2005-06-14 PC Minutes
.
.
.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Albertville City Hall
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - ADOPT AGENDA
PRESENT: Chair Sharon Leintz, Commission members Frank Kocon, Dan Wagner, Tiffany
Meza, Scott Dorenbush, Council Liaison LeRoy Berning, City Planner Al Brixius, Zoning
Administrator Jon Sutherland and Permit Technician/Secretary Tori Leonhardt
Chair Leintz called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of the City of Albertville to
order at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION BY Commission member Wagner, seconded by Commission member Meza to
approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
MOTION BY Commission member Wagner, seconded by Commission member Kocon to
approve the minutes with the following changes; add Jon Sutherland, Zoning Administrator and
Mark Kasma, City Engineer as being present, note Jon Sutherland's concern over the proximity
of the trash enclosures for Parkside Commercial and under the MOTION BY Commission
member Wagner, seconded by Commission member Kocon to approve the Parkside Commercial
PUD/CUP and Site and Building Plan Review contingent on the staff recommendations, Motion
was carried 4: I, with Commissioner member Dorenbush voting nay.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDEL FENCE SETBACK VARIANCE
Chair Leintz opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.
On April 15, 2005, Jason and Jill Wedel received approval of their application to extend the
fence to the western property line along Kalland Drive NE. The application calls for a six-foot
privacy fence of treated lumber. According to the City Zoning Ordinance:
"In the case of a side yard on a corner lot that abuts a street, minimum fence
setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained for all fences exceeding forty-two
(42) inches in height."
At some point, a mistake was made by City staff and the applicant was told that the minimum
setback was only 10 feet. The applicants received a building permit to install the fence. After
the posts were positioned, City staff caught the mistake and stopped work on the fence. To
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 2
correct the mistake, the City has agreed to move the posts back 10 feet to comply with the 20-
foot setback requirement. At the direction of the City Council, the property owner proceeded
with the privacy fence to completion.
In August 2003, the City re-evaluated the zoning regulations pertaining to residential fences.
Through this review, the City determined that six-foot privacy fences shall maintain a 20-foot
side yard setback from the property line on a comer lot abutting a street. This standard is called
out in Section 1000.6 (g)(I) and (2) as follows:
(g) Residential District Fences. All residential fences shall be placed within the
property being fenced.
(1) Fences not more than six (6) feet in height may be erected along side and rear
property lines provided such fences do not extend forward of the principal
structure. In the case of a side yard on a comer lot that abuts a street, a minimum
fence setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained for all fences exceeding
forty-two (42) inches in height (see Diagram 7A).
(2) Should the rear lot line of a comer lot be common with the side lot line of an
abutting lot, a minimum twenty (20) foot side yard setback must be maintained on
the comer lot for all fences exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height (see
. Diagram 7B).
Both Provisions (1) and (2) above apply to the Wedel lot. The Wedel rear yard abuts the side
yard of the lot to the east. The fence extends forward of the house to the east.
Under the Variance Section 500.1.C (2) the review criteria for considering a major or minor
vanance IS.
(2) A variance from the terms of this Chapter shall not be granted unless it can be
demonstrated that:
a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of
special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the land, structure
or building involved.
1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water
conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record,
narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property.
2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances
may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the
property exists under the terms of this Chapter.
.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 3
3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not
be a result oflot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a
buildable parcel. (Also see Section 1000.3(c) of this Chapter.)
b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Chapter, or deny the applicant the ability to
put the property in question to a reasonable use.
c. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do
not result from the actions of the applicant.
d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or
buildings in the same district.
e. The request is not a use variance.
f. Variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the
intended purpose of the applicant.
City Planner Brixius stated that in review of the applicant's site, staff does find that the lot is not
unique in character, size or configuration that prevents compliance with the required setback.
The hardship to the applicant was a mistake made by City staff. In recognition of this mistake,
the City was willing to correct this issue at no expense to the property owner. This fence
variance would be a privilege to this property not offered to other comer lots if the City chooses
to enforce this setback as established.
Based on the staffs review of this variance request, no hardship unique to the property is found
to warrant a variance. With this finding, the Planning Commission and City Council has the
following options:
Option 1: Deny the variance based on the application not satisfying the criteria established
in Section 500. 1 (c)(2) pertaining to variances.
Option 2: Approve the variance finding that the relocation of the fence presents a hardship
and that the fence is not out of character with the neighborhood.
If approval is given, staff requests direction as to whether the current ordinance language is
appropriate for fence setbacks.
Chair Leintz asked if fence was located on the 10-foot easement line.
City Planner Brixius stated yes, it is currently on the 10-feet easement line.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14,2005 Minutes
Page 4
Commission member Meza asked why the Wedel's were told to go ahead with fence.
Jason Wedel, homeowner, informed the Planning & Zoning Commission members that he
received his permit card, receipt and letter of approval, which stated that the applicant would be
allowed to extend fence to the property line if they so wanted. This was in fact, what the
Wedel's wanted as Jill Wedel does home daycare. Mr. Wedel informed the commission that he
met with the City Administrator and staff members and was told the City was willing to come
out and move the fence posts back 10 feet so the fence would be incompliance of the 20 foot
setback or that Mr. Wedel would be allowed to keep the fence in it's current location ifit was a
maximum of 4 feet in height. Mr. Wedel stated his father had made a special trip into town to
help him dig the footings and a lot of time was spent placing the fence posts into their current
position. Mr. Wedel stated ifhe had known that the fence would not be allowed in its current
position or that it could only be 4 feet in height where it is located, he would have never gone
forward with the project. Mrs. Wedel expressed her concern with the daycare children playing in
the back yard. She stated a 4-foot fence would not keep balls or Frisbees in and a stranger would
be able to reach over a fence of that height and take a child.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any questions or comments.
Commission member Meza indicated that she also has seen the fence and thought that it looked
nice and wondered why the Wedel's had stopped construction on it. Ms. Meza further indicated
. that you are able to see around the comer when turning.
Commission member Wagner asked City Planner Brixius why this matter was approved by the
City Council before it was brought before the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Council liaison Berning stated the fence issue did not go before a City Council meeting, but
rather that each City Council member was contacted by Mayor Peterson. Mr. Berning stated that
he did go out and look at the fence and he did not see that it would be a problem and that there
was a fence that was across the street that appeared to be even closer to the street.
City Planner Brixius asked the Commission for direction on this matter and stated whatever
direction the commission decides, staff requests direction as to whether the current ordinance
language is appropriate for fence setbacks.
Chair Leintz stated that she feels the Wedel's have suffered a hardship because city gave them
the wrong information.
Commission member Meza asked Mr. Wedel ifhe had known that he would have had to stay 20
feet off of the property line would he have constructed the fence.
Mr. Wedel replied no.
.
Commission member Dorenbush asked Mr. Wedel ifhe had to have a fence for daycare.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 Minutes\M 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 5
Mr. Wedel indicated no, they did not have to have a fence for daycare that it was for privacy.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any more questions or concerns.
Chair Leintz closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
City Planner Brixius would ask the City Council to act on this now and deal with the ordinance
changes, if any, at a later date. City Planner Brixius felt that there was merit in the items that the
Wedel's brought forward, but there are needs to be direction as to the 20-foot side yard setback
in the future.
Chair Leintz added that because the property owner was given misinformation by the City at the
beginning the variance should be granted.
MOTION BY Commission member Meza, seconded by Commission member Leintz to approve
the Wedel Fence Variance. Motion carried unanimously.
ALBERTVILLE BODY SHOP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) - VARIANCE
Chair Leintz opened the public hearing at 7:19p.nm.
City Planner Brixius reported the applicant; Jamie L. Stevens submitted an application for a
Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow for the expansion ofthe Albertville Body Shop
and a reduction in the amount of parking stalls required within the subject site. The body shop is
located at 5890 Main Street and is zoned B-4, General Business. A CUP is necessary for the
alteration or expansion of the major auto repair (body shop) business and a variance is necessary
to allow for a reduction in parking stalls within the site area.
The existing building includes a 6,000 square foot auto body shop and a 1,680 square foot hair
salon, which is located in the southwestern portion of the building. The applicant is proposing to
expand the building in a southeastern direction. The new expansion will allow the building to be
uniform and rectangular in shape. The new expansion will be 1,680 square feet for a total
building area of9,360 square feet. The expansion of major auto repair in a B-4 District requires
a Conditional Use Permit.
City Planner Brixius stated when considering a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional
use and their judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
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 uses of the area.
M:IPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 6
3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained within the Zoning
Ordinance.
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 over
burden the City's service capacity.
6. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
City Planner Brixius indicated the proposed business expansion is consistent with the policies
and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed expansion should not present
compatibility issues with adjoining sites, and the building and proposed expansion meet the
general B-4 District requirements of the Zoning Ordinance related to lot area, lot width, setbacks,
and building height.
City Planner Brixius stated the conditional use permit conditions require a 20,000 square foot lot
area and a 1 50-lot width. The applicant's site does not meet this standard. Staffis
recommending approval of a lot area and width variance that recognizes the existing condition
provided the building and use complies with the other conditional use conditions.
Screening and Landscaping. The Albertville Zoning Ordinance requires landscaping
screening of the site from residential zoning districts. It also required parking and automobile
storage shall be screened from public street rights-of-way. The site does not abut any residential
district. No additional screening or landscaping will be required as part of this application due to
the limited lot area.
No additional storage is proposed for the site. As a condition of approval, outdoor storage will
be prohibited. Any roof top mechanical equipment must be properly screened from view from
Main Street.
Staff recommends as a condition of the conditional use permit, the applicant be required to park
damaged vehicles awaiting repair either within the building or at the back of the building.
Finished customer vehicles and employee parking may utilize available on-street parking or be
visible from Main Street.
Building Type and Construction. Within the B-4 Zoning District, the City requires at least 50
percent of all exterior wall finishes to be covered with brick. This 50 percent coverage can be
averaged over the entire building. The front of the auto body shop has a brick, stucco, and wood
finish. This finish extends around the southwest comer of the building. The new building is
proposed to be pre-finished metal panels. The applicant proposes to provide brick or wainscot
on 50 percent of the building addition's south exterior wall.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 7
Lighting. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit information
regarding the location of all additional exterior lighting as part of the plan. The source of all
additional lights shall be hooded, 90 degree cut offlights that meet City glare standards
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control. The current site is 100 percent impervious surface.
The building addition will not change the storm water quantities or drainage patterns.
Access/Parking. The Albertville Zoning Ordinance has the following parking standards
applicable to the proposed use:
Auto Repair
Eight spaces plus one additional space per each
800 square feet over 1,000 square feet of floor area
Retail/Service Business One space per 200 square feet of floor area
Based on these standards, the proposed building is required by ordinance to provide:
Retail/Service:
1,680 X.9 = 1,512 -+- 200 =
8 spaces
Body Shop:
7,620 - 1,000 = 6,620 X .9 = 5,958 -+- 800 = 7 + 8 = 15 spaces
TOTAL SPACES
23 spaces
The applicant's site plan illustrates 18 off-street parking stalls and four on-street parking stalls.
Review of the parking reveals the following issues:
1. The 90-degree parking stalls are required to be 20 feet in length. All the proposed
parking is shown at 18 feet.
2. The parking east of Main Street fails to meet the parking lot dimension for stalls, drive
aisles, or setbacks. This parking lot is also proposed to have a gravel surface.
3. The parking stalls at the rear of the building are located in front of the doors to the
building and will require shuffling of cars.
4. The current building with the expansion will accommodate up to 22 cars within the
building. The applicant has expressed a willingness to move as much of the business
parking inside the building as practical.
The City recognizes that the B-4 businesses are unable to provide on-site parking and allows for
a conditional use permit to contribute to the public parking lots in lieu of providing their own
off-street parking lot. However, this conditional use permit was reliant on a non-existent public
parking plan.
M:IPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&z minutes12005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 8
City Planner Brixius stated in absence of a City downtown-parking plan, staff has directed the
applicant to pursue a parking variance in recognition of existing conditions. On June 6, 2005,
the City Council approved a proposal for an Albertville downtown parking study to investigate
the establishment of public parking lots that may be shared amongst the downtown businesses.
In light of this direction, staff recommends that the requested parking variance be approved as an
interim parking solution for Albertville Auto Body with the following conditions:
1. The applicant participates in the preparation of the parking study.
2. Ifthe parking study is completed and implemented by the City, the applicant shall
contribute to the cost of the construction of a shared public parking lot based on their
estimated parking shortage.
In conclusion, City Planner Brixius stated, the Albertville Auto Body is a longstanding
community business that wishes to expand in the downtown B-4 Zoning District. The character
of the downtown presents physical limitations to business expansion (i.e., lot size, parking). In
review of the applicant's request, staff recommends approval of the following applications:
Conditional Use Permit - major auto repair and a variance from lot area and width are
recommended for approval with the following conditions:
1. Except for customer vehicles awaiting repair, outdoor storage shall be prohibited.
2.
Rooftop equipment shall be located and screened from view of Main Street.
3. Damaged customer vehicles awaiting service/repair shall be stored/parked either inside
the building or at the rear of the building.
4. Employees and finished customer vehicles may utilize parking visible from Main Street.
5. The building addition's south wall shall have a 50 percent exterior finish of brick.
6. All exterior lighting shall be 90 degree cut offlighting.
Parking Variance. - The physical characteristics of the downtown present hardship for
providing the required off-street parking. In recognition of these constraints, we are
recommending approval of the variances as an interim parking solution until the City can
develop a downtown-parking plan. We recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant participates in the formulation of the Albertville Downtown Parking Study.
2. If the study is finalized and implemented, the applicant contributes to the cost of
constructing a shared public parking lot based on their shortage.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 9
Chair Leintz asked if there was anyone present regarding the Albertville Body Shop CUP-
vanance.
Owner, Jamie L. Stevens, showed the Planning & Zoning Commission members a sample of the
brick that will be used on the building. The brick was taupe in color. Mr. Stevens stated that the
whole south wall will be getting a face lift and the glass blocks will be removed and 4 x 4
windows will be installed to make the building look uniform.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any questions or concerns.
Commission member Dorenbush asked Mr. Steven's if the cars would be parked in the same spot
as they are now.
Mr. Steven's informed the Commission that the cars would be parked in the same location as
they presently use.
Commission member Dorenbush then asked if there were any problems currently with
vandalism.
Mr. Steven's stated that no, there has not been an issue with vandalism.
Council liaison Berning asked if Mr. Steven's owned the piece of property that the expansion
would be going onto.
Mr. Steven's indicated that yes he does own the property in question.
Commission member Meza asked if all the cars being repaired would be parked in back of the
building or inside the building during repair.
Mr. Steven's stated that yes he would agree to that as one ofthe conditions.
City Planner Brixius stated that there would not be a problem with the parking of the cars that
were finished.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any questions or concerns from the public.
Chair Leintz closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.
Commission member Kocon asked if they were to motion on the CUP and Parking Variance
together or as separate items.
City Planner Brixius indicated that they could make a motion either way.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&z minutes\2005 MinuteslM 06.14.05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 10
MOTION BY Commission member Dorenbush, seconded by Commission member Wagner to
approve the Albertville Body Shop CUP with the six (6) conditions for the CUP and the two (2)
conditions for the Parking Variance. Motion carried unanimously.
SPACE ALIENS BAR & GRILL - PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMMERCIAL PUD/CUP, AND SITE AND
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
Chair Leintz opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m.
City Planner Brixius stated that an application has been made by Thomas P. O'Brien for
Preliminary Plat and Site and Building approval for the development and construction of a Space
Aliens Grill and Bar within the City of Albertville. The site is located on the comer ofCSAH 37
and 60th Street Northeast and is currently zoned B-3. The total site area consists of 1.90 acres.
Preliminary Plat approval is required because of the current metes and bounds description of the
subject site. Site and Building Plan review is required for development within the City. The
area to the immediate north is 1-94 and to the south is the BNSF railroad. The adjoining area
includes a mix of B-3, Highway Commercial business uses.
In review of the application, staff recognized that the application was incomplete and notified the
applicant that additional information was necessary. Slowly, additional information has been
received. Most recently submitted, the landscape plan and preliminary grading and utility plans
were received on June 6,2005. The late receipt of information has limited staff review and has
not allowed time to correct plan deficiencies.
City Planner Brixius stated the site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial District. The purpose of
the Highway Commercial District is to provide for the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or
dependent high intensity commercial and service activities. Restaurants are permitted uses
within the B-3 district. The City's Land Use Map guides this site for commercial uses, therefore,
the proposed use is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Under Section A-900.1 (b) for Preliminary Plate it states that no building permit shall be issued
for any structure on any parcel of land less than five acres at a building setback line which is
described by metes and bounds until a plat describing such parcel of land is filed with the Wright
County Recorder's Office and proof thereof is furnished to the City. As a condition of approval
utility and drainage easements must be identified on the preliminary plat and shall be subject to
the review and approval of the City Engineer.
The proposed building conforms to the Lot Requirements and Setbacks for buildings within the
B-3, Highway Commercial District.
City Planner Brixius stated that under the parking requirements the applicant has identified a
total of 128 parking stalls within the site area. The applicant's parking calculations did not
include the game room, which occupies 15% of the total building area. An additional 7 stalls
should be identified within the site. This can be accomplished by expanding the parking area
further to the west.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 11
All parking stalls meet the minimum setback requirements from the curb. The site plan identifies
the length of each stall at 18 feet. As a condition of approval however, all parking stalls must be
20 feet in length. All stripped areas shall be raised and curbed. All other parking requirements
have been met.
Access to the site is gained from two entrances off of 60th Street NE. Each access is measured at
30 feet wide at the property line and thus meets the minimum requirements of the Albertville
Zoning Ordinance. All drive aisles meet the minimum requirements of the Ordinance. Any work
within the MNDOT R/W will require a permit from MNDOT.
There is no loading area identified within the site so drive lanes will be used as loading areas to
accommodate deliveries. It is anticipated that deliveries will occur within the southwestern
portion of the building. The applicant has indicated that most deliveries will occur during the
morning prior to normal business hours. As such, it is not anticipated that these deliveries will
disrupt the overall traffic or circulation plan of the site.
Grading, drainage and utility plans were received on June 8, 2005. This late arrival only allowed
for a preliminary engineering review.
City Engineer, Mark Kasma found in his review the following:
The use of the open area between the proposed parking and the proposed pond is unclear as is the
apparent curb stub out from the parking lot to this area.
Municipal Sanitary Sewer:
There is not a public gravity sewer line adjacent to this site and a 6" PVC service is shown
stubbed out to 60th Street NE. According to the as-built Sanitary Sewer map for Albertville,
there is a 10" sanitary force main adjacent to 60th Street NE but a gravity sewer service line
cannot connect to this pressure line. The nearest location of public gravity sewer is south of the
railroad tracks near the north terminus of Lachman Avenue NE where there is a City Sewer Lift
Station. Depths would need to be verified for a service connection at the lift station. Also, there
would need to be an agreement with BNSF Railroad to place a sewer service line through their
property and possibly a private easement through the private property that lies between the
railroad and the lift station.
Municipal Water Main:
A 6" DIP water service line is shown stubbed to the south where there is no public water line.
There is a 16" water main running along the north side of the site. In addition, there are no
hydrants or valves shown on the plan.
Grading and Drainage:
While the proposed grading appears to be adequate to collect the on-site drainage, existing curb
and gutter and catch basins are shown on adjacent CSAH 37 but not how this drainage works
with the proposed site drainage. As indicated above, pipe sizes and preliminary drainage
M:\Public DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14,2005 Minutes
Page 12
calculations need to be provided to determine the adequacy of the treatment pond and storm
sewer system.
City Planner Brixius indicated the proposed building is 8,550 square feet and includes a lounge,
dinning room, game room, retail space, and kitchen. The building will have 6 exists with the
main vestibule entrance on the eastern side of the building.
The applicant is proposing colored precast panels, face brick, glass block and stoned faced block
for the exterior finishes. Upon review of other Space Alien restaurants in other communities,
these types of restaurants are multi-colored with an array of bright colors and color schemes. The
applicant has provided a color rendering of the building, however, the rendering does not show
all sides of the building.
The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for review. As a condition of approval, staffs has
requested the applicant be required to provide a hedge line of at least four feet in height along the
eastern portion of the site (along C.S.A.H. 37) to ensure that headlights do not deflected onto the
County Road. Additional plantings will be required to be extended along the northern boulevard
along 60th Street NE.
The areas striped on the site plan shall be raised parking lot islands that will include parking lot
landscaping. All landscaped areas, including the parking lot islands, shall be irrigated.
All exterior light fixtures must be 90 degree cut offlighting. Pole height is limited to 20 feet.
The applicant's plan meets these standards. A photometric plan has been provided that
demonstrates the extent of lighting across the entire site. Lighting will be located around the
perimeter of the parking area and drive aisles. Lighting does not appear to exceed I-foot candle
at the street centerline but does appear to exceed A-foot candles along the eastern property line.
Section 1000.10 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses lighting and glare and should be addressed
fully.
The applicant has provided plans for a pylon sign, however the location of the sign is not
identified within the site plan. The pylon sign will be 30 feet tall with a total of 179.7 square feet
per face. The applicant's site has 288 feet oflot width, which allows 168 square feet of sign
area. Prior to approving the sign, the applicant will be required to reduce the signage and
identify the location ofthe sign. A wall-mounted sign is also proposed along the front elevation,
however, additional details with regard to color, lighting, and lettering will be required. A
comprehensive signage plan will be a condition of approval. Additional information pertaining
to the size, lighting, and locations of other signage will be required.
The applicant has identified a trash enclosure area to be located on the southwestern side of the
building. As a condition of approval the applicant will be required to submit details of the trash
enclosure. All trash enclosures should be constructed of material that is similar to the primary
retail building. Additional landscaping must be provided around all trash enclosures.
M:lPublic Data\Planning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 13
City Planner Brixius stated, based on our review of the plans submitted, staff believes that
additional information is required and a number of plan revisions are necessary prior to Planning
Commission action. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat and site and building plans be
continued until the July Planning Commission meeting to allow for a more complete submission.
Chair Leintz ask if there was anyone present from Space Aliens.
Thomas P. O'Brien addressed the Commission and thanked City Planner Brixius for working
with them and stressed that they would like to keep the project moving forward. Mr. O'Brien
did not feel the information that was still needed would be anything major and they would be
able to submit to the city by the end of the week. Mr. O'Brien indicated that their Engineer felt
that the sewer line would work, but had questions on the lift station.
Mr. O'Brien stated that the parking area was not shown in completion because they felt the area
would be for snow plowing and asked that it could remain unstriped.
Mr. O'Brien said they have not submitted a sign plan for the front signage since the franchise is
making sure of the commitment prior to submitting a sign proposal. This will be done at a future
date.
Mr. O'Brien asked the Commission that they allow them to move forward in order not to have to
deal with winter construction.
Chair Leintz asked if there would be room for extra parking spaces.
Mr. O'Brien stated that there was plenty of room on the proposed site.
Chair Leintz asked if this area would need raised islands.
Commission member Dorenbush stated that it has been required everywhere else.
Commission member Meza asked Zoning Administrator Jon Sutherland, why Futrell Fire has
done a review already on the proposed site.
Mr. Sutherland stated that as a directive of the City Council that Futrell Fire do a review at the
development stage to verify access to water, turning radius of fire trucks, access to site and if the
buildings are sprinkled, are there adequate amounts of fire hydrants to supply sprinkler systems.
Mr. Sutherland stated that Scott Futrell normally does not get enough information for a full
review at the development stage, but does do another review at the building stage.
Commission member Meza asked if they find that the plans submitted are not acceptable, can
they be easily changed?
Mr. Sutherland stated that a redesign is possible and they could work through issues.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 14
.
City Planner Brixius stated that the building code issues are pointed out at the planning stages so
they don't get missed at the building stage.
Mr. Sutherland stated that the Water Department and Engineering usually do a flow test when
applicants have a viable project.
Commission member Kocon stated that getting in and out of County Road 37 is so busy now,
how will it be at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
City Planner Brixius said he was not sure, but one reason for having the restaurant there was that
the traffic was one of the appealing aspects of the location. Brixius also stated there are not any
traffic control devises proposed for this location.
Mr. O'Brien stated that they feel traffic will be more like a theater and traffic will trickle in and
out and will not be like rush hour traffic.
Commission member Kocon asked if the proposed game room would be comparable to a Chuck
E Cheese.
Mr. O'Brien stated yes, they would be similar but would have approximately 300 players per
. day, which if far less than a Chuck E. Cheese.
Chair Leintz stated that there would not be 100 cars at a time trying to access County Road 37
like you would have when a movie theater gets out.
Commission member Dorenbush asked if the 1-94 improvement plan called for a ramp off 94 on
the other side to eliminate traffic.
Commission member Wagner asked if 60th Street being a dead end would have any chance at
going through to County Road 19.
City Planner Brixius stated that it is not likely.
Commission member Wagner stated on Exhibit A it appears to show road running all the way
through site.
City Planner Brixius explained that no longer exists.
Commission member Wagner asked Mr. O'Brien ifthe patio area is to be gated.
Mr. O'Brien replied that currently it is, but there is a possibility that they may remove the patio
area.
.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 15
Commission member Wagner then asked if it stays will there be a gate to the sidewalks. Does
the Fire Code require this?
City Planner Brixius stated that that for outdoor dining the code requires an egress gate only.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any questions or comments.
Pauline Hamm of 1128 60th Street NE asked if there was going to be an entrance from the
westbound traffic lane.
City Planner Brixius stated that no, the exit and entrance will be off of 60th Street on the East
side.
Ms. Hamm asked where is the water going to drain off of this site.
City Planner Brixius stated that we do not have enough information to determine that at this
time. Currently the storm sewer is located on County Road 37. The Engineer will need to
determine storm water calculations and applicable drain pond sizes required.
City Planner Brixius also stated that there is not a sufficient grading plan in place for this site and
that is one area that he has asked for more information on.
Ms. Hamm asked where the monument signage would be going.
Mr. O'Brien stated that it would be going in the front upper comer.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any more questions or comments.
Commission member Dorenbush stated he felt that there were a lot of questions and concerns
that they do not have answers for on the site plan.
Commission member Kocon stated that he felt a motion to continue the public hearing until July
should be made.
Chair Leintz closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m.
MOTION BY Commission member Meza, seconded by Commission member Dorenbush to
continue the Preliminary Plat, Commercial PUD/CUP, and Site and Building Plan Review until
the July 12,2005 Planning Commission meeting to allow for a more complete submission of
plans. Motion carried unanimously.
GENTLE DENTAL REZONING, PRELIMINARy/FINAL PLAT, SITE AND BUILDING PLAN
Chair Leintz opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
M:IPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 16
City Planner Brixius stated in May of2005, Miller Architects and Builders, Inc submitted a
request for a Site and Building Plan Review, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Rezoning ofthe
property located at 11090 50th Street NE. The property is currently in a residential district and
the applicant is proposing to have it rezoned to B-2 Limited Commercial use. The site consists
of approximately 0.4 acres ofland and is 110 feet wide by 157 feet deep.
The property is currently zoned R-l, Single Family, and has one single-family structure on site.
The applicant and owner have applied to have the property rezoned to B-2, Limited Business, to
allow for a dental clinic.
After review of the Albertville Zoning Map the property shows that it is bordered by a B-2
Zoning District to its west side. Allowing the extension of the B-2 District would make the
current B-2 District wider along 50th Street NE, which is a major collector street in the area.
The applicant is proposing to allow the lot at 11090 50th Street NE to be rezoned from R-l to B-
2. The surrounding land uses ofthe property are B-2 to the west and R-l to the east, across the
street from the property is the area high school. An amendment to the City's Zoning Map will be
subject to the following according to Section 300.l.f of the Zoning Ordinance:
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.
Comment: The proposal to change from an R-l District to a B-2 District is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan since the property is bordered on the west by a current B-2 zone.
In review of the site plan, the city shall attempt to integrate with sire into its long-range land
use and transportation goals.
2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: Since the proposed dental clinic is a low intensity commercial use it is
compatible with the existing single-family lot to the east. In the future the existing
residential unit may also propose to become a B-2 District as well. The site fronts along a
major collector street making it an ideal place to develop a commercial area. The site design
must recognize the remaining single family home and mitigate potential nuisance issues (i.e.
noise, glare, etc)
3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained herein.
Comment: Conformity with zoning standards shall be outlined in site plan review comments
of this report.
4. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: The building design and proposed use are compatible with the areas uses.
M:\Public DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes12005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 17
5. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services will not overburden
the City's service capacity.
Comment: Public services already extend to the site and will not overburden the City's
capacity.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
Comment: Minor traffic will occur to and from the site. The site sits on the comer of two
busy roads currently.
City Planner Brixius stated the current two single-family lots are isolated from other
developments in the city. A change in the land use of the proposed lot would widen the area of
the B-2 zone, making a more continuous pattern of the zoned area and would fit in with the
larger context of the area. A remaining single family home exists to the east between the
proposed site and the joint power and water plant. The remaining single-family lot may someday
also be considered for rezoning because of it location between the B-2 district and the power and
water plant, which is already commercial in nature.
City Planner Brixius asked the Commission, to take into account when considering the proposed
land use change and rezoning, that the City Council and Planning Commission make a policy
decision as to whether this land use change is appropriate for the overall area. Staff believes in
light of the aforementioned conditions, that a low intensity commercial use could exist in the
area.
In regards to the Preliminary/Final Plat, the applicant is proposing to have the current lot at
11090 50th Street NE be replatted in order to be rezoned from R-l to B-2 (Exhibit C). The replat
would allow for the lot to be converted into a dental clinic. The lot meets the minimum
standards set for the B-2 Zoning District. The preliminary plat is subject to the Metes and
Bounds requirement in Section A-900.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states:
No building permit shall be issued for any structure on any parcel ofland less than
five (5) acres in area or having a width less than three hundred (300) feet on an
improved public street, at a building setback line which is described by metes and
bounds until a plat describing such parcel of land has been filed with Wright
County Recorder's Office and proof thereof is furnished to the City.
If the commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat, staff asked that it be
conditioned on the following items:
1. Ten foot drainage and utility easements shall be required along each lot line.
2. Utility easements over the utility lines entering the site shall be required. The City Engineer
shall determine the easement width.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minules\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 18
City Planner Brixius indicated the proposed site fits within the required minimum of 10,000
square feet for a B-2 District. And the setbacks within the B-2 Zoning District have been met.
The site shows a single access point to the south off of 50th Street NE. This access point and the
building orientation need to be taken into careful consideration because of their impact on the
neighboring single-family dwelling. The building location on the site proposes to direct all
parking activity toward the neighboring single-family dwelling. The headlights of cars and the
streets light will reflect onto the lot. The proposed use will need to be respectful of the existing
adjoining property and the applicant will need to make changes to the current lot layout before
approval can be granted.
City Planner Brixius stated that one of the following two alternatives should be made:
1. The building could rotate 180 degrees to face the west instead of the current arrangement
facing the east. All parking would then occur on the west side of the building as well.
This layout would move all parking activities away from the property line of the single-
family use and the building would act as a buffer.
According to the Comprehensive Plan dated 2000, a frontage road running parallel to CR19
is proposed to run adjacent to the west end of the property and intersect with 50th Street NE.
Consideration should be taken to allow for access from the property to intersect with the
proposed roadway and perhaps this would be the access into the site.
2. The access drive could be shifted to the far-east side of the property and the parking
rotated to face into the building instead of into the single-family lot. The parking and
the lighting would be lined up against the entrance of the building allowing the activity to
move into the building rather than toward the existing single-family house. A full
landscape buffer of at least four feet in height will still be required along the property line
to protect the residential property.
If the applicant chooses to alter the site plans to specification of Alternative 2 then
consideration should be taken for a shared Access Easement of twenty (20) feet to be allowed
on the two properties. The easement would allow for an easy transition of the remaining
single-family lot to become a commercial district and share a driveway with the proposed lot.
City Planner Brixius stated that the site plan fits the requirements for parking, although the site
plan show parking stalls of 9 feet by 18 feet, the City Ordinance requires that all parking stall
lengths for 90 degree parking be 20 feet. In order for the stall length to fit with the requirements
the aisle and entry drive could be narrowed from 24 feet to 22 feet, which is the minimum aisle
width for 90 degree parking according to the Zoning Ordinance Parking Dimensions.
City Planner Brixius stated that this is a very attractive building and in the future LaCentre
Avenue may go all the way through to this property.
M:\Public DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 19
Brixius noted that the site is lacking in screening around the parking lot to provide screening to
the neighboring single-family lot. The current plan shows three (3) proposed maple trees along
the property line between Gentle Dental and the single family lot, the Zoning Ordinance requires
that all non-residential off street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts and from adjacent public streets
with a height of four (4) feet or more. These changes must be illustrated in a revised plan.
Brixius also stated that the applicant could change the layout of the parking lot and eliminate the
spaces to the east of the lot.
The proposed area is being change in use and coverage; therefore, they must manage their storm
water. No grading/drainage plan has been submitted, so we do not have any information on how
the storm water is being treated.
City Planner Brixius stated that a utility plan has not been submitted to the City or the staff. The
Planning Commission must decide whether to approve the plans after changes have been made
and await the comments on the grading and utility plans from the City Engineer, or postpone
approval for thirty (30) days until all plans have been received.
Chair Leintz asked if this property was located next to the Joint Powers Water Treatment Plant.
City Planner Brixius stated that it is not the house next to the water treatment plant, but the one
to the west.
Chair Leintz asked if the existing house will be demolished.
Brixius stated that yes, the existing house will be removed and the Gentle Dental Clinic would
then be constructed.
City Planner Brixius stated the applicants request to rezone the area from R-1 to B-2 is a policy
decision. The change in land use fits with the zoned nature of the area to the north and west of
the property. In considering the land use and zoning change, we must also evaluate the future
use of the single-family lot located immediately east of the property. The existing two single-
family lots are isolated from other single-family structures of the city. Rezoning the proposed
property does offer a compatible land use relationship with the surrounding area. The Planning
Commission and Council must make a determination as to whether they agree with this finding
that the area should be rezoned from R-1 to B-2.
If the City deems that the change in land use and zoning appropriate for the Koopman Addition
of Gentle Dental, then the preliminary plat is open for review and consideration. Approval of the
preliminary plat by the Planning Commission and Council should be subject to the following
requirements:
1. Ten foot drainage and utility easements shall be required along each lot line.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 20
2. Utility easements over the utility lines entering the site shall be required. The easement
width shall be determined by the City Engineer.
3. Consideration of a twenty (20) foot wide shared access between the proposed site and the
property to the east.
City Planner Brixius indicated that significant modification to building arrangement and parking
plan, are needed and revisions with regard for the single family home to the east must be met
before approval will be granted. The Planning Commission must decide whether they will grant
approval and allow the following condition be handled by staff, or if a decision to move will be
postponed for thirty (30) days while the following revisions are completed and required
information received and reviewed by staff:
Before approval of the application can be made the Planning Commission must also receive the
grading/drainage plan, the utility plan, and the photometric plan. If the aforementioned missing
plans are agreeable and other required alterations are made, staff recommends approval of the
Gentle Dental application.
Chair Leintz asked if anyone was present from the Gentle Dental.
Russ Karasch, Development Consultant with Miller Architect approached the commission
members and indicated that earlier he had met with staff on a preliminary site plan. Mr. Karasch
stated that they originally had the building facing a different direction, but it was his
understanding that staff wanted the building to face east.
Mr. Karasch stated that he did not see a problem with increasing the landscaping and would
install a 4- foot hedge.
Mr. Karasch indicated that business hours would be Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m. and that headlights from vehicles would not be a problem for that time of day.
Mr. Karasch stated he has tried on several occasions to reach the City Engineer and he has not
been able to get a return phone call. There is approximately 900 square feet for retaining water
and the property could support a holding pond in front.
Mr. Karasch said if they were to change the parking lot so vehicle lights would not shine towards
the residential property to the east, they would loose approximately 3 parking spaces and then
they would not meet the city parking requirements.
Chair Leintz asked if they would have a shared driveway.
Mr. Karasch indicated that at the staff meeting they did talk about that, but it was indicated to
him that it should not be a shared driveway.
M:lPublic Data\Planning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 21
City Planner Brixius stated that based on what Mr. Karasch is stating that option number two of
the 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Leintz asked Mr. Karasch if you lived there, what would you like to see.
The homeowners, Brian and Mary Rose Bebeau were present and addressed Chair Leintz
question.
Mr. Bebeau stated that they do feel that if the Gentle Dental Clinic is approved that it will isolate
them.
Mr. Bebeau asked if they were to sell their property, would it be rezoned then to B-2.
City Planner Brixius stated that yes they are isolated and that it would be left up to them if they
want to stay zoned R-l or be rezoned to B-2.
Mr. Bebeau was worried that he would not be able to sell his house if it was rezoned to B-2 and
that by having the Gentle Dental Clinic next door it would depreciate the value of his home. He
asked what this would do to the value of his home.
Commission member Dorenbush stated that it would more than likely increase his property
value.
Commission member Kocon stated by rezoning to B-2 it would increase the value and it would
be to his advantage.
Chair Leintz asked Mr. Bebeau ifhe and his family were planning on staying in their home for
the rest of their lives.
Mr. Bebeau stated that possibly 4 - 5 more years, but it could be as little as 1 year.
Chair Leintz asked Mr. Bebeau ifhe was concerned with the way that the building would be
facing.
Mr. Bebeau stated no. That was not a concern.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any questions or concerns.
Commission member Waguer asked what staff would like the commission to do at this time.
Chair Leintz asked if they really had enough information to make a motion at this time to move
forward.
City Planner Brixius stated that the city still needs information on the storm water and would
recommend that the commission continue until all information is received.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes12005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 22
Commission member Dorenbush asked if we could vote on just the rezoning issue at this time.
City Planner Brixius stated that he would like the commission to hold until all information is
received and make one motion to approve.
Commission member Meza asked if this type of rezoning, preliminary plat, site and building plan
have been done before.
City Planner Brixius said that a very good and recent example would be the Albertville Dental
Clinic on Jason Avenue.
Mr. Karasch stated that if the commission postponed this project for a month it would really hurt
their project and they would have to deal with winter construction. Mr. Karasch felt that if the
City Engineer could get back to him, they could have the drainage issue resolved by the end of
the week.
Commission member Meza asked if a fence would be possible to help with the parking lot and
headlight issues.
Mr. Karasch stated it would depend on what the setbacks were.
City Planner Brixius stated that they may be able to do a boundary line fence, but would need
fencing detail to be submitted.
Mr. Bebeau stated that he would not like to see a fence that it is basically just a snow catcher.
City Planner Brixius indicated he felt that Gentle Dental should explore option number 2 with
flipping the parking lot.
Council liaison Berning asked what B-2 Zoning District allows.
City Planner Brixius replied it allows a variety of retail, Bakery goods, Government and public
related utility buildings and structures, office business - clinical, office business - general,
personal services, personal wireless service antennas located upon a public structure, including
necessary equipment buildings, and public parking garage. With a CUP you could have a
daycare, restaurant without a drive through, etc.
Chair Leintz asked if you would be able to limit the use to professional services.
City Planner Brixius indicated that it would not be possible to limit it to professional services
since it would be zoned B-2.
Chair Leintz asked if there were any questions or comments.
M:lPublic Data\Planning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 23
MOTION BY Commission member Dorenbush, seconded by Commission member Wagner to
continue the Rezoning, PreliminarylFinal Plat, Site and Building Plan Review to the
July 12,2005 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - BANNER SIGNS
Chair Leintz opened the public hearing at 8:39 p.m.
City Planner Brixius stated the City is considering amendments to its Sign Ordinance pertaining
to banner signs. These amendments would accommodate some temporary signs in Highway
Commercial and General Business districts. The comprehensive Sign Ordinance will take
precedence over Zoning Ordinance.
City Planner Brixius informed the commission that staff has been directed to analyze current
usage of permanent signage in comparison to use of banner signage for select sites in Albertville.
The five sites selected for this sign ordinance evaluation are: Casey's General Store, Spectator's
Grille & Bar, 152 Club, Geez Sports Bar & Grill, and Smack Down's Sports Bar & Grill.
The purpose of the sign ordinance is to establish regulations governing advertising and business
signs in the City. The regulations are intended to permit an efficient, effective and aesthetic
means to communicate using on and off premise signage while recognizing the need to maintain
an attractive and appealing appearance in the community, including the appearance along streets
and property used for commercial, industrial and public development and the air space above and
between such development.
As regulated by City Ordinance the following signs are permitted. *
A. Window Signs. Section 9, Subd. 4. The size of the interior window signage
shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) up to the maximum of forty (40) square
feet, ofthe entire window area of the one (1) side of the building upon which said
signs shall be displayed.
B. Front Wall Signs. Section 10, Subd.l. (a). Not more than one (1) sign shall be
permitted on the front wall of any principal building. The total area of such sign
shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the wall area.
As regulated by City Ordinance, the following signs are not permitted. *
C. Banners and Pennants. Section 9, Subd.l. No banner, pennant, streamer, string
of lights, searchlights or any other similar sign shall be permitted.
City Planner Brixius indicated that under the sign ordinance amendment businesses would be
able to utilize front wall signage by allowing a framed permanent, interchangeable sign casement
or reader board, which would require a one time permit for the construction of the framed reader
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & Zoning\P&Z minutes\2005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 24
board. The total front wall signage area and banner signage area must not exceed fifteen percent
(15%) ofthe total front wall area.
City Planner Brixius stated that most business are not utilizing their wall signage.
Don Savitiski, owner ofDJ's, asked when the 32 square feet rule came into effect.
City Planner Brixius stated that this has been in the Temporary Sign Ordinance for quite some
time and that the allowable size is not changing, only that now banners would be included under
the Temporary Sign Ordinance.
Zoning Administrator, Jon Sutherland asked ifit is possible for businesses to have an existing
non-conforming sign grandfathered in.
City Planner Brixius stated that there are no amendments being made in the Temporary Sign
Ordinance and that you are not allowed to have a sign grandfathered in when it is a temporary
sign only a permanent sign.
Zoning Administrator Sutherland asked what about an existing banner that is non-conforming.
City Planner Brixius stated that currently banners are prohibited.
Mr. Savitiski asked what is wrong with have a big sign.
City Planner Brixius stated that if size was not regulated, everyone could take advantage of it.
Chair Leintz asked if Mr. Savitiski had a sign that was non-conforming.
City Planner Brixius stated that under our current Temporary Sign Ordinance that businesses are
allowed to have a maximum sign size of thirty-two (32) square feet if the adjacent roadway has a
posted speed of forty-four (44) miles per hour or less, or sixty-four (64) square feet if the
adjacent roadway has a posted speed of forty-five (45) miles per hour or more.
Jeff Gustafson, West Side Liquor, stated that they used banners in the past and found that they
were hard to see.
City Planner Brixius stated that a comprehensive sign plan should have been done for West Side
Liquor and it is something that may need to be done, but to keep in mind that this would be for
all tenants within that building.
Mr. Gustafson indicated that West Side Liquor would like more options on advertising for
business than just in the newspapers.
Commission member Kocon asked what the speed limit is in front of there.
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinutesIM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14, 2005 Minutes
Page 25
City Planner Brixius indicated he thought it was 40 mph.
Mr. Savitiski asked what was wrong with advertising with balloons.
City Planner Brixius stated that he would need the Commission to direct him to bring changes
before the City Council in order to change the current ordinance. City Planner Brixius informed
the Commission that businesses could utilize the framed signage to advertise for special events.
Wes Wiley, Welcome Furniture, asked why the size of signage could not be larger.
Chair Leintz stated that the commission could change allowable size if they could agree on a
SIze.
Council liaison Berning asked if the size ofthe four (4) allowable temporary signs could be
changed to 64 square feet.
City Planner Brixius stated if you change if for portable signage, you would have to do it for
banners.
Chair Leintz asked if they could exclude banners.
Commission member Wagner asked if a temporary sign permit has to be reviewed and approved
by the Zoning Administrator Sutherland.
Zoning Administrator Sutherland stated that yes he does review and issue temporary sign
permits.
Mr. Savitiski asked if a temporary sign had to be on wheels.
City Planner Brixius indicated that the temporary sign does not have to be on wheels.
Commission member Wagner did not feel that a 64 square foot banner would look very good and
would clutter the city.
City Planner Brixius stated he needed direction for the commission member if they wanted to
change the maximum allowable size of the signs. Businesses would still need to meet setback
requirements.
Commission member Wagner stated that he was not apposed to changing the size of the portable
signage, but felt a 64 square feet was too large for a banner, especially along Main Avenue.
Chair Leintz closed the public hearing at 9:31 p.m.
MOTION BY Commission Member Wagner, seconded by Commission Member Meza to
Change existing Temporary Sign Ordinance SECTION 2, Section 9, Subd.15. (d) to read
M:lPublic DatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc
.
.
.
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
June 14,2005 Minutes
Page 26
Maximum Size. Maximum sign size shall be limited to thirty-two (32) square feet for banners
and limited to a maximum sign size of sixty-four (64) square feet for portable signs.
Chair Leintz asked City Planner Brixius if the City could give Chelsea Property Group a time
Limit on cleaning up the dirt pile at the Albertville Premium Outlet Mall.
City Planner Brixius stated that the City is working with them on addressing several issues and
the City has identified the dirt pile.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY Commission member Kocon, seconded by Commission member Dorenbush to
adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
>>~ o! o!~
Sharon Leintz, Chair
M:lPublic OatalPlanning & ZoninglP&Z minutes\2005 MinuteslM 06-14-05.doc