lakeside and rear yard at street side.
7. Site Plan Review Process should be explained.
8. Delete Sections 205-010 & 020.
9. Add the following language regarding Commercial District.
10. Page 25 correct typo - Maximum (Not Minimum)
11. Page 42 & 48 Correct typos.
General Minimum Requirements. The following minimum requirements; as set
forth, shall apply to all buildings that may be erected, converted or structurally
altered in Commercial Districts.
Setback. See Table A - Schedule of District Regulations Lot and Yard
Requirements.
Building Height in Commercial Districts. As provided in Division 115.
Off Street Parking. As provided in Section 36 of this ordinance.
In addition to Division #90:
A. Space fOf a single vehicle shall be nine (9) feet by eigi1teen (18) feet Of
larger.
B. Off street parking area ~hall be surfac.ed with asphaH or concrete, and
with permanent concrete curbs to deline driveways and parking
limits. Plans and specincatiolls for parking areas shall be reviewed by
C. There shall not be off street parking within live (5) feet from any
street right-or.way nor live (5) feet from any other lot line.
D. Also see Division 165.
Buner Zone Between Commercial and Residential Districts. Where a Commercial
District abuts a Residential District, any new development shall include a buffer
zone. There shall be a protective strip of not less than ten (10) feet in width. This
protective strip shall contain no structures, shall not be used for parking, off street
loading, or storage, and shall be landscaped. The landscape treatment shall include
a compact screen wall or fence, but shall not extend within fifteen (15) feet of the
street right-of~way. The planting or fence desire must be approved by site plan
review process.
Screening Requirements. If the City Council requires any type of screening as a
condition for a Variance or Special Use Permit, the applicant shall comply with the
following conditions:
A. File a copy of the screening plans with the Zoning Administrator.
B. The screening, planting or construction, or both shall he complete
within one (1) year from the date of building permit, subject to
extension by the City Council.
C. The screening shall be maintained after completion.
Landscaping. A minimum of tcn (10) percent of any lot shall be green space. Three
(3) percent of the surface area of the land within a parking area shall be landscaped
with grass and shrubbery or other approved ground cover. Landscaped areas wi!!
continue to be maintained by the propel"ty owner on a continuous basis. Green
areas within abutting street right-ot~ways will also be maintained by the property
owner. See division #160 for other requirements.
Site Plan. Site plans for all developments requiring a special use permit must be
submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. At least the following
information shall be submitted for review:
A. Site development plan.
B. Building plans, including building elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior surfaces, including all materials
proposed to meet the screening requirements of this ordinance.
C. Landscape plans, including the number, species, and size of all plantings.
D. Grading, drainage, parking areas, items to be stored, and utility plans.
Ac~ess()ry Structures. Garages, accessory structures, screen wails, buildings, and
exposed areas of retainiug walls shall be of similar type, quali!y, and appearance as
the principal structure.
Exterior of Building. All buildings shall be I1nished on all sides with permanent
finished materials of consistent quality, per division 95, and Ordinance #44-A.
Permitted Encroachments. The following sball not be considered as encroachments
on setbacks subject to other conditions within this ordinance:
Off street parking spaces, flues, belt course, leaders, sills, pilaster, lintels, cornices, eaves,
gutters, awnings, open terraces, service station pump islands, open canopies, steps,
chimneys, flag poles, ornamental features, open tire escapes, sidewalks, and fences,
except as hereinafter amended.
Exterior Merchandise
See section 135-140.
Lighting
See Section 135-040.
Driveways
A.
B
No driveway shall be located within one hundred (l00) feet of any right-
ot:way line of a street intersection. Said distances shan be measured
along the property line from the corner right-of:way line.
Access drive onto county roads shall require a review by the City
Engineer. This review shan be measured along the property line from the
corner right-of:way Jinc.
Specialllse Permits
As provided in Division 200 of this ordinance.
Criteria for Issuance of Special Use Pennit. When reviewing an application for a special
use pClmit thc Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall considered the
fonowing criteria:
A. Impact on tratIic.
B. Impact on parks, streets. and other public facilities.
C. Compatibility of the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping and
structures with contiguous properties.
D. Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties.
E. Impact on general public bealth, safety, and welfare.
F. Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Signs
As provided in Ordinance #39.
Refuse
A.
All premises shall be provided with, at owner's expense, an adequate
number of approved containers to bold the garbage accumulated by SUcll
premises. Such containers shall be made of metal or other suitable
material, shaH be water tight, insect and rodent proof, and shall be of a
material not easily corrodible and equipped with suitable handles and tight
fitting covers and shall be kept covered when there is garbage stored
therein.
B. Garbage and rubbish containers shall be placed at the rear of the premises
or in such a manner as to be out of view from the street. In no event shall
container or their enclosures be placed or maintained in such a way to
unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of adjoining property.
C. AH garbage containers shall be screened with a suitable enclosure.
D. Every garbage or rubbish container shall be maintained in as sanitary
condition as is possible and shall be thoroughly cleansed as needed. If,
upon inspection by the Administrative Authority a container is found to be
in poor repair, corroded or otherwise defective the Administrative
Authority shall notify, in writing, the provider or user of the container of
the deficiency and shall require the repair or replacement of the container
within fifteen (15) days. All container enclosures shall also be kept in
good repair.
Permitted Uses
A. Retail sales and service, but excluding adult orientated businesses.
B. Automobile and motorized equipment sales and service, excluding salvage
operations.
C. Farm implement sales and service.
D. Building supply sales and storage yards.
E. Funeral homes and mortuaries.
F. Day care centers.
G. Hotels and 11lote]s.
H. Full service gasoline sales and service.
I. Eating and drinking establishments.
1. Financial institutions.
K. Personal and professional business offices.
L Public buildings.
M. Barber/Beauty salons.
,
N. Commercial schools.
0 Hospitals and clinics.
P. Nursing homes.
Q. Commercial recreation.
R. Animal clinics.
S. Car washes.
T. Liquor stores.
Section 080-100: Industrial District (1-1).
Purpose
It is intended that the 1-] District provide opportunities for light manufaclming and
industrial uses, trade businesses, machine shops and other more extensive land uses.
General Minimum Requirements
The following minimum requirements, as set forth herein, shall apply to all buildings that
may be erected, converted or structurally altered in Industrial Districts.
Permitted Principal UseslUses Permitted on Special Use Permit
As provided in Section 080-100 oEthis ordinance.
Setback
See Table B- Schedule of Dishiet Regulations Lot and Yard Requirements.
In addition, side yards facing streets on comer lots shall be considered the same as front
yards. Where a front yard or side yard of a comer lot laces a residential district across a
street, the setback from the street shall be not less than 60 feet.
Building height in Industrial Districts
As provided in Division 115 of this ordinance.
on Street Parking
As provided in Division 90 of this ordinance.
In addition to Division 90:
A. Space for a single vehicle shall be nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet or
larger.
B. Off street parking areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete, and
with permanent concrete curbs to define driveways and parking limits.
Plans and specifications for parking areas shall be reviewed by the City
Engineer, and approved by the City Council prior to construction.
C. All open street parking areas having more than six (6) parking spaces shall
be effectively screened by a wall, fence of acceptable design, or compact
hedge along all sides, which adjoin or are directly across the street from
the property in a residential zone or institutional use. Such wall, fence or
hedge shall be maintained in good condition. Plans for fencing shall be
approved by the City Council. The fence shall not be used for advertising
purposes.
D. Parking constructed to fall within the minimum setbacks: See Table A.
E. Off street parking areas shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all
surface water. Drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City
Engineer.
F. Also see Section 165.
Buffer :lone Between Industrial and Residential Districts
Where the side yard of any Industrial District abuts a Residential District, the
minimum side yard setback shall be 60 feet. Parking of vehicles will be permitted
within 40 feet of the side yard line. All side yard areas not utilized for parking
shall be landscaped with screening provided along the side lot line to within IS
feet of any public right-of-way.
Sueelling Requirements
Ifthe City Council requires any type of screening as a condition for a Variance or
special use permit, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
A. File a copy ofthc screening plans with the Zoning Administrator.
B. The screening, planting or construction, or both shall bc complete
within one year trom the date of building permit, subject to
extension by the City Council.
C. The screening shall be maintained after completion.
D. A dollar amount of one and one-half times the estimated cost of
planting and construction of the screening shall be filed with the
City in the form of a cash escrow or lettcr of credit. The cash
escrow or letter of credit amount shall be forfeited to the City if
any provisions of this section are violated.
Landscaping
A minimum of ten (to) percent of any lot shall be green space. Three (3) percent of the
surface area of the land within a parking area shall be landscaped with grass and
shrubbery or other approved ground covcr. Landscaped areas will continue to be
maintained by the property owner on a continuous basis. Green areas within abutting
street right-of-ways will also be maintained by the property owner. Also see Section 160.
Site Plan
Site plans for aj] developments require special use permits prior to the issuance of
building pClwits. At least the following infom1ation shall be submitted for review:
A. Site development plan.
B. Building plans, including building elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior surfaces, including all materials
proposed to meet the screening requirements of this ordinance.
C. Landscape plans, including the number, species, and size of all plantings.
D. Grading, drainage, parking areas, items to be stored, and utility plans.
Accessory Structures
Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be
of similar type, quality, and appearance as the principal struchlre. Accessory struchlres
shall comply with all of section 080- JOO.
Exterior of Building
All buildings shall be linished on all sides with permanent finished materials of
consistent quality, per division 100, and amendment #44-A.
Permitted Encroachments
The following shall not be considered as encroachments on setbacks subject to other
conditions within this ordinance:
Off street parking spaces, flues, belt course, leaders, sills, pilaster, lintels, comices, eaves,
gutters, awnings, open terraces, service station pump islands, open canopies, steps,
chimneys, t1ag poles, ornamental features, open tire escapes, sidewalks, and fences,
except as hereinafter amended.
Exterior Merchandise
See section 135- ] 40.
Lighting
See Section 135-040.
Driveways
A
s.
No driveway shall be located within one hundred (100) feet ot'any right-
of-way line of a street intersection. Said distances shall be measured
along the property line li'om the corner right-of-way line.
Access drive onto county roads shall require a review hy the City
Engineers.
Special Use Permits
As provided in Ordinance #39.
Refuse
A
All premises shall be providcd with, at owner's cxpense, an adequate
number of approved containers to hold the garbage accul11lrlated by such
premises. Such containers shall be made ot'metal or other suitable
material, shall be water tight, insect and rodent proof, and shall be of a
material not easily cOlTodible and equipped with suitable handles and tight
fitting covers and shall be kept covered when there is garbage stored
therein.
B. Garbage and rubbish containers shall be placed at the rear of the premises
or in such a manner as to be out of view from the street. In no event shall
container or their enclosures be placed or maintained in such a way to
unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of adjoining property.
C. All garbage containers shall be screened with a suitable enclosure.
D. Every garbage or rubbish container shall be maintained in as sanitary
condition as is possible and shall be thoroughly cleansed as needed. If,
upon inspection by the Administrative Authority a container is found to be
in poor repair, corroded or otherwise defective the Administrative
Authority shall notify, in writing, the provider or user of the container of
the deficiency and shall require the repair or replacement of the container
within fifteen (15) days. All container enclosures shall also be kept in
good repair.
Loading Facilities
Loading facilities shall be in the side of rear yards. When adjacent to aJ1d/or visible ii'om
any public street, sueb facilities must be adequately screened.
Storage
For the purpose of this zoning district, car, vans and pick-up trucks parked outside and
used hy employees and/or visitors in the nonnal COllrse of tbe husiness operation will not
be constmcted to be outdoor storage. Further, outside parked trucks and semi-tailers used
in the normal business commerce will not be constructed to be outdoor storage;
A. Provided that the total number of trucks and semi-trailers does not exceed
the number of docks and/or bay doors, and
B. Such use is not constructed as an operation listed as a conditional use in
any industrial zone.
Permitted Uses
A. Business and professional offices.
B. Machine and repair shops.
C. Construction trade otTIces and yards.
D. Manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, processing, packaging,
assembly and research uses, except waste management.
E. Indoor shooting/archery range and sales.
F. Truck terminals. (Special Use Permit required)
G. Mini-StoralZe (Special Use Penl1it Required).2
2 Amended: June 27, 2001
H. Kennels (Special Use Permit Required)
Special Requirements
A. The storage of supplies, products, vehicles, equipment or other materials
shall be kept indoors uniess totally screened from public rights of way and
adjacent properties. Adult orientated businesses are regulated separately
by City Ordinance.
MEMO
DATE:
December 4,2001
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM:
Kim Moore-Sykes
~
RE:
Zoning Map Modifications
.........................................................................
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed revised zoning map at the
November Planning and Zoning meeting. It was the Commission's recommendation to
continue the discussion to the next City Council meeting. The City Council is requesting
that the Planning and Zoning Commission provide them with a recommendation.
Between meetings, the Staff received a site plan for a proposed three-season porch
that would encroach into the C-I zoning designation. The property owner has submitted
the required variance requests to the Rice Creek Watershed District. The RCWD
proceeded with their process and determined that if the property owner obtained a
variance from the City of Centerville because the proposed three-season porch
encroaches on the floodplain, then they would be able to proceed with construction. The
RCWD found that the proposed three-season porch will not impact the flood plain
because it will be on stilts and is similar to other three-season porches in the immediate
area. It was further determined that RCWD does not recognize the City's C-l
designation but they do recognize the flood plain designation of the area and this is what
governs the initiation of their process.
In doing further research, Staff found that the C-l zoning designation was done
apparently to provide a recreational area around Clearwater Creek. I have provided a
copy of a rezoning request dated June 4, 1991 from the property owner at 1759 Main
Street whereby he states that the C-I (Parks and Playground) was intended to have a
walkway along the Creek. The Planning and Zoning Commission at the time allowed a
variance until such time as the area could be rezoned to R-2.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval
of the proposed Zoning Map modifications as proposed by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik
& Associates.
1"--
--
,
,
I
I
,
,
In
1[
" J ~ , l 0 N I 1
'"
~ i I ~
Ii'
-'-'
\ I
" I
'4
~
.t!
,~
j
~
~d! , 'Q
-n-~- -1
S J . ~ 1
ONJl
.j 0 A " ~
~;;';:':;;;,-- ....:.:.:::..:...._-
I
I
---1
.
:<S ~ ~
lL ; ~ ,
<( i ~ ,
, :2 ~
0 ~
0 Q . ~ ~
" j ,
Z ~
w ~ , ~ ! .
z " ,
0 ! ~ 1 ,
, g ,~
N , ~ ~, ~ 0
! i , ,
~t>..
-..:.:;2
~-
."" ~
~~
~]
Ci).g
-+-> '"
lj]
c
ffi G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
T-
,
\\\
,0
'11J
s ] " ~ l
.""
:
hHl
did~.
~o~1
MEMO
DATE:
November 9,2001
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM:
Kim Moore-Sykes
RE:
Zoning Map Modifications
I~~gg.~..~ag~g...g...~.......~...~a~..~.....u...........~...P.............a.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Zoning Map modifications as
submitted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates and is forwardiog it to COlll1cil
for review. Several comments were received by the Commission regardiog the need to
delete the C-l Zoning District. Many felt that if this zoning designation was removed,
then developers would be free to develop wetlands and creek areas. The residents were
advised that these areas are also governed by the DNR, Rice Creek Watershed District
and the City's Flood PlanIFlood Way re~<;tions. They were also told that both the
City's Ordinance or Comprehensive PIailJill,fe this designation as part of the City's
Zoning District schedule.
JUNE 4, 1991
SUBJECT:
Rezone to Residential (from C-1 to R-2)
1759 Main Slreet. Centa1/iUe.
Requ_ttId by:
Rich.-d W. Tuomi
I. Use: The property has been used for residential purposes since the house was built
approximately 1920.
II. CUrrent Zoning Status: About 1982 the city zoned the property as C-1 ( paries and playg-ound
usage) thinking that someday a walkway may be placed along the aeelc. Due to changes in
property use north of the property. this is no longer a potential usage. The current zoning
does not reflect the residential usage of the property over the last 70 years.
II. Building Bevationa: Landmark Surveying Inc. of Scandia. MN shot elevations of the
buildings on April 24. 1991 with the following results:
Garage stab: 908.2 feet
House (south threshold): 911.2 feet
The flood elevation as taken from the FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) is 899 feet.
This puts the house at 12.2 above flood plain and the garage at 9.2 feet above flood
plain.
IV. City Attorney Comments: In his letter dated April 10th. city attorney, G-egory J. Hellings,
stated that a rezoning to residential use may be appropriate, it the city decides that C-1 (parks
& playg-ound) is not the intended usage.
v. Wet. Conservation: The DNR sees no problem with rezoning the property.
VI. At the Zoning Board hearing of April 22. to hear request for variances to remodel a garage. this
board suggested that I apply to rezone the property to residential (R-2).
I therefore request the Zoning Board approve rezoning the property to R-2. Also that the Zoning
Board approve the variance request on the property and submit approvals to the City Council for
approval at the June 12, 1991 meeting.
~af7~
Richard W. Tuomi
Applicant and property owner
l _
MEMO
DATE:
December 4, 200 I
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Kim Moore-Sykes ~
FROM:
RE:
Broadcasting of Planning and Zoning Meetings
.........................................................................
BACKGROUND
Staff is wondering ifthe Planning & Zoning Commission is interested in having their
meeting broadcast on the City's cable channel. As resident at a recent meeting indicated
that he thought that broadcasting your meetings would be very informative for the
residents.
RECOMMENDATION
No recommendation. The City does have Staff that is able to do the broadcasting.
MEMO
DATE:
December 4, 2001
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Kim Moore-Sykes ~
Requests for Non-Compliant Sheds
FROM:
RE:
........................................................................,
BACKGROUND
Staff has received two letters from residents regarding sheds that they have on their
property that are non-compliant because they are sited too close to other structures. Both
residents are requesting an extension to spring bring their respective sheds into
compliance. The City Council has asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission
review these requests at their December meeting. Both residents have been contacted and
invited to attend the December Planning and Zoning meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant each resident an extension to spring.
or
Require each resident to apply for a variance.
,
I
I
I
I
I
l___
November 5, 2001
To: City of Centerville, Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Storage shed
Bill and LeAnn Michael
6923 Oak Circle
Centerville, MN 55038
:~ '),nr:~I'
U .;) J...'U\lil)
My wife and I have done allot of work on our house this fall. We have replaced the siding and windows,
added on to the driveway. We regraded the yard, including tree removal, new sod and a sprinkler
system. One of the things that needed to be done was to replace the shed that collapsed under the
heavy snow fall last winter. The shed sat on a cement pad behind the garage and has been there
since the house was built in 1987 I checked with the city and was told that I didn't need any permit
because of its size. I removed the shed and had another built in the same spot. A few weeks ago a
city inspector stopped by to check on the grade of my yard and told me that the shed was to close to
my house and needed to be moved. I have been given 30 days to move ij.
I am asking that I be allowed to leave the shed there because of the fact that there has been a shed
there since the house was built. If you will not allow the shed to remain there then I ask that I be given
until sometime in Spring to move it. I make this request because of the financial hardship that I am
under with all of the repairs that I have made recently and I didn't budget for the added expense. Also I
have just laid a new sprinkler system and sod down and don't want to damage or cause ruts until the
sod has a chance to get a hold.
If you have any questions or need anything else from me please feel free to contact me at (651 )653-
8790. Thank you for your time.
~ Sincerely,
Bill Michael
~
11-14-2001 01'21Pl'1 FROM
TO
6514298629 P.01
November 14,2001
TO: City of Centerville
I am writing in regards to a notice I received about my non-compliant shed that has
existed in its present location for approximately seven years. I understand that the
Planning Commission is considering amendments to the current zoning ordinance. [also
understand that there are several other sheds in the community that exist closer than six
feet to the primary structure.
The six foot separation is required by the \luilcling code for fire protection. Upon
researching the matter I have discovered that if a fire wall was installed on one side of my
shed, my shed could remain in its current location and be in conformance with existing
building codes. I would be Willing to make this investment because I have ordered siding
for my shed which matches my house. I also have substantial landscaping placed by a
previous owner that exists around the shed in its current location.
I request an extension of the time period for bringing this shed Into compliance. I further
request that the Planning Commission be asked to consider an amendment that would
allow sheds to be closer to the primary structure, if the shed is constructed to meet the
building and fue code standards. As you may recall, the mixed use district was created to
allow buildings to be adjacent to each other as long as the appropriate building codes
were met.
If the P+Z does not amend the ordinance, I will bring my shed into compliance. I will
al$o expect that this requirement will be unifonn and ClIlforced with aU of the non-
compliant sheds in the community, because I will incur a substantial cost if I am forced to
move mine. Thanks! Jim March
iOiAL P.01
L_
I
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6, 2001
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on November 6, 2001, at 6:30 p. m.
PRESENT:
John McLean
Ray DeVine
Brian Hanson
Tom Wilharber
David Kilian
ABSENT:
Rob Sheppard, Barry Brainard
COUNCIL:
Linda Broussard Vickers
STAFF:
City Administrator Kim Moore-Sykes
I. CALL TO ORDER
I. Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
II. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
I. Eagle Pass 2nd Addition
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Quigley representing Gor-Em pointed out the changes made to the plan since the last
time he was before the Commission. He then explained that the plan was revised to
include twinhomes as is consistent with the current development.
Commissioner Devine asked Mr. Quigley to comment on the extension of Ojibway
Drive. Mr. Quigley indicated that the Association is allowed to expand under its bylaws.
Chairperson Hanson asked if number two was a separate association. Mr. Quigley
indicated it would be part of the single-family association.
Commissioner Kilian asked if the Association had approved the expansion to allow for
the new homes. Mr. Quigley indicated that the Association did not have the option of
denying the homes entrance into its Association as the bylaws were originally written to
Page I of24
Ie'
allow for a specific number of homes and the addition of these homes would not exceed
the maximum.
Commissioner Kilian asked whether the home on Lot 2 would front on Dupre Road or
Meadow Lane. Mr. Quigley indicated it could front on either one based on the wishes of
the City. Commissioner Kilian commented that it might be best to have the home front
on Meadow Lane. Mr. Quigley indicated that Lot 2 was a corner lot and indicated that
City Ordinance would govern the building on it.
Commissioner Wilharber asked if there would be a trail located between buildings one,
two, three, and four in Section One. Mr. Quigley indicated he had not included a trail on
his plan and said the area Commissioner Wilharber had asked about was an easement for
water line. Mr. Quigley indicated that the area is owned by the Association and any trail
access would need to be negotiated with the Association.
Ms. Peterson of 7065 Dupre Road indicated they had petitioned the City to take over
Ojibway Drive and had not received a response. She then commented that she would like
to see as many trees kept as possible. She also asked if there would be a center aisle in
the turn around. Mr. Quigley indicated there would not be a center aisle in the turn
around.
Ms. Peterson of7065 Dupre Road indicated the initial problem with the previous plan
was that they were designed to be single detached homes that did not fit into the
Association. She indicated that the newly proposed units would be larger and the
assessments would need to be different which the Association is working on. She then
commented that the Association is required to accept the new homes into the Association
because they are twin homes.
Mr. Jerry Albrecht of7071 Dupre Road asked what tOlillage the roadway would be built
to. Mr. Quigley indicated the road would be built to 5-ton standards. He then indicated
that as he and Mr. Albrecht had discussed previously the road will be built to City
standards as determined by the City Engineer.
Mr. Albrecht commented that every time he has asked the tonnage question he has
received a different answer. Mr. Quigley indicated the City designs the roads and his
company would install them.
Mr. Albrecht asked if Mr. Quiglcy was willing to guarantee, in writing, that Gor-Em and
Swift will repair any damagc done by construction vehicles for a period of one year after
the construction is completed. Mr. Quigley agreed to provide a written agreement that
Gor-Em and Swift would pay to repair the road if any damage is done up to one year after
the construction is completed.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the City would get a guarantee on the road
written into the developer's agreement since the City would have no other way to control
it and the City is not responsible to repair it.
Page 2 of 24
J
Mr. Bill Ingison, Jr., of 1762 Ojibway Drive suggested adding a trail from Chauncy
Barrett Gardens trough the property so the elderly residents would have a safe place to
walk rather than walking out on Centerville Road. Mr. Quigley indicated he had no
problem making the trail connection if the City and the Association could agree upon the
specifics.
Mr. Brian Carlson of 1771 Meadow Lane pointed out that a line of trees was missing on
the map provided and asked if those were to be removed. Mr. Quigley indicated the trees
would remain but were not shown on this drawing.
Mr. Albrecht asked if any of the good trees would be used behind the existing units. Mr.
Quigley indicated that any trees that were suitable for transplanting would be transplanted
in the area.
Mr. Jim Juhl of 1825 Voyageur Court asked that Unit 5 of the detached homes be
screened from the existing unit next to it due to the close proximity. Mr. Juhl thanked
Mr. Quigley for pressuring Swift to complete some of the unfinished items in the
development such as the sidewalks and the tennis courts. He then indicated that some of
the residents on Dupre Road are interested in paying to have some of the trees moved
rather than seeing them harvested.
Mr. Juhl asked when Mr. Quigley intended to start moving dirt. Mr. Quigley indicated
that moving dirt is weather dependent but said he might try to do some things this fall to
give the property a drainage pattern before spring.
Mr. Quigley drew in the requested screen on his drawing of the development.
Motion by Commissioner Wilharber. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to close
the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing for Ordinance #4 Amendments at 6:50 p.m.
Commissioner Wilharber suggested the Commission make its decision concerning Eagle
Pass 2nd Addition (Preliminary Plat) at this point in the meeting rather than making
residents wait through the entire meeting.
Motion by Commissioner DeVine. seconded by Commissioner Kilian to table the
Ordinance #4 public hearing to later in the meeting. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner DeVine asked Council Liaison Broussard Vickers how to make sure that
the roadway guarantee is put into the developer's agreement.
Page 3 of 24
,
..
Mr. Quigley indicated he had written a letter, signed it and sent it to the Association last
summer concerning the roadway guarantee. Mr. Albrecht indicated that the copy
received by the Association was not signed. Mr. Quigley indicated he must have
received a copy of the fax that was sent and then said he could provide a signed copy of
the letter.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that while the City was without an
administrator only those things that were of a pressing nature were dealt with. She then
indicated that the City Attorney has advised against the City taking over the roadway and
said that, in her opinion, it does not appear that the City is interested in taking over the
roadway. She further indicated that the City is waiting to hear from the police and fire
departments concerning the roadway before holding an in depth discussion on the matter.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Council would attempt to address all
the concerns of the residents in the developer's agreement.
Commissioner Kilian indicated that the new homeowners are going to be part of the
Association that would have to repair the roadway and, therefore, it is in evcryone's best
interest to be careful with the road.
Mr. Peterson asked why the City Attorney did not want to take over the road. Council
Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the road is narrower than public streets, the
future costs to maintain the road, and it would be setting a precedent for taking over
private roads. She then indicated that the matter has not been thoroughly discussed by
Council but will be in the near future.
Mr. Peterson questioned why, if the City designed the road, it did not want to take it over.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the road's design and construction were
determined by the City Engineer but the private street is narrower than public streets.
Ms. Peterson of 7065 Dupre Road asked if rcsidents would get a real estate tax break
because they are not provided with City services to maintain the roadway.
Commissioner DeVine recommended sending another letter to Council asking them to
take a look at the matter.
Mr. Jim Halstrom of 6960 Dupre Road indicated there are other private roads in the
development, not just Ojibway. He then expressed frustration with Council as they have
written several letters and have not received an acknowledgement of receipt of those
letters. He further indicated that, as a part of the developer's agreement on the new
development he would like to see streetlights added to the existing development as there
are not enough and it is a dangerous situation.
Tracy Halstrom of 6960 Dupre Road indicated they have asked questions and have not
had responses. She then indicated that she feels the new homeowners will want answers
to the same questions as no information was given to her by the realtor or the builder
Page 4 of24
concerning the private roads and what it would cost them. Ms. Halstrom then asked if the
City needs permission to repair City sewer and water along the private roads.
Commissioner DeVine indicated that there is a utility easement that grants the City
permission to maintain its sewer and water lines.
Ms. Halstrom asked for something in writing on the utility easement. She then asked
who replaces burned out light bulbs in the streetlights.
Chairperson Hanson asked if her questions were related to Eagle Pass 2nd Addition. Ms.
Halstrom indicated she felt the questions should be answered for the new homeowners.
She then said she did not think her questions would be for the developer's agreement but
said she would like answers.
Commissioner Kilian indicated that, if Ms. Halstrom does not receive a response from the
City, all the Commissioner's telephone numbers are available and asked her to call one of
them to let them know she has not received the information requested.
Ms. Halstrom indicated that most of the questions were addressed to Jim March prior to
his resignation.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the City has a new City Administrator and suggested
Ms. Halstrom contact Ms. Moore-Sykes.
Chairperson Hanson asked Mr. Quigley to speak with the Association concerning a
trail way through the outlot to connect with Chauncy Barrett Gardens. Mr. Quigley
agreed to look into it.
Motion bv Commissioner DeVine. seconded bv Commissioner Wilharber to
recommend to Council approval of the Preliminarv Plat for Ea!!le Pass 2nd Addition
with the Association's reQuested issues added concernin!! trees. trailwav throu!!h the
outlot. concerns with screen in!!. and a written !!uarantee for Oiibwav Drive. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimouslv.
2. Ordinance #4 Amendments
Motion bv Commissioner DeVine, seconded bv Commissioner Kilian to reopen the
public hearin!! at 7:10 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimouslv.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that a special work session was held three weeks ago to
discuss Ordinance #4 amendments.
Tracy Tratar of 1710 Peltier Lake Drive indicated he was surprised that his issue was not
included in this public hearing as he has been to the last two meetings asking the
Commission to consider his situation.
Page 5 of 24
Chairperson Hanson indicated the Commission determined that Mr. Tratar's issue was a
special circumstance more appropriately handled by variance than a change to the
Ordinance.
Mr. Tratar indicated that he was at the meeting for his personal situation but commented
that not changing the ordinance would put a lot of residents out of compliance with City
Code.
Mr. Jeremy Bates of 1977 South Robin Lane indicated he thought the Commission had
discussed changing the sideyard setback for corner lots from 35 feet to 20 feet.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned whether the Commission's intent was to
allow a 20-foot sethack for principal structures on corner lots.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the table with the list of amendments to Ordinance #4 was
not in packets and said he was unsure of what, if any, change the Commission had agreed
to make.
Commissioner DeVine indicated it was his recollection that the Commission had decided
not to allow principal structures with a 20-foot setback because a new developer could
come in and do that and the City does not want that to happen.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission would be continuing this public
hearing to the Council meeting for further discussion and clarification.
Chairperson Hanson told Staff clarification was needed as to whether the Planning
Commission had made a change to corner lot setbacks for principal structures before the
matter is heard by the City Council.
Mr. Tratar indicated that he feels the setback restrictions on comer lots are excessive.
Commissioner McLean indicated that the City is concerned that a new developer could
come in and put new houses 20 feet from the lot line.
Commissioner DeVine showed Mr. Tratar a diagram as to what could happen with a new
development if the Ordinance was changed to a 20-foot setback.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated that it was his recoliection that the Commission
decided not to change the ordinance to make sure new developments could not take
advantage of a 20-foot setback. He further indicated that Mr. Tratar's situation is rare
enough that it would warrant a variance.
Mrs. Camp-Barron of7121 Centerville Road asked if there was a videotape of the work
session meeting where Ordinance #4 was discussed. Chairperson Hanson indicated that
there are minutes available for the meeting.
Pag.e 6 of 24
Mrs. Camp-Barron asked if the minutes were available at City Hall. The Commission
indicated that they were and said the date of the meeting was October 9,2001.
Ms. Kathy Tratar of 1710 Peltier Lake Drive indicated they could build a detached garage
at 20 feet.
Commissioner DeVine explained that the difference is a new builder could not come in
and build a detached garage as it has to be attached according to Ordinance. He then
indicated that, if the Commission changed the setback to 20 feet the developer could
come in and use the 20-foot setback for the entire subdivision.
Mr. Tratar indicated that the Commission's decision did not make sense as the
development would look the same.
Commissioner Wi1harber indicated that Mr. Tratar had offered to bring in measurements
of surrounding properties and then asked ifhe had done so.
Mr. Tratar indicated he was not able to come to the work session as they were out of
town. He then indicated he was not sure the Commission wanted him to do the research
he offered to do.
Commissioner Wilharber commented he had thought Mr. Tratar would be bringing in
information on other lots. He then indicated that the Commission is trying to help Mr.
Tratar out but said future subdivisions could be compromised if the setback is changed.
He further indicated that he feels a variance would be appropriate in the Tratars'
situation.
Mr. Tratar indicated he still disagreed that a 20-foot setback would be undesirable in a
new subdivision. He then noted that he is not allowed to build on 68% of his comer lot.
Commissioner DeVine indicated that, in order to determine whether Mr. Tratar's claim
that not being allowed to build on 68% of his lot is excessive, a person would need to
gather information from other situations and determine the area of buildable land based
on the setbacks and lot sizes.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission had addressed this matter and
apologized for not being able to provide an answer at this meeting due to lack of
information.
Ms. Shelly Olson of Chetak, Wisconsin asked if dog kennels were added to the
Ordinance. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission approved language
allowing dog kennels in industrial zoning with a special use permit.
Mr. Bart Rehbein of 1659 Lakeland Circle indicated that a resident had asked the
Commission to look at parking of boats and RV's in driveways and then asked if the
Page 7 of 24
Commission had made any changes to that part of the Ordinance. Chairperson Hanson
indicated that no changes were made to that part of the Ordinance.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that a resident had thought there was
something wrong with the language of the Ordinance concerning parking in driveways
but the Commission had determined that the way the Ordinance is written is what the
Commission intended to allow.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the Commission clarified the wording of the sentence but
said the meaning is the same.
Mrs. Camp-Barron of7121 Centerville Road asked what page of Ordinance #4 covered
parking in the driveway. Commissioner Wilharber indicated parking in the driveway was
covered on Page 53 of the new Ordinance and Page 48 ofthe old Ordinance.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Commission had changed the Ordinance to allow
residents in the R-4 district of Royal Meadows who do not already have a garage to build
an accessory structure of a maximum of 440 square feet.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the word "minimum" was used where the
word "maximum" should have been in the Ordinance concerning the 200 square feet
allowed if a resident currently has a garage.
Mr. Lloyd Drilling of7185 Mound Trail asked why the Commission decided to allow
dog kennels in industrial and not commercial. Commissioner Kilian indicated that
commercial zoning is closer to residential and the Commission felt it would be better to
have dog kennels further from the residential zoning to buffer residents from the noise.
Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive asked for an explanation of the
wording on the notice he received.
Chairperson Hanson explained that the notice had a list of things to be discussed at the
public hearings at this meeting.
Commissioner DeVine explained that the Ordinance requires that a minimum setback of
75 feet be maintained from the lake.
Mr. Al LaMotte of 1643 Heritage clarified that nothing was being changed on the
lakeshores.
Commissioner De Vine clarified that the City had an issue when one developer built a
house closer to the lake than the rest of the houses in the development and this addition to
the Ordinance would keep the houses in line.
Page 8 of 24
Mr. Steve Marcello of 1649 Peltier Lake Drive indicated that Rice Creek has required a
minimum setback of75 feet for a number of years. He then asked why the 75 feet has
not been part of Centerville' s Ordinance until now.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the City had not yet adopted the
shoreline standards but said that the City could not be less restrictive than the state
requirements, meaning that Rice Creek's requirements would be the standard.
Mrs. Camp-Barron asked if the public hearing was being continued to the Council
meeting due to a lack of information. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the meetings
are always continued to Council as the Commission merely makes a recommendation to
Council and Council makes the final determination.
Mrs. Camp-Barron asked if the document needed to discuss Mr. Tratar's request would
be provided to Council. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the document would be sent
along with the Commission's recommendation to Council.
Mrs. Bates asked the date of the next Council meeting.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the next Council meeting would be held on November 14,
2001.
Commissioner Kilian indicated the agenda would be available the Friday before the
meeting.
Motion bv Commissioner Kilian, seconded bv Commissioner Wilharber to continue
the public hearing to November 14, 2001 at the Council meeting, All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously,
3. Zoning Map Modifications
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that Staff had recommended that the conservation district
be removed from the map.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated that the conservation district was not included in the
Comprehensive Plan or in Ordinance #4.
Mr. Steve Marcello of 1649 Peltier Lake Drive asked why the conservation district across
from Peltier Lake was being removed.
Commissioner DeVine indicated that a conservation district is not addressed in the
Ordinance or in the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 9 of 24
Mr. Marcello expressed concern for changing the conservation district as he feels the area
should remain in a conservation district.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the Comprehensive Plan and the
Ordinance do not infer any special circumstances for the conservation district.
Mr. Lloyd Drilling of 7185 Mound Trail cautioned against removing the conservation
district designation because someone could go back to old aerial photographs of the area
and determine that it is not a natural wetland and it could be filled in.
Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive indicated the City ofCenterville runs
across part of Peltier and Centerville lakes and asked what the lake is zoned.
Chairperson Hanson indicated the DNR controls all the water in the state. He further
indicated that all water is publicly owned.
Mr. Al LaMotte commented that removing the conservation district leaves the possibility
that someone could put something in there.
Ms. Joan Sturgeon of7257 Centerville Road indicated she did not want the City to take
away the conservation district as she enjoys the wetland and the wildlife it brings to her
backyard.
Commissioner DeVine indicated the Commission did not intend to impact any of the
things mentioned by Ms. Sturgeon with its proposed changes. He then commented that
the land is under water and not buildable.
Commissioner DeVine commented that Mr. Marcello and Mr. Drilling had raised a valid
concern regarding elimination of the conservation district that should be considered
before proceeding.
Mr. Ted Irkenback of 7377 Peltier Circle expressed concern that removing the
conservation district and replacing it with R-l zoning would mean that someone could
build too close to the creek. Chairperson Hanson indicated that Rice Creek Watershed
District would govern building in the floodway.
Mr. Irkenback of7377 Peltier Circle indicated he is concerned for the impact the change
would have on wildlife and concerned that the change would allow encroachment into the
creek area by developers.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated the whole area is in the flood plain which is
controlled by the Army Corp of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, and
Rice Creek Watershed District. He further commented that anything existing in the flood
plain, if destroyed, cannot be rebuilt.
Page 10 of24
r
Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the area is not just a flood plain but a
floodway and that carries even more stringent restrictions than a flood plain.
Mr. lrkenback asked the Commission to look into the matter before changing the zoning.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he would like to ask Mr. Palzer the reason for the
change.
Mr. Don Simonson of 7263 Centerville Road indicated that he is concerned that if
someone had aerial photographs they could determine the land was dry at one point and
determine it is not a natural wetland and the City would lose control of the property. He
further commented that someone could mitigate two to one and fill in the wetland.
Mr. Marcello of 1649 Peltier Lake Drive suggested the City may need to amend
Ordinance #4 to include the conservation district.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that all public input would be considered before any
changes would be made. He then reviewed the other changes to the zoning map for those
in attendance.
Commissioner McLean commented that he had thought this was a paperwork issue but
said there have been some good points raised that he feels need to be investigated before
the zoning is changed.
Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive indicated that when he built his house
in the mid-1970's the bucket used to dig out the area was left on his property.
Mr. Norm Friteche of 1637 Peltier Lake Drive indicated that the area was dug out to
provide more buildable property.
Motion bv Commissioner DeVine. seconded bv Commissioner Kilian to continue the
public hearine: to the November 14. 2001 Council Meetine:. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimouslv.
III. APPEARANCES
I. Mr. Mike Ouigley - Gor-Em (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
This matter was heard under public hearings.
2. Mr. Lloyd Drilling - Comprehensive Sign Plan (Uptown Center)
Mr. Lloyd Drilling of7185 Mound Trail asked the Commission ifhe needed to submit a
comprehensive sign plan as he was informed by City Staff that he needed to do so.
Page 11 of24
~
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that the Ordinance went into effect on May 1,2001 and the
permit was pulled on May 2, 2001.
Mr. Drilling indicated he had no problem providing a comprehensive sign plan and then
asked if a tenant, such as Hair Update, wanted to differ from the comprehensive sign plan
would they be required to ask for a variance.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated a variance would not be necessary provided
that the sign meets all the requirements of the sign code.
Commissioner DeVine asked how much square footage of sign age was being used. Mr.
Drilling indicated that he was using a small portion of what the sign ordinance allows.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers reminded Mr. Drilling to make sure he does not allow
one tenant a disproportionate amount of signage and end up with not enough for the last
tenant.
It was determined that Mr. Drilling did not need to submit a comprehensive sign plan due
to the fact that the ordinance indicates that the comprehensive sign plan is part of the site
review process and Mr. Drilling had completed the site review process prior to the May
1,2001 effective date of the Ordinance change.
Mr. Drilling asked if he needed a sign permit.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers recommended that Mr. Drilling check with Mr. Palzer
to detcrmine whether or not he needed a sign permit.
Commissioner DeVine asked City Administrator Moore-Sykes to create a binder with the
latest Ordinances because the Commission should have the Ordinance in front of it when
discussing possible changes. He then commented that the letter he received from Ms.
Bender contained incorrect information and said that anyone at City Hall quoting
Ordinances should know what they are talking about.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested that only Mr. Palzer and Ms. Moore-Sykes
should be quoting Ordinances.
3. Mr. Brent Coatnev - Mueller Pipeliners (Terminal Transport Building); Site Plan
Mr. Brent Coatney, the President of Terminal Transport indicated that he is downsizing
his business due to economic constraints and would like to sublease his facility in
Centerville to Mueller Pipe liners. He then indicated that Mueller Pipeliners is a similar
type of industry and should be a good business for Centerville.
JeffNordness of25582 East Comfort Drive, Chisago City, representing Mueller
Pipeliners presented a grading plan and described for the Commission what Mueller
Pipcliners wished to do. He then indicated that the one change in the plan is that Mueller
Page 12 of24
r
Pipeliners would like to use an aggregate base on the extended parking lot area rather
than asphalt because track vehicles are very hard on the asphalt.
Mr. Nordness explained that the company is involved in almost every community right
now and is working with light rail transit and is working on the extension of Centerville
Road utilities. He noted they are a very good community player and explained that
representatives of the company helped clean up Siren, Wisconsin after the tornado this
summer and also helped clean up after the flooding in south St. Paul. He further
indicated that the company would bring commerce to Centerville as its fuel bill last year
was $127,000.
Commissioner Wilharber asked how the track vehicles would be brought into the
building for maintenance. The Vice President of the company explained that they would
be brought into the building on trailers.
Mr. Nordness indicated there would not be any gasoline tanks on site and said the
vehicles would go to the station and fuel up there. He then handed out pictures of the
equipment and site.
Commissioner Kilian read a portion of Ordinance #4 indicating that this type of usage is
allowed.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked why Mr. Palzer had told them to come to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Nordness indicated he was not sure. Ms. Moore-Sykes
indicated that Mr. Palzer had expressed concern for the outside storage and the request to
use an aggregate base rather than asphalt.
The Vice President of the company indicated that 90% of his equipment is out at the job
site from spring through late fall and then comes in to be maintained during the slower
winter months.
Commissioner Wilharber asked how many vehicles would be stored at the facility during
the winter. The Vice President of the Company indicated that approximately 100
vehicles would be stored on site during the winter.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked ifthe proposal met the 10% green space
requirement. Mr. Nordness indicated that the plan is exactly what was approved in 1998.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested Mr. Nordness make sure that the 10%
greenspace as required by the new ordinance is met.
Commissioner Wilharber asked if Mr. Nordness intended to provide screening to the
south and east.
Mr. Nordness indicated that there is a line of trees and some pine trees that were planted
as a screen. Mr. Nordness indicated it was their intention not to take out any ofthe trees.
Page 13 of 24
. -~
Commissioner Wilharber asked if Rice Creek had given its approvaL
Commissioner Wilharber commented that he comes from a military background and said
they used concrete to move track vehicles back and forth. He also commented that he is
concerned with fluids leaking from the vehicles. Mr. Nordness indicated that they would
be using trailers to protect Mr. Coatney's blacktop.
The Vice President of the company indicated that the company's fleet of vehicles is
rotated every three years to keep them new.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that he is concerned that with the aggregate base parking
lot, hydraulic spills or gas spills could get into the ground water and the residents in the
area all have private wells.
The Vice President of the Company indicated that what is stored out back will mostly be
trailers and compressor generators that are smalL
Chairperson Hanson expressed concern for security with the small pieces of equipment
because the site is not fenced in.
The Vice President of the company indicated that he has surveillance cameras that he
intends to instalL
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the City Engineer had commented on the
plans. Mr. Nordness indicated the City Engineer had not yet commented on the plans.
Chairperson Hanson commented that Centerville does not have a filling station that sells
diesel ifthat is the type of fuel used by the vehicles. The Vice President of the company
indicated that the vehicles use regular unleaded gasoline.
The Vice President of the Company indicated that Mueller Pipeliners sends promotional
information all around the country that would say "Mueller Pipeliners of Centerville".
Mr. Nordness indicated that the safety programs to be held at the facility would bring 350
employees in for training.
Mr. Nordness indicated that Mueller Pipe liners is considered one of the top 8 specialty
contractors in the country.
Commissioner DeVine expressed concern with allowing the aggregate parking lot and
asked ifthere was a way to require a review of the parking every year.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked whether Rice Creek was aware of the aggregate
base and not asphalt when it approved the plan as it is not specified on the letter from
Rice Creek.
Page 14 of24
r
Mr. Nordness indicated he would get a clarification on the aggregate approval from Rice
Creek.
Commissioner Kilian read the permit that indicated that a pond is required.
Mr. Brent Coatney indicated there is a pretty extensive pond in back.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that Mr. Rehbein has had some problems with Rice
Creek Watershed on various occasions. He then asked if the pond was there and dug.
Mr. Coatney indicated that it was.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the permit says that if the pond is not
done it will need to be done.
Chairperson Hanson asked how many people would be on site on a day-to-day basis. The
Vice President of the company indicated that there would be approximately 12 people on
site daily.
Motion bv Commissioner DeVine. seconded bv Commissioner Kilian to recommend
to Council approval of this site plan provided that the applicant provide proof of the
10% l!reenspace and information on the pond. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimouslv.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested getting a letter from Rice Creek stating that
the pond is in place and talking to the City Engineer to address concerns before the City
Council meeting.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
I. Ordinance #4 Amendments
This matter was continued to the Council meeting on November 14. 2001.
2. Zoning Map Modifications
Chairperson Hanson indicated that, based on resident input, more research was needed
into the ramifications of eliminating the conservation district.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested asking Mr. Palzer to provide information as
to why he recommended eliminating the conservation district prior to the next Council
meeting. She then commented that, if it is determined that the conservation district
should remain, Ordinance #4 would need to be amended to allow for controls in that
district.
Page 15 of24
-1
Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner McLean to continue
the Dublic hearing to the Noyember 14, 2001 City Council meeting, All in favor,
Motion carried unanimously,
The meeting was recessed at 8:05 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:15 p.m.
3. Comprehensive Sign Plan - Uptown Center
This matter was handled under appearances.
4. Sign Variance - Hair Update & Day Spa
After discussion with Mr. Drilling concerning the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Uptown
Center it was determined that no variance was needed for Hair Update & Day Spa.
V. NEW BUSINESS
I. Mr. Mike Ouigley - Gar-Em (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
This matter was heard earlier in the meeting.
2. KCI - Site Plan and Comprehensive Sign Plan (Lot 4. Block I. Royal Industrial
Park)
KCI addressed the Commission and discussed the office/warehouse lease type of building
they are proposing to construct in the industrial park.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if KCl's architect had copies of the City's
Ordinances when it did the plans. KCI indicated that their architect had a copy of the
City's Ordinances.
Chairperson Hanson asked if there would be berming on 20th Avenue. KCI indicated
they had not planned to do so. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that berming
is not required by the Ordinance.
Chairperson Hanson asked if the plan meets the 10% greenspace requirement.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated that Mr. Palzer would determine whether the plan
meets the greenspace requirement. He then asked for the estimated tax value of the
building.
KCI indicated that they estimated the building to be valued between $50,000 and
$65,000.
L
Page 16 of24
Motion bv Commissioner Wilharber. seconded bv Commissioner DeVine to
recommend to Council approval of the site plan for KCI for Lot 4. Block 1. Roval
Meadows Industrial Park. All in favor. Motion carried unanimouslv.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall
would need to approve the site plan.
3. Coatnev Enterprises - Mueller Pipeliners (Terminal Transport Building) - Site
Plan
This matter was handled earlier in the meeting.
4. Grassen Companies - Street Lights (Eagle Pass 2nd Addition)
Bert Casper of 6979 Eagle Trail told the Commission that Eagle Pass is a very unusual
neighborhood due to the way the streets are built with curves. He then commented that
the developer wanted the development that way because it is cheaper to construct the
roads that way and there is more land available to sell and build homes on.
Mr. Casper indicated that, at the time, he thought there was a benefit to the homeowners
too because it is an attractive neighborhood and it is nice that no windows are directly
across from your window. He then indicated that after having lived there for a while he
has determined that it is not a safe place and it is not safe because it has inadequate
lighting.
Mr. Casper pointed out that the single-family homes have 7 street lights over the course
of 41l0ths of a mile and his side of the development has 8 street lights over twice as much
roadway.
Mr. Casper explained that if a person is driving west on Eagle Trail and kids are riding
bikes south on Eagle Trail they are on the same road but cannot see each other. He then
commented that it is a very dangerous situation because kids, especially traveling in
groups, are very inattentive to traffic.
Mr. Casper told the Commission the development is dangerous because the corners are
not lit. He then indicated that he thinks the newness of the development allowed the
developer to slide as few lights as possible past the City and NSP and save themselves
some money.
Mr. Casper indicated that some of the corners are 120 degree bends and said that more
lighting is needed in the development. He then asked the Commission to drive over to
the development sometime after dark to see what he is talking about.
Tracy Halstrom of 6960 Dupre Road drew a diagram of the development on the white
board to illustrate the way the road curves and how headlights do not shine on the
roadway. She indicated there is a petition signed by every member of the Association
Page 17 of24
~
asking for street lights. She then indicated that Centerville was on the Home and Garden
Channel because of this coved development.
Ms. Halstrom indicated that the single family homes have a light in every peak of the
curves and the twinhome side of the development does not. She then indicated that there
have been several near misses with dogs, kids, and strollers due to the limited visibility.
Ms. Halstrom indicated that one night she almost hit some debris that some kids had drug
out into the street.
Ms. Halstrom asked the Commission to recommend more street lights in the development
before someone gets hurt. She then indicated that the intersection where kids get to the
park is on the twinhome side of the development and needs to be better lit.
Commissioner DeVine indicated that Council was aware of the petition for streetlights
and commented that he did not feel it would help to have the Planning Commission
recommend approval.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the street lights in the development
were brought up a year ago and at that time it was Christmas and Council determined that
there were too many Christmas lights to be able to adequately judge if the development
was dark. She then said that now that this new development is coming in the matter has
been brought to the forefront again.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that it may be possible to ask Gar-Em to
install more lights as part of the developer's agreement for this development but she said
she is not sure Council is willing to do that as additional street lights cost the City money
in continued maintenance costs and with the recent information that streetlights cost the
City $40,000 per year Council may be reluctant to install more. She also commented that
other residents could argue that their street is dark and unsafe and ask the City for street
lights.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Council needed to consider all the pros
and cons of requiring additional streetlights in the development before making a
determination.
Ms. Halstrom asked the Commission to explain the inequity of the single family homes
having more lights than the twinhomes.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated she was not sure why there were more
lights in the single family homes but speculated that it may be because the road is more
curved in that part of the development. She then commented that the City Engineer had
approved the design and Council had relied on the expert opinions it had at the time. She
further commented that there are several issues to be discussed by Council concerning the
Page 18 of24
,.
new development and said that she is not in favor, personally, of adding any more private
roads to the development.
Commissioner McLean indicated he drives on Dupre Road and it is darker than other
streets.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that it is dark in a lot of areas in the City.
Commissioner McLean questioned whether there is a third-party safety survey that could
be done to determine whether the lighting is inadequate.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that Council may not be willing to order
a study that the City would have to pay for due to budget constraints.
Commissioner McLean commented that not looking into the safety of the development to
determine if it is inadequately lit could open up the City to liability if a child were to be
hit and that liability could far outweigh the cost to add a few street lights.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that drivers are not supposed to overdrive
their headlights and commented that she felt someone would be hard pressed to prove
that the City is liable for an accident due to inadequate lighting.
Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner McLean to
recommend that Council carefully consider the Iil!htinl! in Eal!le Pass.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he was on the Council at the time Eagle Pass was
brought in and it was a PUD which was something very different. He then commented
that Council spent a lot of time discussing the aspects of the development and finally
approved the development based on the City Engineer's recommendation.
Commissioner Wilharber suggested the residents petition the City for streetlights and
have the City assess the cost back to the homeowners for the cost of those streetlights.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers commented that adding more street lights adds to the
City's ongoing streetlight expenses. She then commented that there are other streets that
are just as dark in CenterviIle and said that light pollution is also a consideration in this
matter.
Chairperson Hanson clarified that the motion is to recommend Council look at the
situation to determine whether it is dangerous and not to recommend that Council
approve additional streetlights.
Commissioner DeVine indicated he did not think anybody would be able to determine
whether it is dangerous or not and said his motion was to ask Council to carefully
consider the lighting and make a decision.
Page 19 of 24
L
~
Ms. Halstrom said it was a shame that the City is concerned about Rice Creek Watershed
District and OSHA requirements but is not concerned for citizen safety.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that he took offense to Ms. Halstrom's comment and said
it is not fair to generalize in that manner. He then clarified that the Commission has said
that the matter warrants some investigation and discussion to determine if there is a need
for lights.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that there are other streets in the City that are dark and that
have safety issues. He then commented that he is employed as a health and safety
manager and spends his days ensuring people's safety and to make the statement that the
Commission does not care about the citizens ofCenterville is wrong.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the Association has been waiting a long
time to have its lighting issues discussed.
Ms. Halstrom asked whether it would be possible to install stop signs at the crosswalk
where residents cross to the park.
Commissioner Wilharber told her the Association can petition the City for a stop sign and
the City will look at it. He then said he agreed with the comments of Chairperson
Hanson and commented that the City is always looking for volunteers and he has served
the City in various capacities for 28 years and things can be done if residents want them.
He further commented that a stop sign may be good for the safety of the neighborhood.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Council usually follows the
recommendation of the police department when it pertains to stop signs. She then
commented that the police department has indicated that a stop sign may not add much
safety to an intersection because it gives residents a false sense of safety because they
think cars will stop and they do not always do so.
Commissioner McLean commented that the four main intersections should be looked at
it.
Commissioner Kilian thought the idea of the curved roadway was to slow people down.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated the City Council could lower the speed limit if it
chose to do so.
Commissioner Kilian commented that it would be difficult to exceed 30 m.p.h. on the
curved road.
VOTE: Ayes - 4, Nays - 1 (Wilharber). Motion carried.
Page 20 of 24
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that Mr. Michaels had sent in a letter asking that he be
allowed to either leave his storage shed in its existing location even though City Staff has
said it must be moved because it is too close to the house, or to have an extension to
spring to move the shed because new grass has been planted and he does not want to
disturb it.
Commissioner Wilharber asked how close the shed was to the house.
Commissioner Kilian indicated it must be 6 feet or less away from the house if the
inspector cited it.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Staff had told Mr. Michaels that he did
not need a permit based on the size of the shed. She then indicated that the shed had
fallen down and was rebuilt. She further indicated that Staff did not have information as
to the close proximity of the shed to the house when the resident called to ask ifhe
needed a permit and determined he did not need one based on the size of the shed.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that the addition to Ordinance #4 to require a
nominal fee for a permit for this type of matter would eliminate this type of problem in
the future.
Commissioner DeVine indicated he felt the Commission should allow him time to spring
to move the shed. He then commented that there is another resident in the City that
received a letter from the City telling him his shed needed to be moved within 30 days.
He further commented that the shed has been there since the resident bought the home
and nobody complained. He did say, however, that the resident had pulled a permit to
add onto the house and the changes to Ordinance #4 gives the building official the
authority to cite for other violations.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the City was trying to improve the
ordinance going forward by making changes. She then commented that the situation, as
described, may be stretching the intent of the Ordinance.
Commissioner DeVine said he thinks it is weird that the building permit generated the
letter for the shed. He then commented that he thinks a witch hunt is going on in the City
because letters were sent to a lot of people wasting a lot of taxpayer money when the
letters were not correct. He further commented that he had received a letter indicating his
signs were illegal and they are not.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the City had been running without a
chief for too long and said that now that there is a City Administrator things should get
back to normal. She then commented that Council had directed the building official to
take a look around when at a resident's home for any obvious violations that could cause
a safety issue.
Page 21 of24
Commissioner DeVine commented that he was told that the building official just signed
the letters and did not generate the complaint.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that someone had to tell someone else to produce
the letters.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated he should be required to move the shed but
should be given an extension of time to do so. She then indicated that for every time the
City does not hold firm to the Ordinance it will have to be defended again and again.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he did not think everything was black and white.
Commissioner Kilian indicated he is tired of hearing "why should I have to ifhe does not
have to."
Commissioner DeVine indicated the Committee needed to look for a new member.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the Committee is allowed, in its bylaws, to
remove someone for failure to attend meetings.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that Mr. Michaels would need to come before Planning
and Zoning to request a variance to leave the shed in its current location.
Commissioner DeVine questioned how the City could make Mr. Michaels tear down his
shed knowing he had received information from City Hall concerning the requirements
for the shed.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Staff had given him correct information
based on the fact that the size of the shed did not require a permit and Staff was not aware
of the location of the shed.
Commissioner Wilharber asked if the City was going to apply its witch hunt to all
properties in the City.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that anyone who gets a letter will assume
they are part of a witch hunt.
Commissioner Wilharber indicated he is curious as to how many other properties are out
of compliance with City Code. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated there may
be a lot of them.
Commissioner Wilharber commented that those other properties have not asked for a
building permit.
Page 22 of 24
r
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that it is an efficient use of Staff time to
have stafflook around when out at a property for violations rather than make a specific
trip.
Commissioner Wilharber suggested the City should ask him to come in and ask him ifhe
wants to pay $175.00 for the variance knowing he may not get it or if he just wants an
extension to move the shed.
Motion bv Commissioner Wilharber, seconded bv Commissioner Kilian to ask Mr.
Bill Michaels to come in and exnlain to the Planning Commission whether he wants
a variance to leave the shed in its current location or an extension of time to sprill{!
to move the shed and to ask him how close the shed is to his home and when he
called in concernin!! rebuildin!! the shed. All in favor. Motion carried unanimouslv.
Chairperson Hanson indicated that Barry Brainard had sent a letter to the Planning
Commission resigning his position due to family obligations.
Commissioner Wilharber thanked Mr. Brainard for his years of service to the City.
Commissioner McLean indicated that Mr. Brainard brought a nice perspective to the
Commission.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked City Administrator Moore-Sykes to research
whether the Planning Committee is allowed, by its bylaws, to rcmove a member for
failure to attend meetings. She also asked City Administrator Moore-Sykes to put in a
notice of vacancy.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
I. October 2, 200 I Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Wilharber requested the following changes: On Page 2 correct the
spelling of "Letendre" and "Stella". On Page 5 correct the spelling ofthe names.
Commissioner McLean requested the following change: On Page 13 insert the word
"Commissioner" before his name.
Motion bv Commissioner DeVine, seconded bv Commissioner Wilharber to approve
the October 2, 2001 Meetin!! Minutes as amended. All in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Kilian abstained from voting as he was not in attendance at that meeting.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the Commission was comfortable with
having a list of the Ordinance #4 changes being made up to send to Council.
Page 23 of 24
.~
Chairperson Hanson indicated he would like the list e-mailed to him along with the
minutes taken by Mr. Palzer at the work session to make sure that the discussion from
that meeting matches the list. He then asked that any comments of Committee members
be e-mailed to him for consideration.
City Administrator Moore-Sykes indicated she would e-mail the information to the
Committee and asked that Committee Members e-mail any comments to her to forward
to all Committee Members.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Kilian. seconded bv Commissioner DeVine to adiourn the
November 6. 2001 Plannin!! Commission Meetin!! at 9:50 p.m. All in fayor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver OJ! Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 24 of 24