2015-02-10 PC Agenda Packet
PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
7:00 PM
1.CALL TO ORDER -ROLL CALL –ADOPT AGENDA
2.MINUTES
October 14, 2014Planning CommissionMeeting (pages 1-3)
3.APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.Public Hearing to considera request by Westbridge Community Churchfor a zoning
map amendment to rezone Outlot A of Heuring Meadows, located at the northwest
rd
corner of County Road 19 and 53Street,from B-2, Limited Business District to P/I,
Public Institutional District to allow the development of a church.(pages4-16)
b.Public Hearing to Considerarequest by Stephen H. Nelson Land Company for a
variance from the City’s maximum 30 foot billboard height standard. The applicant
is requesting a 40 foot tall billboard.(pages 17-35)
c.Public Hearing to consider a zoning text amendment to Chapter 500, Section
500.1.B, Variance Review Criteria of the Albertville Zoning Code, making this
section consistent with Minnesota State Statutes 462.357, Subd. 6.2.(pages 36-39)
5.OTHER BUSINESS
a.City Council/Planning Commission Workshop on March 2, 2015 6:00 PM
Goal Setting 2015
6.ADJOURNMENT
City of Albertville
5959 Main Avenue NE
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, MN 55301
Phone: 763-497-3384
UNAPPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2014
1.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL / ADOPT AGENDA:
Acting ChairEdgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Acting Chair Dale Edgren, Commissioner Natalya Lindberg, and Commissioner Mark Barthel
and City Council Representative Rob Olson
Absent: Commissioners Jeff O’Brien and Brian Totman
City Council Representative Dan Wagner
Staff members present: Alan Brixius and Sue Schwalbe
Others Present/Public: Jacob Steen, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington, Minnesota
th
Steve Nelson, 7656 128Street, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Steve Anderson, Cold Spring, Minnesota, sanderson@franklinoutdoor.com
Keith Franklin, Franklin Outdoor Advertising, 20092 Edison Circle, Clearwater
Lindbergmoved, second by Barthel to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Barthel moved, second by Lindberg totable approval of the minutes of the October 14, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
3.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a.Public Hearing to consider a Sign Code Text Amendments Pertaining to Advertising
Devices, Definitions and Performance Standards.
Alan Brixius presented the planning report dated October 8, 2014 to the Planning Commission for their
consideration.
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 14, 2014
Page 2
The recommended Albertville Sign Code will provide a clear definition of adjacent areas and establishes
performance standards to improve billboard appearance.
Commissioner Barthel questioned the number of signs on the 94 corridor. Brixius explained this will not
open any new areas for signs. There are three (3) sites still available.
Commissioner Edgren questioned if this will affect Space Aliens’ signs. Brixius explained Space Aliens
has control of this property and must approve all sign applications on the property.
Chair Edgren opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.
No questions or comments from the attending public or Commissioners.
Barthel moved, second by Lindberg to close the PublicHearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Barthel moved, second by Edberg to approve staff recommendation to consider a Sign Code Text
Amendment Pertaining to Advertising Devices, Definitions and Performance Standards and to
include synthetic materials as anoption. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Albertville Zoning Code and Liquor
Licensing to Establish Performance Standards for Breweries and Taprooms and to Allow
Them Within the City’s Commercial Zoning Districts by Conditional Use.
Alan Brixius presented the planning report dated October 7, 2014 to the Planning Commission for their
consideration.
The Planning Commission discussed licensing and land use recommendations for allowing breweries in
the community and provide feedback on ordinance amendments, which include:
An amendment to Title 4, Chapter 1 Alcoholic Beverages, Section 4-1-4 Classification of Licenses, to
create a “Brewery Taproom License” a “Brewery License for Off-Sale of Malt Liquor”, and toprovide
brewpubs as a candidate for the existing “Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Licenses.” The Planning
Commission should provide feedback on how to address the issue of Sunday on-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses for breweries with taprooms that do not hold a restaurant license.
An amendment to Title 4, Chapter 1 Alcoholic Beverages, Section 4-1-11 Conditions of Licenses, to
create a list of criteria associated with both the taproom license and the off-sale malt liquor license.
An amendment to Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 0200 to define breweries, taprooms,
brewpubs, and growlers.
An amendment to Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2900 to provide specific standards for
allowing breweries with taprooms as conditional uses in commercial districts.
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 14, 2014
Page 3
An amendment to Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4300 B-2 Limited Business District, Chapter
4350 B-2A Special Business District, Chapter 4400 B-3 Highway Commercial District, Chapter 4500 B-4
General Business District, and Chapter 4501 B-W Business Warehousing District to allow breweries with
taprooms as a conditional use, subject to the requirements of Title 4, Chapter 1 and Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 1000 pertaining to the licensing and regulation of brewery uses.
Chair Edgren opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.
No questions or comments from the attending public or Commissioners.
Lindberg moved, second by Barthel to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Barthel moved, second by Edgren to recommend to the City Council to amend the Albertville
zoning Code and Liquor Licensing to EstablishPerformance Standards for Breweries. Motion
carried unanimously.
4.OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
5.ADJOURNMENT:
Barthel moved, second by Edgren to adjourn meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________
Sue Schwalbe, Recording Secretary
PLANNING REPORT
TO:Adam Nafstad
FROM:Alan Brixius
DATE:February 5, 2015
RE:Albertville –Westbridge Community Church
Zoning Map Amendment
FILE NO:163.06 –15.01
BACKGROUND
The Westbridge Community Church, along with Leuer Munsterteiger Properties Inc.,
have requested a zoning map amendment to rezone Outlot A of Heuring Meadows from
B-2, Limited Business District to P/I, Public Institutional District to allow the development
of a church on this site. This outlot is located at the northwest corner of County Road
rd
19 and 53Street North.
Exhibit A shows a concept plan illustrating a church approximately 17,600 square feet in
area with an auditorium seating capacity of 600 seats. The concept plan shows access
rd
to a 204 stall parking lot from both County Road 19 and 53Street North.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:Westbridge Concept Plan
Exhibit B:Site Survey
Exhibit C:1998 Proposed Land Use Plan
Exhibit D:1998 ZoningMap
Exhibit E:2012 Proposed Land Use Plan
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Zoning Amendment Criteria.
Section 300.1.Fof the Albertville Zoning Ordinance
outlines thefollowingreview criteria that the Planning Commission and City Council
shall use in evaluating any proposed zoning map amendment.
4
1.The proposedaction 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.
In 1998, the Albertville City Council adopted amendments to its Proposed Land
Use Plan and zoning map, creating a 500 foot deep commercial zoning along
th
both sidesof County Road 19,from the Cottages of Albertville south to 50
Street (Exhibits C and D). In taking these actions, the City Council made the
following findings:
a.Single family residential homes along County Road 19 were not seen as
the highest and best use along this major street.
b.The commercial zoning will provide opportunities for increased
commercial development opportunities within the City.
c.County Road 19 has the capacity to accommodate traffic generated by
commercial development.
In 2012, the City undertook the 2030 Vision Study for the City to re-evaluate the
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for the City. As part of the 2030 Vision
Study, the City re-examined the proposed land use patternsfor the City and an
updated Proposed Land Use Plan(Exhibit E). Thiscurrent land use map guides
the subject site for commercial land uses. The following 2030 Vision Study
goals and policies apply to the requested changes in zoning:
Pace of Growth:
Goal 1:
Manage growth that provides quality development and does not
fiscally burden the City.
Policy 4:
Maintain its current planned commercial and industrial land use
patterns and zoning.
Commercial:
Goal 1:
The City will continue to promote commercial development by the
City taking advantage of its access to Interstate 94 and the growing
population of Albertville and its adjoining communities.
Policy 1:
The City will promote commercial development within locations of
the City’s commercial areas as guided in the Albertville Proposed Land Use
Plan.
5
Policy 2:
The City should be patient with infill commercial development to
insure proper access, quality site design, and quality architecture.
Maintaining high design and construction standards related to architecture,
site design, and landscaping was recommended.
Economic Development:
Goal 1:
The Vision Committee identified commercial and industrial growth
as a priority for the community. The City will become more aggressive in its
economic development promotion efforts.
Policy 1:
The City shall define its land use goals for commercial and
industrial areas as related to:
a.Location, land supply, variable lot sizes.
b.Access.
c.Zoning –types of use, site design, architectural quality.
d.Utility availability and capacity.
Finance:
Goal 1:
Maintain Albertville as a financially sound, self-sustaining
community.
Policy 7:
The City will promote new growth consistent with its adopted Land
Use Plan to expand its employment base and to grow its commercial and
industrial tax base.
The requested change in zoning from B-2 to P/I District is contrary to the City’s
Proposed Land Use Plan and the goals and policies of the 2030 Vision Study.
The current guided commercial pattern has existed since 1998 and has been
established to take advantage of the City’s proximity and access to I-94 and
County Road 19, a major transportation route. In 2012 with the adoption of the
2030 Vision Study, the City Council recognized that Albertville has a limited
amount of vacant land. The goals and policies are protective of the City’s
commercial and industrial land use patterns as a means of taking advantage of
the City’sgeographic advantage within the County,as a means of growing its tax
base, providing local employment opportunities,and providing commercial
services to the residents of Albertville and adjoining cities.
2.The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land
uses of the area.
The Heuring Meadowsfinal plat was approved in 2001. The plat design and the
creation of Outlot A are reflective of the 1998 Proposed Land Use Plan for
commercial development along County Road 19. The adjoining single family
6
homes are oriented to the west with rear yards abutting Outlot A. The grading
plan provided a landscaped berm to separate the residential and future
commercial land uses.
The introduction of the P/I zoning would remove 11.5 acres of land from future
commercial development. The zoning change will also isolate aB-2 zoned lot
located on the northeast corner of Outlot A, between residential zoning to the
north and the proposed public institutional property to the south. The future
redevelopment of this parcel was anticipated to occur in conjunction with
development of Outlot A. With the change in zoning, this site redevelopment will
be isolated and must stand on its own. The City must recognize that the
proposed change of zoning of Outlot A will impact the development potential of
the remaining B-2zoned sitewith regard to use and site design.
The current B-2, Limited Business District recognizes the site’s proximity to the
residential neighborhood. The purpose of the B-2, Limited Business District is as
follows:
4300.1: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the B-2 limited business district is to provide
for low intensity, retail or service outlets. The uses allowed in this district are to
provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas
which are well served by collector or arterial streets at the edge of residential
districts.
The range and intensity of commercial uses are limited reflectingthe intended
purpose of the zoning district. Past B-2 commercial development exists south of
the subject site along Kyler Avenue. These uses includeoffice, Shoppes at
Prairie Run, veterinary clinic, and the medical clinic. The current zoning district,
in addition to the City’s zoning performance standards, will create compatible
land use patterns.
Other churches in Albertvillehave located at the periphery of residential
neighborhoods at locations of adjoining major collector streets. The concept plan
provides an illustration of the proposed church on the site. The site plan shows a
17,500 square foot building with a 204 stall parking lot on the 11.5 acre site. The
majority of the site remains undeveloped. In discussion with the applicant, this
represents a first phase development and the site is desirable in that it provides
area for growth.
Churches offer more than a place of worship and in this regard, a church may
include schools, day care, early child development programs, night services, and
youth programs that expand church programs and activities beyond weekend
services. These expanded uses have the characteristicssimilar to commercial
land uses regarding hours of operation and use intensity. The exception is that
the B-2 District does not allow large assembly uses such as theaters, conference
7
centers, or banquet halls where large events may occur or may concentrate
traffic leaving a site after large assembly events.
In considering land use compatibility criteria, the City must consider the change
of land use and its impact on both the adjoining residential neighborhoods as well
as on the remaining commercially zoned properties. This consideration must not
be limited to the submitted concept plan, but must consider future growth of the
church, potential of expanded church uses (i.e., school, day care, etc.), as well
as the potential for outdoor uses.
3.The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained
herein.
The applicant has submitted a concept plan that illustrates building placement,
proposed access, and parking. The plan shows that the building meets the P/I
District setbacks.
If the zoning amendment is approved, the church will be required to meet all
Albertville Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. The following
development applications will be required to process the development of this site:
a.Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Plat).The subject site exists as Outlot
A, Heuring Meadows Addition. The City Subdivision Ordinance prohibits
the issuance of a building permit to an outlot. This must be replatted into
a lot and block description.
The subdivision will need to address shared access from County Road 19
for both Outlot A and the existing lot to the northeast to secure two points
of access for both lots. The City and property owner will need to negotiate
the provision of either an easement or platting of a street.
b.Site and Building Plan Review. The change in zoning will allow the
church as a permitted use. However, this use will be subject to a site and
building plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council.
4.The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it
is proposed.
The introduction of the church to Outlot A is not anticipated to negatively impact
the single familyhomes to the west. The change in zoning will impact the
remaining B-2 zoned lot locatedat the northeast corner of Outlot A. All past
planning anticipatedthat the existing lot would be redeveloped in conjunction
with the development of Outlot A, creating cohesive commercial land use
patterns where commercial properties would benefit from proximity to one
8
another through accumulative attraction and business interchange. With the
change of zoning, the lot at the northeast corner of Outlot A becomes an isolated
commercial property.
The change in zoning from B-2 to P/I will also impact the Albertville City tax base.
Churches are tax exempt properties that do not pay local property taxes. The
change in zoning would remove 11.5 acres of commercially zoned land from the
tax base.
For comparison, the Shoppes at Prairie Run is a B-2 zoned property south of the
subject site. This shopping center sits on 1.36 acres, has a 2014 total estimated
market value of $1,117.400, and generates $49,284 in total annual property
taxes. The Shoppes at Prairie Run generates approximately$37,200 of total
property tax per acre. Applying this per acre tax generation to the 11.5 acre
subject site, we can estimate that it could generate approximately $416,300 in
total annual property taxes when fully developed. The total property taxes are
shared between the County, School District, and the City. The City’s share of the
total property taxes is approximately 32% of total taxes($416,300 X 32% =
$133,216).
The applicant has offered to pay a service cost to offset the loss of property
taxes. They have utilized service agreements in the Cities of Blaine and Lake
Elmo. In discussions with the City Attorney, he does not believe that the City can
requirethe church to waive their tax exemption seeing that other churches in the
community do not pay taxes or costs of services. Even with a signed agreement,
if the church refused to pay for services, the CityAttorney believes that the
agreement would likely be unenforceable for lack of consideration, particularly in
light of the fact thatstate law specifically exemptsreligious properties from
paying real estate taxes which fund these services. Because such service
agreements are likely unenforceable, the City Attorney recommends that such a
service agreement not be considered as a factor in the decisionto rezone this
property.
In contacting Blaine and Lake Elmo city staff, their service agreements pay only
for public works and public safety costs. In Blaine, their agreement is for the
Minnesota School of Business, which is located in an industrial zoning district.
Their service agreement is for $13,000 per year. This agreement was offered by
the school and was accepted by the City. The City acknowledged that the
service costs are less than the property tax amounts.
5.The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and
will not overburden the City’s service capacity.
9
The City has planned and developed utility and street infrastructure to
accommodate commercial development on the subject site. The change in land
use will not overburden the City’s service capacity.
6.Traffic generation by the proposed use is within the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
rd
Thesite is served by County Road 19 and 53Street. Both streets have the
capacity to accommodate traffic. Access from County Road 19 will require
County permits. Cross easements and/or a street may be needed to insure two
points of access to both OutlotA and the lot at the northeast corner of Outlot A.
This access issue would be addressed with the replatting of Outlot A.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Albertville 2030 Vision Study and Proposed Land Use Plan are very protective of its
existing commercial and industrial land use patterns. The commercial land use patterns
have been established to take advantage of the City’s proximity to major transportation
corridors and its access to the interstate. The patterns provide for a uniform pattern of
development.
Additionally, the City has made economic development a priority goal, to expand its
commercial and industrial tax base, to reduce tax burdens on residential properties,
expand local employment opportunities, and provide a variety of commercialservices to
both Albertville residents and residents of adjoining communities.
In review of the application to amend the zoning for Outlot A of Heuring Meadows, we
offer the following findings and recommend denial of the zoning amendment:
1.The requested zoning change is contrary to the Albertville 2030 Vision Study
Proposed Land Use Plan and the goals and policies of said plan.
2.The proposed zoning change would disrupt the continuity of the commercial
zoning pattern along County Road 19 and isolate a B-2 zoned parcel. In isolating
this single commercial parcel, the zoning would negatively impactthe future
redevelopment of this parcel.
3.The City would lose a commercial site and tax base from its development. The
proposed service agreement would not generate revenue equal to projected
taxes and would not represent a legally enforceable agreement.
4.The change of zoning would establish a precedent for similar zoning amendment
requests of commercially zoned properties.
10
5.The City has other vacant land not zoned commercial that may be considered
without the negative impacts outlined in this report.
If the City is favorable to the change of zoning, the City should amend its 2030 Vision
Study and outline conditions and findings by which this change in land use is
acceptable.
c:Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
Leuer Munsterteiger Properties Inc.(via email)
Westbridge Community Church (via email)
11
12
EXHIBIT A
12
13
EXHIBIT B
13
14
EXHIBIT C
14
15
EXHIBIT D
15
16
EXHIBIT E
16
PLANNING REPORT
TO:Adam Nafstad
FROM:Alan Brixius
DATE:January 27, 2015
RE:Albertville –Stephen Nelson Billboard Height Variance
FILE NO:163.06 –14.07
BACKGROUND
In October 2014, the City of Albertville amended its sign code to make the lot at 11200
th
60Street an eligible site for a billboard. With this amendment, the City issued a sign
permit in November 2014 for a billboard provided it meet the following conditions:
1.The plans are revised to illustrate a total sign height not to exceed 30 feet above
grade.
2.Submission of plans that illustrate the proposed exterior materials for the sign
support structure. The materials must comply with the code requirementsand be
approved by the City.
3.The operation of the electronicchangeable advertising device shall abide by the
terms of the Albertville Sign Code in terms of duration of message; prohibition of
motion messages, special effects, and live video; and sign illumination.
4.City Attorney approval of the Acknowledgement and Waiver. The
Acknowledgement and Waiver be recorded against the property title.
5.The applicant obtains a building permit from the City Building Official.
In December 2014, the applicant appeared before the City Council and asked if the
Council would be open to allowing a 40 foot tall sign. This taller sign is needed to allow
the lot to accommodate acommercial building inaddition to the billboard due to the lot
size, setback requirements, and required parking. In Council discussion, they were
open to considering a variance that would allow for future commercial building,
17
however, concern was expressed with establishing precedent for billboard sign heights
and uniform treatment of all billboard owners and property owners.
Stephen H. Nelson LandCompany has made application for a major variance to allow a
th
40 foot high billboard at 11200 60Street in Albertville. With this application, the
applicant has submitted the following exhibits:
Exhibit A:Site Location
Exhibit B:Letter from Larkin Hoffman
Exhibit C:Site Plan Without Billboard
Exhibit D:Site Plan With Billboard
Exhibit E:Cross Section View of Billboard
Exhibit F:I-94 Elevation Profiles
In 2011, the State changed regulations for the consideration of a variance. In
evaluating the following criteria, we present findings that both support and argue against
the variance. The Planning Commission and City Council will weigh this analysis and
make a final decision on the application.
A.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting a taller sign to accommodate the future development
of a commercial building under the billboard. The additional billboard height is
intended to allow the future construction of a single story, 16 foot tall commercial
building, maintain appropriate clearances between the building roof and the sign,
and preservesight lines.
Pros:
1.The site is guided for commercial land use and is zoned B-3, Highway
Commercial Zoning District. Both commercial land uses and billboards
are permitted within the zoning district.
2.The Albertville 2012 Vision Study guides this site for commercial land use.
The plan policies specifically promote commercial development in
locations guided for commercial land use. The Vision Study also
stipulates that the City will maintain its current planned commercial and
industrial land use pattern. With regard to these policies and the
Albertville Comprehensive Plan, the preservation of the lot foradditional
futurecommercialdevelopment is consistent with City goals.
3.The applicant has identifiedthat the specific site sits lower than other
billboard sites when compared to adjoiningfreeway elevations. Exhibit F
illustrates that the site in question has a ground elevation of approximately
956 feet msl compared with freeway elevations due north of approximately
18
975 feet msl. This is a grade difference of -18.5 feet. Only the Knechtl
billboard north of the freeway has a grade differential comparable to the
applicant’s site.The Knechtl property received a variance for a 40 foot
billboard when the property owner was forced to relocate the billboard
when the City acquired needed freeway right-of-way. The Knechtl
variance allowedthe property owner to retain the same top of sign
elevation as previously existed prior to theright-of-way acquisition. The
site elevation is specifically unique to the site and presents a practical
difficulty for the billboard use.
Cons:
1.The site was approved for a 30 foot billboard. The process included sign
permit, an appeal, and finally a zoning text amendment. Through this
entire process, the site elevation was not identified as an issue. As part of
the approvedsign permit, the applicant has also provided an
acknowledgement of the future freeway improvement and a waiver of
potential damage that may result from obstructed sight lines that result
from future highway improvements. This past approval contradicts the
applicant’s current claim that the site’s elevation is a practical difficulty.
2.The applicant is not proposing to construct the building at this time. The
variance is being requested to preserve the future ability to develop under
the billboard. There is no assurance that the site will ever be developed
as illustrated in Exhibit E. The billboard may affect a site plan including
influencing building size, available parking, and desirability of location.
B.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the property owner.
Pros:
1.The applicant cites that limited buildable areas of the site due to setbacks
and easementsrepresent a practical difficulty that is unique to the site that
complicates the construction of a commercial building alongwith the
billboard. The applicant states that the circumstances were not created by
the property owner.The variance to the sign height will allow for both uses
providing proper clearance between the sign and building, offering
unobstructed sight lines to the sign. The applicant has provided Exhibit C
showing the original concept plan for the site and Exhibit D showing a
concept showing both a building and billboard. Exhibit D illustrates that
with the sign, the site can still accommodate a 3,200 squarefoot building
meeting the B-3 District setbacks. The amount of parking is reduced from
the original concept, however, a 3,200 square foot building is required to
provide 14 parking stalls and the concept plan shows 16 useable stalls
19
after the building isshifted west. This lot also has a shared parking
easement over the Space Aliens parking lot to the east.
2.The applicant reiterates that the subject site is located 18.5feet below the
freeway elevation due north of the site. This is the second lowest
billboard site within the City. The grade difference is a practical difficulty
unique to the site.
Cons:
1.The site (Lot 1, Block 1, Field Plaza Second Addition) was approved in
2005. As part of that approval, the property owner was required to submit
a concept plan that demonstrated that the site could support a commercial
building in conformance with City zoning regulations. Exhibit C is the
concept plan for the site that shows a 3,200 square foot commercial
building with parking. The original site plan did not anticipate the building
sharing the site with the billboard. It is the introduction of the billboard to
the site that creates the need for the variance.
2.The site elevation was not previously an issue when considering the
original sign permit request.
C.The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Pros:
1.The applicant identifies that Albertville currently has 28 billboards along a
2.5 mile stretch of I-94. The proposed use of the property for a billboard
meets the City’s Sign Code related to billboard spacing, setbacks, and
size. The additional 10 feet of height allowed by variance will not change
the essential character of the site. The Knechtl billboard located directly
north of the subject site has a40 foot height.This 40 foot tall billboard
does not dramatically distinguish itself as taller due to the lower site
elevation.
2.This proposed billboard is spaced more than 1,000 feet from other
billboards along the south side of I-94. The separationreduces the visual
difference between the signs.
Cons:
1.The immediate impression of the sign will not be great, however, with the
future construction of the eastbound County Road 19/I-94 on-ramp and C-
D Road, the City will have a four story sign in close proximity to the new
freeway travel lanes.
20
Additional variance findings include:
1.The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or airto adjacent
property.
Comment:Thissite offers a somewhat isolated location. This site with the taller
billboard will not impair the passage of light or air to adjoining properties.
2.The variance will not unreasonably increase traffic congestion on public streets.
Comment:The sign will not add significant traffic to adjoining streets. Future
commercial development was always anticipated for the lot. Local and County
roads serving this site have the capacity to accommodate a commercial
development of this size.
3.The variance will not diminish property values.
Comment:The site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial. Both the commercial
building and the billboard are permitted uses. The location of the site and sign
will not result in significant impacts on the adjacent properties.
A concern that should be discussed is that the billboard construction will precede
the commercial building. The applicant does not have any time frame for the
construction of the commercial building. The variance is intended to leave the
development potential open. Some concern exists as to whether the existing
sign may become an impediment to the construction of the building and other site
improvements. Impediments may include working under the sign, avoiding the
sign foundation, or having the building identity be overwhelmed by the sign. The
concept plan (Exhibit D) shows a best case scenario, however, this development
is not guaranteed.
4.The variance will not violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Comment:The Albertville Vision Study promotes economic development, infill
of commercial properties, and maintaining its current commercial land use
patterns. In this respect, preserving the site for future commercial development
would be consistent with Albertville’s Comprehensive Plan policies.
5.Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
21
district under the terms of this ordinance, or deny the applicant the ability
to put the property in question to a reasonable use.
Comment:The applicant claims that without the variance, the landowner would
be deprived of the rights of other property owners in the B-3 District. The rights
to have both a commercial building and billboard on the same lot.
In considering this provision, the City must determine that the combination of
uses are reasonable for a site of this size. In most other instances, billboards
have been located on largersitesin a manner that does not interfere with
building location or height. While this site is small, the plat was approved with a
concept plan that demonstrated that it was buildable. It is the combination of
uses that compromise the development potential of the site. The variance
provisions some relief to allow the combination of uses.
6.Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any
special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures
or buildings in the same district.
Comment:The subject site is unique in its size, elevation below freeway grade,
and its eligibility for a billboard. In this respect, other properties will not be faced
with the same opportunities orpractical difficulties. In this respect, the approval
of the variance, if found to be reasonable, would not confer the applicant with
special privileges.
CONCLUSION
In review of this variance request, there are arguments on both sides of this issue. In
this regard, the Planning Commission and City Council must weigh both sides of the
issue to determine if the requested variance presents a reasonable use of the site, and
that the need for the variance is generated by practical difficulties that are unique to the
site that prevent full compliance with the code.
If the Planning Commission and City Council agreed that the requested variance is
reasonable and meets the criteria for variance, the application should be approved
based on the following findings:
1.The site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial District and both commercial
building development and billboards are an allowed usewithin this district.
2.The site meets the spacing and setback standards of the Albertville Sign Code to
be eligible for the construction of a new legally conforming billboard.
22
3.The requested height variance is necessaryto allow the site to accommodate
both the approved billboard and a commercial building. The preservation of the
site for a future building is consistent with Albertville’s 2012 Vision Study goals
and policies including:
Maintain its current planned commercial and industrial land usepatterns
and zoning.
Promote commercial development by the City to take advantage of its
access to I-94 and the growing population of Albertville and adjoining
communities.
Be patientwith infill development to insure proper access, quality site
design, and quality architecture.
4.TheCity finds that thesite has the following practical difficulties unique to the site
that complicates the reasonable use of the sitethat were not created by the
property owner:
a.The site, due to setbacks and easements, only has 26% of the lot area as
being buildable.
b.The site is 18.5feet below the freeway elevation.
c.The site is one of the few locations within the City that meets the billboard
spacing requirements that make it eligible for a new billboard.
5.The variance will not change the essential character of the area due to the site’s
isolated location and the billboard’s separation from other billboards.
6.The requested variance will not impact traffic congestion, public safety, or
diminish property values.
7.The variance is needed to overcome practical difficulties with the site and will not
confer special privilegesdenied other eligiblebillboard sites having similar
practical difficulties.
If the Planning Commission and City Council, upon considering the application, the
submission information, and this report, believe that the variance criteria have not been
met, then it may deny the variance with the following findings:
1.The variance is not a reasonable use of the site in that the billboard was
approved for the site at a 30 footheight. This height was acceptable and the
applicant provided acknowledgement of future freeway improvements and a
waiver of damages that may result if improvements would impair sight lines to the
sign.
23
2.Without a timetable for site development, there is no assurance that the variance
will allow future development of the site.
3.The practical difficulty is a plight created by the property owner with his desires to
develop the site with both a building and a billboard. Absent this combination,
the height variance is not required.
4.Absent the variance, the site may still be utilized for commercial development or
billboard or a combination of both and the impaired sight lines to a 30 foot tall
sign is a condition created by the property owner.
c:Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
Jake Steen (via email)
th
Stephen H. Nelson Land Company, 7656 128St W, Apple Valley, MN 55124
24
B
A
E
F
C
D
G
I
H
K
J
N
L
M
P
O
Q
R
T
U
S
Albertville Billboard Study
V
X
1,000 ft spacing
W
Questionable 1,000 ft spacing
Z
Y
City Limits
AA
Parcels
BB
400 ft. buffer from center median
Prolongation of the normal ROW
Adjacent Area: A strip of land 100 ft in width immediately adja
to and along and parallel to the right of way, except for off ra
takeoff ditches of similar areas where the area shall be measure
from the prolongation of the normal right of way.
/
05001,0002,0003,0004,000
Source: Wright County, DNR, & Northwest Associated Consultants.
Feet
Date: October 2, 2014.
Note: For planning purposes only.
25 EXHIBIT A
26 EXHIBIT B
27 EXHIBIT B
28 EXHIBIT B
29 EXHIBIT B
30 EXHIBIT B
31
EXHIBIT C
32
EXHIBIT D
33
EXHIBIT E
34 EXHIBIT F
35 EXHIBIT F
PLANNING REPORT
TO:Adam Nafstad
FROM:Alan Brixius
DATE:February 3, 2015
RE:Albertville –Zoning Amendments: Variances
FILE NO:163.05 –15.02
BACKGROUND
In examining a recent variance request, we identified that Albertville’s variance review
criteria have not been updated to match current State Statutes. In 2011, the Minnesota
State Statutes were amended to give cities greater flexibility in granting variances from
local zoning standards. The attached draft ordinance repeals thecurrent local
regulation under Section 500.1.B of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance and replaces it
with the following review criteria:
1.Variances must be consistent with the general intent of the City Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
non-economic
2.Variances are needed to overcome practical difficulties unique to
the property that prevents use of the lot in a reasonable manner.
3.The circumstances for the variance are not created by the property owner.
4.The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or zoning district.
5.The variance is not a use variance.
6.The variance is the minimum necessary to accomplish the use of the property in
a reasonable manner.
The past provisions of the amended ordinance places the burden of justifying the
variance on the applicant to demonstrate that the aforementioned conditions have been
satisfied.
36
RECOMMENDATION
Based on our review of the current Albertville Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota State
Statutes, staff recommends approval of the attached zoning text amendment.
c:Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
37
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Draft Feb. 10, 2015
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-_____
ANORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A, ZONING ORDINANCE
OF ALBERTVILLE CITY CODE RELATED TO CHANGES TO
CHAPTER 500, SECTION 500.1 VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ORDAINS:
Section 1.
The Albertville Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by repealing Section
500.1.B in its entirety and replacing it with the following language:
500.1.General Provisions and Standards.
B.Criteria for granting variances.The planning commission shall hear and the city council
serving, as the board of adjustments and appeals, shall make findings of fact that the
proposed variance from the literal provisions of this chapter be granted or denied
pursuant to the requirements of Minn. Stats. § 462.357 and any amendments thereto,
which include, but are not limited to the following considerations:
1.Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of city code and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2.Variances may only be permitted when the applicant establishes that there are
non-economic practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance,
meaning the property owner proposes to use the lot or parcel in a reasonable
manner not permitted by the zoning code.
3.The plight of the property owner must be due to circumstances that are unique to
the lot or parcel and is not created by the property owner.
4.The variances must not alter the essential character of the locality including all
zoning district and overlay district provisions.
5.The board of adjustments and appeals shall have the sole discretion to consider
whether any variance request meets the criteria herein.
6.The request is not a use variance.
7.Variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the use of
the property in a reasonable manner.
38
City of Albertville
County of Wright
Ordinance No. 2015-___
Variance Review Criteria
Page 39
C.Application for a variance shall set forth reasons that the variance is justified in order to
make reasonable use of the land, structure or building.
D.Should the council find that the conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot
or parcel, the council may grant a variance from the strict application of this ordinance so
as to relievesuch practical difficulties to the degree considered reasonable, provided such
relief may be granted without impairing the intent of this ordinance. The planning
commission, in the case of major variance, based upon a report and recommendation by
the city staff, shall have the power to advise and recommend such conditions related to
the variance regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed building,
structure, or use as it may deem advisable in the interest of the intent and purpose of this
ordinance.
Section 2.
Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and
publication.
APPROVED this ________ day of _____________________ 2015.
_________________________
Jillian Hendrickson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kimberly A.Olson, City Clerk
39