1992-11-24 PC Agenda Packet
.
I.
II.
III.
IV,
V,
VI.
VII.
VIII,
. IX.
.
AGENDA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 24, 1992
7:00 P.M.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
* November 10, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION REQUEST - ED BREUN
AERO ASPHALT - REZONING REQUEST
ADULT USE ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION
BEA RODEN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURN
,~
.
.
.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 24, 1992
ALBERTVILLE CITY HALL
7:00 PM
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: LeRoy Berning, Howard Larson,
Roger Johnson, and Secretary Ann Culley,
Acting Chairman Berning called the meeting to order at 7:15
PM,
Johnson made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted.
Larson seconded the motion, All voted aye,
motion was made by Larson to approve the minutes of the
27, 1992, meeting correcting paragraph 5 to read the west
the building, not the east side. Johnson seconded the
All voted aye,
A
October
side of
motion,
Dennis Eull was present regarding his proposed purchase of the
Albertville Car Wash from Ed Breun,
Johnson made a motion to open the public hearing regarding the
Breun subdivision and variance requests, The motion was seconded
by Larson, All voted aye,
The Commission first addressed the memo from Mealhouse
regarding the Building Code requirement that the door on the west
side of the building must be blocked closed and must have one hour
rated walls, This must be completed prior to Eull opening for
business, Eull stated that he may not be interested in making this
purchase if he would be unable to utilize this door for his
customers, Eull was reminded that the easement along the westerly
property line was for maintenance purposes only and not for
ingress/egress, The Commission questioned if blocking this door
could cause a possible problem with regard to having a second exit
in case of fire and suggested that he check with Mealhouse to see
if a 1 hour fire rated door could be used instead of block. This
would allow an additional emergency exit also. Eull was given
Mealhouse's phone number and asked to contact him directly to clear
up these questions.
Eull questioned if dumpster areas had to be enclosed for
restaurants only, If so, he stated that K,D. 's Family Restaurant's
was not enclosed, Larson observed that a number of other types of
businesses in Albertville also had dumpsters which were not
enclosed, The Commission directed Ann to check into this and get
back to Eull with an answer,
Berning questioned whether or not Breun was aware of the $140
park dedication fee which would be required, Eull stated that he
had talked with Breun regarding this matter,
-
"",,,,.;':;'~ '_";.;;,;.'.:4ollIl~~"'.'~.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/24/92
Page 2
There being no further comments or questions from those
present, Berning made a motion to close the public hearing, Larson
seconded the motion, All voted aye,
.Johnson made a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the subdivision request contingent upon the buyer working
out his concerns regarding the door on the west side of the
building and that the Council approve the variance request to
locate the trash area next to the property line. Larson seconded
the motion. All voted aye.
Tom Haller arrived at 8: 35 PM and Acting Chairman Berning
turned the meeting over to him,
The Planning Commission next addressed Aero Asphalt's rezoning
request and the issue of scheduling a public hearing, The
Commission expressed a number of concerns with regard to the
possibility of granting the rezoning request, The concerns are as
follows:
1, There is property available which is currently zoned
industrial, Is there a real need for more industrial?
2, Precedence has already been set for current "B" zoning,
Do we want to change that at this point?
3. Is this request in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive plan?
4, Is this the highest and best use of this property, which
is essentially the "front door" to the Albertville Community?
5. There is currently no allowance for the proposed modular
building in the Zoning Ordinance, even on a temporaty basis,
6. There could be a problem with drainage into the lake and
the Commission is concerned with possible contamination of the
lake,
The Commission will do further research and will address these
concerns with Aero Asphalt at the time of the public hearing.
Berning made a motion to schedule the public hearing for December
22, 1992 at 7:00 PM. Haller seconded the motion, All voted aye.
The Commission next addressed the Conditional Use Request for
Beatrice Roden. Mrs, Roden's building has already been built due
to an incomplete site plan which was provided at the time of the
building permit application, The Commission has requested that
Kevin Mealhouse be present at the December 22, 1992, Planning
Commission meeting in order to address this type of situation and
how the City can prevent this from happening again in the future,
Kevin is asked to be there by 8:30 PM,
Berning made a motion to schedule a public hearing to consider
the Roden request for a Conditional Use Permit on December 22,
1992, at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Haller, All voted
aye.
.~>.,_. ",..',fj.~~
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/24/92
Page 3
Berning made a motion to schedule a public hearing for
consideration of the proposed Fire Hydrant Ordinance on December
22, 1992, at 9:00 PM, Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The Planning Commission next discussed the need for an adult
use ordinance and the steps necessary in placing such an ordinance
in effect. They were given more information to use in researching
this proposed ordinance, Andy MacArthur of Bill Radzwill's office
was present and further clarified the need for an ordinance of this
type, the steps which need to be taken in order to put such an
ordinance in effect, and the reasoning behind same. The Commission
requested that a check list be put together to aid them in their
endeavor, The Planning Commission will discuss the Adult Use
Ordinance in more depth at their next meeting.
The Commission further requested check lists to aid them in
their steps toward making findings of fact with regard to
Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Rezoning, Planned Unit
Developments, and Subdivisions. Andy will provide copies of
samples to Ann.
Johnson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10: 15 PM.
Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye,
~. ~~~-,c""",,,.,. ~.~
~
~
,.."C._
JFN: .,
c
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
URBAN PLANNING.OESIGN.MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ann Culley
FROM:
David Licht
DATE:
18 November 1992
RE:
Albertville - Aero Asphalt
FILE NO:
163.06 - 92.06
In response to your memorandum of 16 November, we have the
following comments and observations relative to the questions posed
by the Planning Commission on the requested Aero Asphalt rezoning/
development.
Processing Requirements
The site in question is presently zoned B-3, which is a "Highway
Commercial" zoning district intended for retailing and service type
operations. By stated intent, as well as permissible activities,
the Aero Asphalt business would not fit into this zoning
classification.
Depending upon circumstances to be noted later in this memorandum,
it would appear that there are two or three rezoning options which
would accommodate the proposed use. The I-lor I-2 zones would
allow the asphalt operation with a cortditional use permit necessary
for the proposed outside storage. Alternatively, a PUD Zoning
District might also be appropriate and preferable. Under the PUD
zoning, a development-performance contract, with possible financial
securities, could be required which would address the outside
storage, as well as the proposed "temporary" office structure. Our
reading of the Ordinance indicates that a temporary building,
unless handled by a PUD, is not allowed and would, as a
consequence, require a text amendment to accommodate, if the City
found such an "interim" arrangeme~t acceptable in an I-1/I-2
classification.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax, 595-9837
.
.
-
We emphasize these foregoing comments address the processing/
procedure issue only and are not an evaluation of the acceptability
of the proposal. Direction is only offered as to what zoning
applications and consideration options are open to Aero Asphal t and
the City.
The property in question also is classified as an S-l, Shoreland
Overlay Zoning District. The primary impact of this designation is
in the form of impervious surface requirement maximums (30 percent)
and setbacks (see pages 203 and 204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
These may have some implications for the proposal, especially if a
large permanent structure with major outside storage area is the
ultimate plan.
Finally, depending upon the course of action
Comprehensive Plan amendment may also be required.
addressed further in the next section.
selected, a
This issue is
Reclassification of Parcell Area
The issue of rezoning the parcel or larger area in which the parcel
is located, is a policy matter which is the jurisdiction of the
Planning Commission and City Council. Moreover, it is a
comprehensive planning question. The area north of the freeway on
the east side of the City is specifically addressed as Planning
District 9 (pages 113-115) in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel
and the area immediately surrounding have been designated as
commercial due primarily to access as well as visibility (see
Exhibit B). The current Comprehensive Plan's philosophy is to
concentrate industrial development primarily in the industrial park
due to infra-structure investments, the large availability of space
as contrasted to limited markets, as well as maintaining use
compatibility. A rezoning of the Aero Asphalt site would, as a
consequence, necessitate a Comprehensive Plan amendment plus a
rethinking of the I-94/County Road 37 interchange area to the north
and west. From a broad perspective, City officials need to
consider whether: '
1. the interchange area, as a primary entrance to the City, is
generally suitable for industry~
2. A need exists to provide additional industrially zoned land in
the City.
3. The industrial use is compatible for the area (lake,
residential use to the west/north, etc.).
2
,
~
~
The Zoning Ordinance also stipulates the evaluation of several
specific matters in reclassification requests. These are:
1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be
consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and
future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards
contained herein.
4. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the
area in which it is proposed.
5. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public
services and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use within capabilities of
streets serving the property.
Beyond this broad question of changing the area's use designation
is the character of development which is seen as suitable for the
interchange area. This question would apply to a reclassification
of a large area or simply the specific site. Of concern in this
regard is the size and degree of outside storage as well as non-
retailing/service functions. If outside storage is seen as
suitable, the percentage of area devoted to such activity should be
defined as well as the mitigation measures (screening/landscaping)
which are seen as necessary. Moreover, the type of outside storage
should also be considered. For example, should it include
equipment, materials, stock piles, etc.?
Answers to the questions raised above will first determine whether
the Aero Asphalt (industrial use) is generally acceptable for the
area in which it is proposed. If it is concluded that a change in
designation should take place to accommodate the development, a
resolution needs to be reached on whether it should be only the
site in question or a larger area. Given the fact that industrial
uses and consumer oriented commercial operations are not typically
compatible and have different impacts and needs, acceptability of
the Aero Asphalt request would suggest that a larger area than just
the site in question would need reclassification. This could be
accomplished on an immediate or on a phased basis over time, with
a decision made on Aero occurring first and a larger area
consideration taking place later. A decision on Aero would,
however, set a precedent and basically predetermine the future of
the larger I-94/County Road 37 interchange area on the northwest
side of the freeway. There are both positive and negatives to
either approach. Timing of a large area rezoning would, for
example, take longer to consider.
3
.
.
.
If a rezoning is to be instituted for only the Aero Asphalt site,
we would suggest a PUD rezoning be considered. This would limit
the precedent which is established relative to zoning, plus afford
substantial controls and protections. If rezoning of a larger area
is the course of action selected, an I-lor possibly I-2
designation would appear appropriate as the use character being
established would be broader based than just one site. In either
case, a Comprehensive Plan amendment should also be processed along
with conditional use permits and/or text amendments which may be
applicable.
Related Considerations
A decision on the acceptability of having industrial uses in the I-
94/County Road 37 interchange area is the first and basic decision
which must be made. Subsequently, site planning issues and
proposal details may have to be addressed. Based upon limited
review, several site/proposal matters generate some degree of
concern. These are as follows:
A. OUtside Storage:
Type: As noted previously what is the type of storage
which is proposed and what is considered acceptable.
Possibilities would appear to include vehicles,
equipment, materials, and stock piles.
2. Screening/Buffering: What measures (berms, plantings,
etc. ) are proposed and what landscaping measures are
necessary for screening and buffering of the open
storage.
1.
3. Financial Securities: Are financial guarantees necessary
to insure installation as well as maintenance of screens
and buffers.
B. Temporary (Mobile) Office:
1. Building Code compliance.
2. Building quality acceptabi~ity
3. Replacement plan and assurances
4. Sewer/water availability/hookups.
C. Cost/Revenue Benefit:
1.
2.
3.
Property tax generated by use.
Service costs (streets/fire protection, etc.).
Property value impact - neighboring area.
4
.
.
.
The above cited issues are emphasized to be only initial questions
raised by the Aero proposal. If the rezoning of the site/area is
pursued, these matters, as well as others which may be identified
upon detailed plan review, will have to be resolved.
We would also note that the type, quality and character of the
first or "lowest" use within an area will set the context for all
future uses. This fact needs to be considered as part of the
determination on the Aero Asphalt request.
pc: Michael Couri
5
-
I ,~
J
r~ /
, //
-.~".~
-
tt
.~
.I
~
\:
~ -:.
I
~
';
r
'....
:" "
k~7' ~.; 'i 2:: ': ,!(... 0.-.. ...t.....
_ . I..... Ii::. ...,.::;~';
v-
JO
....J.I:>
"
I
I
~ I
I~
I
I
I
. '
(.
'"
i
"v;'
o~
~
.1..1.1:>
...
...
...
a::
...
ell
\..
\\
t
.
.'
~ . ':
:~. .'~~ ...~'" :,
......:. ....
. '0' ,0 ..
, : ",,.~:,...,.'
.....
2
:.)
(')
<:~
, .
.' ':'
. ....,
.,.. .
. . " '. ~
.... ,= ~ .'. .'
. .' . . . .
:. " .
'... .."
.......
, "
:... '.',
. .t.;....
. . .:
.... .
0
.
.=t i~
"., 't':
" . -".
;l .ra
-; (.
)":.
A J.t :>
.....
~..:.u: . ..:.:."':....;. .
~ . .. '.'
::;;;;;;.'~~::::;:'~:;:';:~
. .., .
,.0. ,'0
-l,"IJ ~:
" /gi"
- "tlt.;r
-,;' cl
. ~ '... .... .:;.: ~.
, ..
..
.~. ,,:0'
: ,~.
I
I
I
I
: '~I
I
~..
". "
'::,:'"
"
.-.., .
, ..
... "."
0,' .
, .
'... . ...~ ..
. .: .~.. ~ .
.l...
~~
J'
...~
u.i
:Z
I
../
J
"l
,I
r.> I
;."!
~JI ~:
Illi
~~
....,:
n::
......
i,~:.i
r-'
~._)
L!J
."
\....
EXHIBIT "A"
.
~
a
z
~
....
a
u.I
0,
o
a.
o
a:
a.
-
0" )
(It
-
o
o
..
-
en 0
" (It
o ::)
(It ."
0.0 !
ii ....
& ~ :e
e ~
.. ..
- Cll
u."
CG c
~ =
o 0
ZCD
Ci
:;::
c
o
"
"0
o
a:
~
-
"0
c
o
C
==
o
-J
Ci
:;::
c
o
"
"0
o
a:
~
~
"0
c
o
c
e
=
:s
o
:i
-j
I
...--.,-
,
~:~
DE. ."
t
Ci
;::
c
u
:g
'(It
o
a:
~
-
"0
c
o
C
J:
en
:i:
z
:E
.2
:0
=
Co
...
W
..J
..J
-
>
, I-
'.... a:
:0 w
: >m
:.... ..J
: (3 <2:
I
ii
Q
..
o
e
e
o
o
Ci
~
-
(It
=
"
.5
O.FJJ
-m
EI ~
= I
1._____.,_______
i2_1
. ___r.
I
I
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
......------- I
I
I
I
I
,
1,1
EXHIB IT liB II
(
,
11G
-
.~
...
i~
r' J'~
~ '.'
," . .."
......-
b.
-l\
II
~c.:.
~.
:':\.J,
~
--
-:;r.-
<:..",...
~
t~ _,_
'r-
-..
~,
1$
-=--: 1
-~~~
c..~ ·
C)~
c:>~
~-.i'
~1,
-.:2 <:..:
~~
Q~~
,~ ~
-i'1
~\S'
'-.-
'") I
~
~Q "It"
- ~
-I:) c:>
;- ~
~"TT
~'"
..\'"
,.
. .
.." -_~_ -.1'_--
,-'
,
\
_..L~___
~~~~
)c~ \~
LX f
~~
~
- --~
,,~
~ .
.,,~.,_., ,
~"" I
~J~ ~)
~o...r- ,
J ~ ~ "
:!1~
~..f\-1
~ ~-
~ ':It .>>
~.,))
j :::'". ~
.~~~
- .
~ ..'v
- '# :\~
..~ f~lf Q
0,
,
,
(
~
~\
-~o
~-
~ "c
- -
~~
.FA
'~
I
L
(n.. ".r; "i / ~ 'fy
- '7.2 'r1)bZ -.
.'~
~~
'^~
~~
c-r,s.--
......,
'~
I ?
~.~
\t\ ~
~ ,:r-
I 'f\
.' '\
~.
\.1>
~
-::"
Co.'"
r:,.
I
I ..,
'''-.-
"
- --;:::--:::-
'~ ~
~~. ~
.... ....~
"''\-~
~-., ~
.Co ~ -:t
No.
'~
,,-
...\
'\ .
,.
\)
\
.
~
"I~-
".
...
,
C,
/S
..
-I ~
7-.d> ~ :\J
(') ~ ~~
~.~~
~~.s:
'... ~.. t
"~...._.J ""e-'
I
I
.~
~;- ~ \.
,.~ ~~
f
~ ~>::"'~'r
""-4.- "3 j' ,of
~.\: tfI~
~;;,~ ~
~~<
'.; ~ ~.
~.,.. )--
'i ~~ ~'IIr
~ ~.~ .--;.~
.--J ~ '.:::i.
EX~IBIT "e"
.
.
.
Q //-c;O-;?.;?
c2-k ~ -9'4'~c?
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING BEQUBST
Applicant ~ s Name: ~~-I' /' -I'" ~rL-L-'../
Address: _<-9 S-..3' or/.;; gJ~~ ~, }?E...
at/..e;r~ ~ J .,s-.>'?e:>/
"
Phone (Day): '-ff7-::t 1'37
Action reqQe8~ed of Planning & Zoning Board:
Variance
Subdivision
Rezoning
Minor Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit
Final Plat
Preliminary Plat
Y Other (Please Describe): 1lt~) A <' 4-l;l"" J/,i( (' II P - ~
Address of Subject Property: s9s 3 otq;J -up,n<;?- ~ ~ YJ. c .
aJ1,...e..,~ ~, S-S-3o /
Property ID Number:
P a.. If' c.. e J ~ 10 I - 5""00 - 0 2. Ii 0 I
Does Applicant have 100% ownership interest in property?
Ves
I
If not, list other owners and nature of all ownership interests:
Deposit for application processing:
.p..
Recording Fees:
$15.00
I
$:!5:t:'t'
TOTAL FEES
Deposit is an estimate only. Submission of this application
will obligate applicant to pay all expenses incurred by the City in
processing this application.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
.
.
.
APPLICATION I'OR CONSIDDATION 01' PLARHING 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 t 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:
Signature of Landowner(s):
(if different than
applicant)
Date of Application:
I.. .. l'
.
.
'\J
\
~
\.
i'\..
~
\j
"-
\\
\
.
C7#N;,7_
I'
/2. ,4c.,.cs
I;;;)
~
'7 jJ J./ 'tl.S~
~ qq,"~1~
~
~ ....
~1" ;\ .J
,. '(J
.." ~
,-p
--a:;:,,/
/e::.' /9 J ./
.
:z. '+"
..
\
[k
If \
.1
~,
<: ..>
'zLf'''
I
I
.,_...,--~~Q~Jt1L_,
/! c/. /)'