1992-10-27 PC Agenda Packet
.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
AGENDA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 27. 1992
7:00 P.M.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
* October 13, 1992
SUBDIVISION REQUEST - ED BREUN
Lamp Post Inn/Albertville Car Wash
V.
FIRE HYDRANTS
Recommendations from Northwest Associated
Consultants as noted in my memo dated
10/19/92
VI. WESTWIND P.U.D. - MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE
VII. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
. Amend to include 50th Street
VIII. ADULT USE ORDINANCE
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
X. ADJOURN
.
:"'.<'_<'".0_i'4-~
.
.
.
PLANNING & ZONING COKHISSION
OCTOBER 27>> 1992
ALBERTVILLE CITY HALL
7:00 PM
COKHISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Haller, LeRoy Berning, Howard
Larson, Roger Johnson, Donatus Vetsch, and Secretary Ann Culley.
Chairman Haller called the meeting to order at 7:12 PM.
Vetsch made a motion to amend the agenda to include discussion
regarding a rezoning request from Don Hall. Haller seconded the
motion. All voted aye.
Berning made a motion to approve the amended agenda. Haller
seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch excused himself from the meeting in order to attend a
special meeting of the City Council.
A motion was made by Berning to approve the minutes of the
October 13, 1992, meeting as submitted. Larson seconded the
motion. All voted aye.
Dennis Eull is proposing to purchase the Albertville Car Wash
from Ed Breun and was present to discuss the subdivision request.
Ed Breun was unable to attend. Eull explained that he wishes to do
detail vehicle cleaning on the east side of the building Monday
through Friday only and that it would be used as a coin operated
car wash on the week-ends. He further stated that the west side of
the building would be used as a coin operated car wash Monday
through Sunday.
Roger Johnson suggested that an easement would be needed along
the westerly wall of the car wash building in order for Eull to
access the building for maintenance and repair purposes. Johnson
further noted, for the record, that there is a slight encroachment
of cement as shown on the current survey. The Planning Commission
felt this would not be a problem, but agreed that the
repair/maintenance easement would be necessary. They also
suggested that the easement include the area where the vacuum
station is currently located so that Eull's customers would still
have access to it.
Per Licht's suggestion Thore Meyer was contacted and Meyer
felt there would be no need for utility and/or drainage easements
since these are existing properties and there has never been a
problem.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/27/92
Page 2
.
Larson questioned the proposed parking situation. Eull
stressed that no long term parking would be needed. He further
explained that detail cleaning is a same day service. He also
mentioned that he had talked with Loren Becker and Becker has given
him permission to park any excess vehicles on the lot across from
the Albertville Auto Body building. Eull feels that he will have
no problem parking 3 cars in the detail cleaning side of the car
wash at the same time. The Planning Commission also felt that
there was no reason that Eull could not use the street for some
parking also.
The Commission addressed the issue of the location and
necessity of a trash enclosure. Eull stated that he preferred to
have large, residential types of trash receptacles inside each car
wash area and felt there was no need for a large outdoor trash
enclosure. The Commission felt that Eull should clarify Breun's
intended use of the trash enclosure with Breun.
Eull stated that the fence on the southeast corner of the
property will remain in tact. Both Eull and the Commission felt
the fence was necessary to aid in direction of traffic flow.
Ann was directed to check the ordinance regarding the amount
of park dedication fees on commercial properties and to contact
Breun regarding this matter prior to the public hearing. The
Commission also feels it is necessary for Breun to attend the
public hearing.
Haller made a motion to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday,
November 24, 1992, at 7:00 PM. Johnson seconded the motion. All
voted aye.
The Commission feels that the current ordinance should
specifically mention fire hydrants and what is not permitted to be
placed around them. They feel that no trees, shrubs, or plantings
except grass should be allowed. The also feel there should be no
elevation changes allowed. No landscape timbers or rocks in excess
of 2" in diameter should be allowed. The Commission suggests that
nothing be placed within 10' of any fire hydrant and directed Ann
to contact the Fire Department for their input. The Commission
also feels that it should state that the City will assume no
liability for any damage done to anything placed within the
specified area. Ann is to contact Licht and consult with him with
regard to the size of area which should be specified and also to
ask him to draft an amendment to the ordinance and to offer his
suggestion as to what section of the ordinance it should be
included in.
.
/,
.
PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/27/92
Page 3
The entire Planning Commission wants it specifically noted in
the minutes that they are in total disagreement with Couri' s
interpretation of the minimum house size to be allowed in the
Westwind P.U.D. The Commission feels that although a mistake may
have been made in issuing the first permit on June 17, 1988, that
error should not be allowed to continue. The Commission further
feels that since there are no formal P.U.D. documents, the
developer should be required to comply with current ordinance
requirements.
The Planning Commission referred to the minutes of the January
19, 1988, City Council minutes, page 4, last paragraph in which it
states "Another point made was that the developers want a high
quality development and are looking for development to take place
in the area of $75,000 to $89,000." The Planning Commission feels
that a house in the price range mentioned in the minutes could not
possibly refer to a smaller sized house in 1988. They feel that a
smaller sized home in 1988 would have cost considerably less.
The Planning Commission feels strongly that this should not be
allowed to happen again in the future.
.
Johnson made a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve revision of the development district to include 50th Street
on the southerly border, to 51st Street on the north, and Main
Avenue to the easterly city limit. Berning seconded the motion.
All voted aye.
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the need for an
adul t use ordinance and the steps necessary in placing such an
ordinance in effect. They were given the necessary information and
continued further discussion of the proposed ordinance until the
November 24, 1992, meeting. Scheduling of a public hearing will be
postponed until such time as the Commission has reviewed all
information and concluded their findings of fact.
The Commission tabled any discussion on the proposed rezoning
request by Don Hall until such time as a complete package has been
received and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and David Licht.
The Commission requests that the information also include the
proposed use of this property, why the applicant is requesting
rezoning as opposed to buying property in an area which is
currently zoned Industrial, and on what grounds the applicant feels
this request should be granted. The Commission also wants the
applicant to submit his proposal regarding cleaning of his
equipment and disposal of any sludge resulting from this.
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/27/92
Page 4
Berning questioned what further steps have been taken
regarding Bea Roden's need to obtain a conditional use permit and
have requested Linda Houghton provide them with an update.
Haller made a motion to adjourn at 9:10 PM. The motion was
seconded by Larson. All voted aye.
I
!
I
J
~ APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST
Applicant's Name: ~{)W IIR.JJ ~I?E'LltJ
Address: o~(J1 i../~tA, Ave N #&02
IVELJ J.I(Jp~ /YtN 6~<I~
Phone (Day): 6'37- J7<J~--
Action requested of Planning & Zoning Board:
Variance #' oZC)O
Subdivision
Rezoning
Minor Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit
Final Plat
Preliminary Plat
Other (Please Describe): ~~~ oa~~
/~so
Address of Subject Property:
. Property ID Number: /0/-\..5'00 -O//c?</o<
Does Applicant have 100% ownership interest in property?
If not, list other owners and nature of all ownership interests:
Deposit for application processing:
./-J--o l 00
Recording Fees:
TOTAL
$15.00
4 ~~ 0-6
Deposit is an estimate only. Submission of this application
will obligate applicant to pay all expenses incurred by the City in
processing this application.
~~o? -P16d!JO
{!k~d.5~d CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
..
.
.
.
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST
PAGE 2
Applicant understands that applicant and/or landowner ( s) shall
be liable for all costs incurred by the City of Albertville in
processing this application, including engineering, planning,
attorney, inspection, publication, and other fees and expenses
necessary in processing this application. Applicant an/or
landowner must pay all such fees and expenses within thirty (30
days of billing by the City. Applicant and landowner agree that if
applicant or landowner fail to pay said fees and expenses within
thirty (30) days of billing, the City is hereby authorized to
specially assess said fees and expenses against the property upon
which this application is submitted. Applicant acknowledges that
the above fees and expenses shall be in addition to Sewer Access
Charges, Water Access Charges, Building Permit Fees, Subdivision
Fees, and other fees which may by law or ordinance apply.
Signature of applicant:
~d~~
Signature of Landowner(s):
(if different than
applicant)
Date of Application:
/()-~-9Q..
I~c
.
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
URBAN PLANNING'DESIGN.MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Albertville Planning Commission
FROM:
Bob Kirmis/David Licht
DATE:
22 October 1992
RE:
Albertville - Breun Subdivision .
FILE NO:
163.06 - 92.05
EXECUTIVE SUMl\1ARY
BACKGROUND
.
Mr. Ed Breun has submitted a request to split a 14,400 square foot
parcel of land located south of 60th Street and east of Main
Street. The said parcel currently holds the Lamp Post Inn
Restaurant and carwash. The lot split is being pursued to allow
the sale of the carwash portion of the property. The subject site
is zoned B-4, General Business.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Certificate of Survey
Exhibit D - Site Photos
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of
the requested minor subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Proof is provided that Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 which underlay
the subject site have been legally combined. If findings are
made that a lot combination has not taken place, a replat of
the property will be necessary (Planning Commission and City
Council review recommended) .
.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9837
. Ordinance
Requirement Parcel A Parcel B
Lot Area None 10,500 SF 3,900 SF
Lot Width None 100 Feet 41 Feet
Setbacks
Front Yard None 14 Feet None
Side Yard None 51 Feet None
Rear Yard 20 Feet 36 Feet 39 Feet
.
.
Off-Street Parkinq. Considering that the carwash and Lamp Post Inn
currently lie upon a single parcel of land, some assurance should
be made that the proposed lot division will not cause a shortage of
off - street parking for either business. Carwash patrons have
historically not used Parcel A for off-street parking. As such,
this is not anticipated to be a major concern. Some discussion of
this issue may, however, be warranted.
Easements. As shown on the submitted certificate of survey, a 22
foot wide ingress and egress easement is to be provided along the
southern boundary of Parcel A. A description of the said easement
has appropriately been provided in the survey's legal description.
According to Section A - 600.11 (a) of the City Subdivision
Ordinance, drainage and utility easements of at least ten (10) feet
in width must be provided on all lots. The need for such easements
along the newly created lot line should be subject to comment by
the City Engineer.
Trash Enclosure. As shown on the submitted survey, a trash
enclosure currently lies along the eastern property line of Parcel
A. According to Section 1000.4.C of the Zoning Ordinance,
accessory buildings for all principal uses other than single family
detached dwellings shall conform to the setback requirements
specified in the respective zoning district in which they are
located.
As noted previously, the applicable B-4 zoning district requires a
20 foot setback in rear yards. Considering that the eastern border
of Parcel A is technically defined as its rear lot line, the trash
enclosure should be shifted to meet required setbacks. If the
applicant wishes to retain the existing trash enclosure location,
approval of a variance would be necessary.
Park Dedication. Considering that a new lot is to be created by
the proposed subdivision, appropriate park dedication/cash
contribution requirements should be met. A determination of an
appropriate dedication/contribution should be made by the City.
3
;~.;.~
.
.
.
2.
Consideration is given to the effects the proposed subdivision
may have upon the off-street parking supplies of the
restaurant and carwash.
3. The City Engineer provide comment as to the need for utility
and drainage easement along the proposed interior lot line.
4. The restaurant's trash enclosure is shifted westward to meet
the required 20 foot rear yard setback. If the applicant
wishes to retain the existing trash enclosure location, the
granting of a setback variance will be necessary.
5. The City provide comment as to appropriate park dedication
requirements to be imposed on the newly created lot.
6. Comments from other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Minor Subdivision. The applicant wishes to split a 14,400 square
foot parcel of land into a 10,500 square foot and 3,900 square foot
parcel. The said lot division qualifies as a minor subdivision as
it involves the division of a lot from a larger tract of land
thereby creating no more than two lots. Because the land division
involves property which has been previously platted, the City
Administrator holds the authority to approve the subdivision,
provided it complies with applicable provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Existinq Nonconfor.mity. Prior to subdivision approval, the
applicant should provide proof that Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 which
underlay the subject site have been legally combined. If findings
are made that the said lots have not been consolidated, it will be
necessary to pursue a replat of the subj ect property, in which
case, Planning Commission and City Council review of the plat are
recommended. Assuming lots 5 and 6 have been legally combined, a
nonconformity appears to exist in regard to the placement of two
principal buildings upon a single lot (restaurant and carwash).
According to Section 1000.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, not more
than one principal building may be located on a single lot, except
via planned unit development. As such, the proposed lot division
is considered positive in that it will resolve this nonconformity.
B-4 Lot Reauirements and Setbacks. As noted previously,
subject property lies in the B-4, General Business District.
shown below, both parcels (and principal structures)
applicable B-4 lot requirements and setbacks.
the
As
meet
2
.>:~
.
.
.
Past ADDrovals. As a condition of subdivision approval, conditions
currently imposed on the affected businesses should be upheld
(i.e., parking supply, screening, etc.).
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of
the proposed Breun lot split subject to the conditions listed in
the Executive Summary of this report.
4
t;
I;),
r"
1\
E
Ii
t.
t
E
f:
r;:
(.
W
1/
I(
fil
fi
L
1\
1/
~;:
ti
vi"
Ii
(
l
k
t!.
tt
r?
tW:'B@~
:,:,,',TI<7:..,7.S:G\O"J\7{:;j-
)1
?!J
;'1
"j
J
:.i
).l
!l
::j
\1
:.:1
1
;\1
)i
i~
':1 :E
}~ ~
'1
'." ,."
jJ-
::\
J
;j
;1
:1
:j
':i
j
\1
:.,.1
hi
/1
.d
ij
......... \1
....., J
"'" ~
',';,1
'\}
..;;Jz';;;;';':~:;2;.'~;;;;;:fu:""':~~~'ili""':~'"","""'""V""ili!"",,,,,,,'::iif;'3~
'N '3^Y hlY'IlYW
..'.....,.:.;,,,.: '."......:.:.;"::.....j
~ 0l
';i
H
-\L-:-.-:-:::.;7:.-'''--:~''~
...'"
~u
..
'"
..
..J
N ~
...
z
>-'
on
3'N 3^~ ~ll~
on
NI
...
z
....
on
~
~
~30N\l'l
"
o
of>
.~ -,
.~^V
@
xn~
.
.
~ ~. -------
~ '.............
'I~
'"
'"
...... ":;;;C@ ":'i::ii;;;;}jjfjj;;""":;;;;""'''lli'"''''''''''''''''''~;B;'"'"'''"'''''iZ':2I.';;;i;:i;L\;;;;;'W:.'~:'Z.'2;;;''S;'ii:i'~'~"ic2W;;:;;':;S;'!.lli;;;;Ji~"'"
"
~~
:dO
>rJ)
~w
wZ
coZ
...J -
<~
n€ ~
!-!2~ 1;l
~~~
~~
.~
~
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
.~_..-
.
"~'~"'+"":J.r-:-'!:.--;
"':
....5::'
, , 3
~ .
. 'z ~
~ 4
...
~ .",.
- ~ J;
l'
,s.....~ot. J
~ .'
:ly, '. ".
"" "eo
.
"
2.
~.:- <;c
,0> ..."
...... ~II 10
.'" .... .... "...
I: . ~
~
'-
" f.t/QJ..~
,,' , 7/1,14 }-
~L.".ST. ..L.-
o ,...
I< I
.
.. Q
, ~
',-
-\.
.......~.
~ 4 ,
..
...
. 5 c
.. '"
IOJ . .
....
:~
I
I
'. .L
....., en
I
I
J
"
I.IJ
~,
I
59T" ST. N.8
.
Q ,.... t
,~ . :3
,0 "'2011 >!
-.
t . , 4 .
\'I /{' of' oJ'
,- :4'-
.,
-';.. .
....>t..~\~.~~;:......
~'/4
\
\
'.
A
I
~ 8
\
\
"
....
....
"
'..
:"\
"'~"I.
t\to,<;>
"'J..;~
'<;>t\t
01 ''Z-C/';'
:2
<t
::Ef""'~-'
. & J, ~ 'ej ;,
:2
f
t,!
---~-
'''1 It..' ;.
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION
".2JiliI
.
~
~
c:::::.....-
..
~
.,,3
!-
~~
--;;2&
'-- ./'
.
.
~,
s';
J!;;c
~f~ ..
'i:<f::.
~
~.
--T
.,
-.1
=----
.
.~
~
.....
-:Z
'-
~~
~t
L..
~
~
s::"
--~'OO(
,-
~ - ,
,
I
~1~1\\r:?~:~t:~:??~:~:~:~:~:~:~t~:~:~:~:~:~:~:?~:~:~:~:~:?~:?~:~:~~:~:~:?~:~:~:~:~:~ t:~:?? jI~ ":--:';' .
:::::: ::::::. ~. .. . .
.::=::: :::::::
:::;:; -s= :;;::::
.jjjjjj ~\ -1 ~ mr .
~;m~~_q~J ~ ~ ~ ,~ f
:;:;:;~ .._~-_. r\S .......
"or 0- ........
t~:~.- ....... '. . /.
:~.:.~.,.:?,,:; ..'....
.. .:.:.:. ...
?~:;:~:~:r~:~:~:~:~:~:r~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:o . t:> '? i:~:?~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:r~:~:?' r??~:f) ,.'
I
\
~
'. ~
-~"-'
. . ..,..
...,
<;= -
~
-
.....q
~
0,)
..
~
s..J
~~
$~
I
(
--~6"66 --...--/
I
"'-:$:
, E,
..~
..;:..:
-'
....
--':;-. :--
>t
,. ".
. ;"",..
........
~.
. '"
,""
/, ,
'..J J
<-
c::s-:
cA
~
. "
, .
....~ .
"" I
.\.... "
-'"
\
\
:J
~
-'"
....
-.....
i ::s
... <:I --
\ c::c-
-.l I
~
I
'I' ~ ~
< \ .: ~
--\-
(l) )l ~ ~, &
u ~ ~
'- 1 t !
r\S -
0- ~ .s'
) ~ ~
-,- <
t>~
<:17t -r-~
I -----.... 'iI'~J ~~ g~1
I
~ ~
- \- ~ -
~ ~"'I -- c;;: ~
.....-. ~ ...
c ~
- -1
O'-p~
\' -<:1;/--
\
r'
, >
(\
\...
~
~
~
~
I
.
~
__I
\
\
\
.-_1
-- ~~ 'bb
--
$.
fP:P16
~/~
/
t ~
<I ..
__ c
.r:~
T' ~
"
l
I ....:',
....-l!l
q
o~-;:
,
I I
-"
kPil'1
~
.....------.
~
..
~d
- ...
... Q
c:::...J_
-;;:fdl
~ ~
-j1
.d .:!r
~-
<:>~
~2
- <.
~;:{
~c::..or
.--1 ..
=--:::!!:
-"3
.~':2 -:
~~3
.,~=+-
<.f' .. ..
../
~
~
O'
tP
'l-
I- Z
'" '"
'" :I
101. ::t
0 Z
. ~ 0
:I
'" Z
..J 0
~
u !!:
~
lit
0 U '"
N X ~
~ z
cz: '"
\:l Q
0
0
0
~
......
EXHIBIT C - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
r
c~~
.
..
-----
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
.
.
LOOKING SOUTH
EXHIBIT 01 - SITE PHOTOS
...~
.
;.
LOOKING SOUTHEAST
.
.
LOOKING EAST
EXHIBIT 02 ~ SITE PHOTOS
,-
.
.
.
M E M 0
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ANN CULLEY
dz/u
OCTOBER 19. 1992
PROPOSED ORDINANCE GOVERNING PLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPE-
TYPE ITEMS AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS
I talked with David Licht today regarding the above mentioned
proposed ordinance, It is his opinion that this situation is
covered under 1000,8 (a) and (b) Traffic Visibility and 2600,2 and
2600,2 Public Property /Rights-of-Way, Copies of these are attached
for your review,
It is Licht's opinion that no further action need be taken on
this issue.
b>~!'>~
.
(G) Existing Trees. With respect to existing trees in
new developments, all trees on the site are to be saved
which do not have to be removed for street, buildings,
utilities, drainage or active recreational purposes.
Trees over six (G) inches in diameter that are to
remain, are to be marked with a red band, and to be
protected with snow fences or other suitable enclosure,
prior to any site grading or excavation. The City may
further require that the Applicant retain a
professional forester to prepare a forest inventory and
management plan for the development, in order to
control and abate any existing or potential shade tree
disease.
(d) Mechanical Equipment. All mechanical equipment such as air
conditioning units, etc., erected on the roof of any structure,
shall be screened so as not to be visible.
62
1000.B.
Traffic Visibility.
.
(a) On corner lots in all districts, no structure or
planting in excess of the street center line grade shall be
permitted within a triangular area defined as follows:
beginning at the intersection of the projected property
lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty (30) feet
from the point of beginning on the other property line,
thence to the point of beginning. (See also Section 1000.G)
(b) Fences, Walls and Hedges: No fence, wall or hedge
shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow in such
a manner as to materially impede vision between a height of
two (2) feet and eight (B) feet where it will interfere with
traffic or pedestrian visibility from a driveway or alley to
a public way. In required front yards or a required side
yard abutting a street on a corner lot, fences, walls,
hedges, or structures shall be at least seventy-five (75)
percent open space for passage of air and light. These
regulations shall apply unless it can be demonstrated that
the structure provides an unobstructed view so as not to
create a safety hazard.
1000.9.
Drainage Plans.
(a) No land shall be developed and no use shall be allowed
that results in water runoff causing flooding, erosion, or
deposit of minerals on adjacent properties. Such runoff
shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, water
course, ponding area, or other public facilities subject to
the review and approval of the City Engineer and in
accordance with storm drainage plans as may be established
by the City.
'.
:..A.
1
i.
.
:;.
PUBLIC PROPERTY/RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Section
2600.1
2600.2
Coverage
Liability
2600.1. Coveraqe. The erection and/or placement of any
structure in the public right-of-way or on City property by any
person, or group other than a governmental unit shall require the
processing of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section
400 of this Chapter.
2600.2. Liability. As a condition of approval for the
erection or placement of a structure in the public right-Of-way,
or on City property by any party other than a governmental unit,
the applicant shall be required to hold .harmless the City of
Albertville for any potential liability and shall demonstrate to
the City proof of adequate liability insurance.
123
-,-.--4:,.'.;:iOii
.
.
.
From RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
PHONE No.
Oct.231992 9:22PM P02
612 497 2599
MEMORANDUM
TO! ALDERTVILLB PLANNING OOMMISSION
FROM: MIKE COURI
SUBJECT: REVISION OF ALBERTVILLE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1992
~~--~~---------------------~~~~--------------~~~~~~~-------------~
The Ci~y of Albortville has recGn~ly amended Gome ot ~heir
oxisting Tax Incremen~ Finanoing (TIF) budgets ~nd has alloca~ed
money for the upgrading of 50th strQGt (from << 7 ton to a 9 ton
road) and for ~hG oonstruotion of sidewalks alon9 50th s~ree~ to
the hi9h school. However, in order to use TIF money for this
purpose, the 50th street por~ion of thG city must be within the
Albertville Developmen~ Dis~riot.
The Development Distriot is an area designated by the city
council for special development. Development dictriota are
nooessary under Minnesota State StatuteD in order for the City to
have the authority to spend TIF monies, ~et up a rodevelopment
distriot (urban renewal di~trict), special housing di~trict, etc.
The proposed addition of the 50th streot aroa is shown on ~he
attaohed map. The Planning Commission mu~t be oonGultod regarding
Qny change in ~he development district. While the statutes do not
~ot any $tandQrds as to what the Planning commission should
oonsider regQrdin9 the development district, I would SU9gest that
the Planning commission review this matter from the point of view
of tho bonefitc to aocruo to tho. public from the proposed
redistricting, including the proposed sidewalk installation and
upgrado of 50th ~treet. The Commission should, in the form of a
motion, either recommend ~hQt ~he 50th street area be added to the
development district or that the dis~rict should remain unchanged.
.
.
.
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP
PROPOSED MOD /13
.....EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY
~~JPROPOSED ADDITION TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
-
-- --- ~
\
I
.
~
~ ----
------~
I
1
\
i
I
I
:
-.-..--
i'
I'
I
I
I
i
i .
i
. I I
I I I
r-- -----------
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
!
I
CITY 0" I
AL.8ERTViL.L.EI
...... ~..............
S& I
I
- ,.*
L
~
l
i;
,.......
From RRDZWILL LRW OFFICE
PHOl'lE No,
612 497 2533
Ijet. do,:; l'=,'=,<::: .;:,. J.QHI'I r-IOJ.
RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
Attorlleys at Law
705 C~lllr(11 Avefllle East
P. O. Bo.'( 369
Sa/lit Michael, MlmuJSola 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (PAX)
Met J. Dallman,
Admin, A.f.fi,ftanl
John DeLaundreau,
Financial Analy.d
Kristina DcLaundrcau,
A(~c.'OUIU8 RccfJiYf,lblf.'
Donna J. Matson,
Receptionist/Clerk ,
. William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Courl
Stanley A. Bllison
October 22, 1992
Albertville Planning Commission
Alber~ville Ci~y HAJl
Alb@r~ville, Minnesota SS301
Re: W..twind PUD: Minimum Houe. Size.
Dear Plannin9 commiasions Members:
.
As there have been some questions raised regarding the city
Council's actions at the Ootobar 5, 1992 meeting with re9ard to the
minimum house size allowed in tho Westwind Development, I am
wri~in9 to attempt to clarify the situation. As you ~reprobably
aware, the City of Albertville amended their ~oning ordinance in
the Spring of 1999 to allow for a Planned Dovelopment. zoning status
for the Waatwind propertioc. From t.he records available, it
appears that the Planning commission and the city Council took this
aotion on the basis of a sma.ll-lot general concept plan only I
without requiring more specifio documentation from the Developer as
what standards would apply to the PUD.
On April 27, 1988, the Council entered into a Dcvaloper's
Agreement with John Ocorge, Inc. Unfortunat.ely, in 9oin9 through
the PUD process, neither the Plannil1g Commission nor t.h~ cit.y
Council required ~he Developer to sign "'planned unit agt:eement (or
a final plan), a document which would sP.....ll o-ut in detail exactly
what the PUD would. be and the 5peclficatiG.ns the developer would
have to meet in developinq the PUD (this doc~ent would detail the
s~andard8 for th~ en~ire PUD, hoth residenti~ and conunerci~l, in
con~rQst to a developer's agreement which deal~"with the mechanics
of a partioular phaGo of the development). Shortly thereafter a
building permit was issued for a house wit.hin -the new PUD. That
house has a foundation size of less than 960 square feet
(approximately 910 Gquare feet).
.
It is my balief tha~ the City, in the absenoe of a planned
unit aqroomcnt and having allowed one of the first PUD houses ~o be
built ~o havo a foundation size less than 960 square feet, would be .
very hard pressed to dony that it and the developer had not
/".~
.
.
.
From RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
PHONE No,
612 497 2599
Oct,23 1992 3:16AM P02
Albertville PlanninlJ Commi~F&:i("m
October 22, 1992
Page Two
oontemplated smaller house sizes in tha PUD. An effective argument.
can be made that. by approving a small-lot pUbdivicion, and allowing
the developer to build t.he smaller house in that cubdivision
(particularly as one of the firat hOUGOP built), the city has
effectively agreed to allow such amaller hOUOCG within the PUD.
Late in August of 1991, the Counoil and tho devolopar had
agreed ac to come of the speoifics of the westwind development,
including the sotbaoks, minimum lot size (9,OOO square feet) and
the minimum foundation size. It was my judgment at the Counoil
meeting that tho Counoil could modify what it had agreed to at an
earlier time, co long as this modification was consistent with what
had actually occurred within tho development. In light of the fact
that. at least one houoe with loee than 960 square feet was already
in the development, I viewed thic modifioation as oonsistent with
what the city and the devoloper originally intonded within tho PUD.
While the City oannot ignore its ordinances, particularly the
ordinance that applies to PUDs, that o~dinance assumes that a final
plan exists. Such a plan does not e~ist for this development, as
the current. ordinanoe and its requirements were not in place until
some months after the PUD was in plaoe. While the Council could
have sent t.his matter to the planning Commiscion for itc
consideration I it choose not to based on the facts already
est,<:lblished. Had the Counoil Gent th.:1.c mattor to thG Plannin9
commiseion, it is not clear how or if this matter could be
processed under the new ordinance, since Q final plan document does
not exist..
I would assume that tho Planning C01\\miooion will be
confronting similar development issues as they rel~t.e to t.he
commercial side of the Westwind development, if and when that
portion comes before thE!!: planning commission for platting. It
would be advisable for the city nnd the developer to agree in
writing to as mnny development-specific items as possible at that
time so that a situation such as t.his may be avoided.
If you have any further questionsl please feel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
/J1<~&1 ( C~ '.
Michael C. Couri
RAD~W~LL LAW OFFICE
-
-.: ';"~idIII
.
.
.
M E M 0
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PLANNING COMMISSION
ANN CULLEY
OCTOBER 23, 1992
PROPOSED ADULT USE ORDINANCE
There is a lot of material to review prior to making any
decisions regarding an adult use ordinance. At Tuesday's meeting,
I will give you all of the information needed for your decision
making process, There are some very definite findings of fact
which must be done prior to passage of an ordinance of this nature,
as you will note from Mike Couri's memo, which is attached, and the
material you will receive.
Please review all of this material carefully prior to the
November 10th meeting. You can discuss it and call for a public
hearing at that time,
"'-~
.
.
.
MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
Stanley A. Ellison
P. O.Box 369
&Jim Michael, Minnesota 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Kristina De1Aundreau,
Accounts Receivable
Donna J, MaISon,
Receptionist/Clerk
October 20, 1992'
Albertville Planning commission
Albertville City Hall
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
Re: Adult Use Ordinance.
Dear Planning Commissions Members:
As you are aware, the Albertville Zoning Ordinance is
currently lacking provisions regarding the regulation of adult uses
(i.e. X-rated book stores, theaters, massage parlors, etc.).
Without zoning regulations restricting these uses to designated
areas and providing for proper sign advertising, hours of business,
etc., an adult use may be able to setup business in the City in
any area where the current zoning roughly matches the type of
business (retail, service, etc.), regardless of the harmful effects
to surrounding properties and uses.
As you can imagine, the establishment of such a business near
a school, day-care facility or church may have adverse impacts upon
property values, land uses and, the community as a whole. While the
Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that cities cannot
exclude or "zone out" adult uses, they may regulate such uses with
content-neutral time, place and manner zoning and licensing
ordinances. It is my recommendation that the Planning commission
review this matter and recommend to the Council an ordinance
regulating adult uses as the Planning Commission deems necessary.
Fortunately, much of the groundwork for such an ordinance has
already been completed. Late in 1990 Dave Licht of Northwest
Associated Consul tants, Inc. prepared a draft of an adul t use
ordinance for the City. That ordinance was never acted upon by the
City, but should provide a basis from which to work today. In
addition, NAC has forwarded a sample resolution establishing
:f ,-,-~
.
.
.
M E M 0
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
ANN CULLEY
OCTOBER 23, 1992
PROPOSED ADULT USE ORDINANCE
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
There is a lot of material to review prior to making any
decisions regarding an adult use ordinance, At Tuesday's meeting,
I will give you all of the information needed for your decision
making process, There are some very definite findings of fact
which must be done prior to passage of an ordinance of this nature,
as you will note from Mike Couri's memo, which is attached, and the
material you will receive,
Please review all of this material carefully prior to the
November 10th meeting, You can discuss it and call for a public
hearing at that time,
^~
'~""'. ...ll.....;
.
Albertville
October 20,
Page Two
5'<5'"
Commissioh
Findings of Fact used by the City of otsego in enacting a similar
ordinance. I have also included sample resolutions used by the
City of Otsego City Council for passage of the ordinance once the
Planning Commission has recommended the matter to the Council.
The findings of fact are based on a report regarding the
regulation of sexually oriented businesses compiled by the
Minnesota Attorney General's Office. That report details the
results of several studies showing among other things, that adult
uses tend to lower property values, increase crime in the immediate
area, and contribute to neighborhood decay. Each member of the
Planning Commission should read the entire report so that the
Planning Commission will be able to adequately determine those
areas in which an adult use may be allowed and the conditions upon
which it may operate.
The procedure for passing an adult use ordinance varies
slightly from other land use ordinances:
1.
Each Planning commission member should read the enclosed
report titled, "Report of the Attorney General's working Group
on the Regula't::ion of Sexually Oriented Businesses" and should
review the sample resolutions.
.
2.
On a preliminary basis, the Planning commission should
consider the report's applicability to the City of
Albertville, and if it believes the report applicable, should
refer the matter to NAC for recommendations as to where adult
uses may be located in the City of Albertville in order to
minimize the negative effects upon the community, property
values and uses, as well as a request to update the prior
ordinance for the Commission's review.
3 . Upon review of the recommendations and updated proposed
ordinance, the Commission should decide if changes to the
proposed ordinance are needed. Once the Commission has
arrived at a satisfactory proposed ordinance, it should notice
a public hearing for the matter.
4. At the public hearing the Commission should take public
comments and make a findings of fact regarding the report's
applicability to Albertville and the anticipated secondary
adverse effects of adult uses within the City. If such uses
are found by the Commission to be detrimental to the city and
its residents unless regulated as proposed in the ordinance,
the Commission should recommend to the council that the
ordinance be enacted.
.
.
.
.
: Albertville
. October 20,
paqe Three
5. The Council will then consider the matter at its next meetinq.
If you have any questions reqardinq this matter, please feel
free to contact me.
Enclosures.
Sincerely,
~(.~-
Michael C. Couri
RADZWILL LAW OFFICB
cc: Mr. David Licht
jjA