2015-05-12 PC Agenda Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA
2. MINUTES
April 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting (pages 1-3)
April 14, 2015 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting (pages 4-8)
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Richard Kolles for a Building Relocation to
Move a Garage Onto Property at 5098 Lansing Avenue in Albertville, MN
(pages 9-16)
b. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by the Albertville Premiums Outlet Mall to
Amend Their B-3/PUD to Allow Temporary Storage Units and Banner Signs on the
Light Poles for Property Located at 6415 LaBeaux Avenue in Albertville, MN
(pages 17-27)
c. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Niemeyer Properties LLC to Amend the
B-W/PUD to Allow the Installation of a Propane Filling Station at Property Located
at 6550 Karston Way in Albertville, MN (pages 28-36)
d. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by the City of Albertville to Amend the
Albertville Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to the Location and Setbacks of Retaining
Walls in Residential Zoning Districts in Albertville, MN (pages 37-40)
e. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by the City of Albertville to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan Pertaining to the Goals, Policies, Priorities and Land Use Plan
of the Albertville Vision Study (pages 41-46)
4. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Consider a Request by Mold Tech Inc./Glacier for a site and building plan review for
a 12,000 square foot industrial building expansion for property located at 5166
Barthel Industrial Drive in Albertville, MN (pages 47-57)
5. ADJOURNMENT
1
City of Albertville
5959 Main Avenue NE
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, MN 55301
Phone: 763-497-3384
UNAPPROVED
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Klecker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Ron Klecker, Commissioner Natalya Lindberg, Commissioner Mark
Barthel, Commissioner Dale Edgren, Commission Justin Dominick, and Council Liaison
Walter Hudson.
Staff members present: Alan Brixius and Sue Schwalbe
Others Present/Public: Mark and Lisa DeMars, 13350 55th Street NE St. Michael
John Vetch, Albertville
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Barthel moved, second by Edgren to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Barthel moved, second by Edgren to approved the minutes of the February 10, 2015
Planning Commission Minutes with the following correction: Page 8, Item #1: The
variance is not a reasonable use of the site in that the billboard was approved for the
site at a 30 foot height. Motion carried unanimously.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Michael and Lisa DeMars for a Conditional
Use Permit to Move an Existing Home on the Lot at 5158 Main Avenue NE in
Albertville, MN.
Alan Brixius presented the planning report dated 04-08-15 to the Commission for their
consideration.
Michael and Lisa DeMars have requested approval of a conditional use permit (CUP to allow the
relocation of an existing single home from outside the city to the property located north of 51st
2
Street NE and east of Main Avenue NE (5158 Main Avenue NE). According to City Code, a
conditional use permit is required for all permanent relocation of residences and for the
relocation of any building requiring a permit in the City. The applicants plan to remove the
existing home and garage from the lot prior to the relocation of the new house onto the subject
site.
The new house to be located shall comply with the applicable provisions of the State Building
Code. As part of the application for building permit, the submission of detailed site and building
plans shall be required. This house and all house and garage improvements will require a
building permit and review and approval by the City Building Official.
The relocated structure shall be occupied within six months of the date of City Council approval
of the CUP.
Prior to the moving the house the moving company must provide documentation for licensure
and insurance.
The proposed travel route (of the home to be relocated) and related timing shall be subject to
approval by the City Engineer.
With building permit application, the applicant shall submit a suite plan on a certificate of survey
showing required setbacks, driveway curb cut location, and utility connections to the new house.
The size of the proposed attached garage shall be reduced to not exceed 1,000 square feet.
The design of the attached garage and breezeway shall be compatible with the home to be
relocated. The garage and breezeway shall exhibit similar roof pitch, finish materials and colors
of the home to be relocated.
The following landscaping-related conditions shall be satisfied:
a. The lot area remaining after providing for driveways, sidewalks, patios, building site
and/or other requirements shall be sodded, seeded and mulched prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy.
b. Front yards and side yards which abut public streets shall be sodded. Other turf areas
may be seeded.
c. If the subject property does not contain a shade or evergreen tree, one shade tree or
evergreen tree shall be provided on the property consistent with the permitted species list
and minimum size requirements of Section 1000.7.B of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. The proceeding landscaping-related requirements shall be satisfied within six months of
building occupancy.
A new driveway apron shall be constructed within the 51st Street right-of-way to match the limits
of the new garage driveway. The construction and cost of such apron shall be the responsibility
of the applicants. This issue shall be subject to further comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer.
3
Commissioner Barthel asked what the time limit building permit for a new single family
dwelling/
Brixius responded that a new home is generally constructed within one year of issuance of the
permit.
Commissioner Barthel questioned the driveway width of 24 feet.
Brixius stated that that is the width limit. By ordinance.
Brixius stated the building height will be consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Barthel stated this plan should improve the water drainage issues.
Chair Klecker opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m.
No comments
Chair Klecker closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Dominick moved, second by Edgren to approve Request by Michael and Lisa DeMars for a
Conditional Use Permit to Move an Existing Home on the Lot at 5158 Main Avenue NE in
Albertville, MN with the conditions outlined in the planning report dated 04 / 18 / 15 with
the change to expand the time limit from six months to one year from the date of the City
Council approval of the Conditional Use permit.
Motion carried unanimously.
Barthel moved, second by Dominick to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:30
p.m.
Motion carried unanimously
_____________________________
Sue Schwalbe, Recording Secretary
Page 4
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Mayor Vetsch called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Present: Acting Mayor Vetsch and Council members Hudson, Olson, and Sorensen.
Planning Commissioners Mark Barthel, Dale Edgren, Jeremy Dominick, Ron Klecker, and
Natalya Lindberg.
Mayor Hendrickson arrived at 8:05 p.m.
Absent: None
Others Present: City Planner Alan Brixius, City Attorney Michael Couri, and City Clerk
Kimberly Olson.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Brixius reported the Comprehensive Plan was established in 1996 and at that time the City of
Albertville consisted primarily of agricultural land. He stated the Comp Plan is enabled by
Minnesota planning statutes that allow a community the authority to plan and manage land use
and facilities to accomplish specific objectives. He stated the plan is used as a guide for future
investments.
Brixius reported that between 1998 and 2012, most of the community had developed and the
Council realized they needed to update its comprehensive plan to address how the future of
remaining land should be utilized. Fill-in development was occurring rapidly and creating issues
with the utilities, services, roads, and traffic. In 2012, the city undertook the Vision Study that
updated the city’s land use and development goals, policies and 2030 land use plan. This plan
was adopted as an amendment to the original comprehensive plan.
Brixius reviewed the land use plans for both the cities of Otsego and St. Michael. He indicated
that mostly residential development in St. Michael surrounds Albertville. That the city of Otsego
opened the western half of its city to development when they constructed a new waste water
facility and water tower to serve the western side their community. Commercial uses are
planned in Otsego following Albertville’s pattern of land use continuing north on CSAH 19.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5
Workshop Meeting of April 14, 2015
Industrial land uses are planned for along the northeast Albertville boundaries and CSAH 37.
Vetsch stated that CSAH 19 would eventually be a four lane road and it was planned to have
multiple access points to accommodate traffic.
Brixius stated there have been several examples of when the land use plan has been changed in
the Comp Plan. He stated the northwest portion of Albertville was reguided from Industrial to
Business Park to allow for either light industrial or commercial land uses as they did not know
what would eventually fill that area. Another example was rezoning of the Niemeyer parcel
south of I-94 to BW to allow for business and warehouse uses.
Brixius stated that the Comp Plan can be fluid, but the goals and policy statements are currently
solidly written. He stated the goals of the 2012 Vision Study provide for strong economic
development. The commercial land use patterns are driven by the city’s two interstate
interchanges that provide a competitive advantage for Albertville over the neighboring
communities that do not have this freeway access. He stated that eventually there may be other
freeway access points in other communities, but for now, Albertville has the freeway access and
that is essential to commercial uses and development.
3. ZONING
Brixius stated that zoning is the technique used to implement the goals and policies of the Comp
Plan. He stated that staff cannot predict future Public/Institutional (P/I) uses, so the land use map
and the Vision Study is silent to identifying future site for institutional uses. Rezoning process is
the option for considering locations for those uses. He added that some communities do allow
P/I uses as a Conditional Use Permit in residential areas and that could be an option. Brixius
stated that there have been several concepts presented to Council for the Leuer-Munstertieger
property over the years such as high density (multifamily) housing, a split residential/commercial
development, and the first request by Westbridge Community Church.
He stated that annually the city reviews the Vision Study, ten year goals, and city’s long range
land use plan to outline the current priorities for the city and to reaffirm the desire land use
patterns.. He stated the policies and land use plan were not changed from 2012 through 2014,
but now is the opportunity for the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss if
something is missing from these goals and policies. Brixius stated that it can be beneficial to
have these conversations prior to a zoning request.
Vetsch stated that sometimes there is a perception that businesses are failing because of decisions
or actions of staff and City Council. He felt that businesses must be supported by the entirety of
the community in order to be successful; efforts should be made to shop local and support local
businesses.
Brixius stated that most of the business development came in after the Albertville Premium
Outlet Mall in 1999. He stated that in the early 2000’s residential development and businesses
were looking for land outside of the seven county metropolitan area that is under the planning
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6
Workshop Meeting of April 14, 2015
Brixius stated several examples of commercial and industrial recovery/expansion within the City
in the last few months and he is hopeful it is a sign of recovery. He stated that commercial
growth often lags behind residential growth.
4. PROCESS/COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AMENDEMENT/REZONING
Brixius explained the process applicants go through when completing an application to amend
the Comp Plan or request rezoning.
• Pre-Application Meeting: Meet with staff to discuss submission materials and schedule.
Staff may suggest submitting a concept plan to City Council for feedback prior to
submittal of formal application.
• Receipt of Application: Applications must be submitted with all required information in
order to be considered complete. Upon receipt of a complete application, under state
statutes, the city has a timeframe of 60 days to review and take action on a development
application. Under certain circumstance the city may extend this review period an
additional 60 days with written notice to the applicant. If all materials are not submitted,
the application is deemed incomplete and the 60 day review period does not begin.
• Public Hearing Notice: The Planning Commission conducts all public hearings on
applications received for Comp Plan changes and rezoning requests. Notice is mailed out
ten days in advance of the hearing to all surrounding property owners within 350 feet of
the subject property.
• Staff Reports: Staff reviews the application and prepares a report on the review criteria
for the applicant’s request.
• Public Hearing: The public hearing is held at the Planning Commission and the
Commission reviews staff’s findings and the review criteria and recommends either
approval or denial of the application to the City Council. The planning commission’s
recommendation is advisory only.
• City Decision: The Council makes the final decision on all land use and zoning changes.
Brixius stated that municipalities in Wright County have more discretion with their zoning than
metropolitan municipalities.
Hudson inquired how complex it is to change the Comp Plan. Brixius replied that it can be done
at the time of a zoning request. Brixius stated that when they met with Leuer and Westbridge
Community Church, staff encouraged them to first apply for a Comp Plan amendment so that the
Vision goals and policies do not work against them.
Hudson inquired if the attraction to Albertville for businesses and/or organizations was the lack
of government regulations, such as the regulations imposed by the Metropolitan Council. He
also inquired if there are opportunities in the market they are not aware of. Brixius replied that it
wasn’t necessarily government intervention that pushed developers to look towards northeastern
Wright County, but rather land supply. He stated that in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s many
larger developers at that time were tying up the limited MUSA land supply in available for
development in the Metropolitan counties. This competition for land pushed development
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7
Workshop Meeting of April 14, 2015
companies to seek urban development land beyond the metropolitan Area and into the collar
counties like Wright County.
Hendrickson clarified that the city may be missing some opportunities if potential businesses are
looking at the zoning only and then seeking other locations when they see the zoning for the
potential location does not fit their need. She would like the opportunity to talk with those
potential businesses to see if they could make something work that would be a good fit for
Albertville and the business. She stated that the current Council may want more information
given to them than previous Councils. She has recently heard that some of the local businesses
have been inquiring about more workforce housing for their employees and she had not
previously known of that. She suggested that they keep true to the Vision Study, but also see if
they could accommodate those types of inquiries.
Dominick stated that he would like to see all applications regardless of zoning. He was
concerned about applicants being told their application is not in line with the Comp Plan and
then the application does not get a chance to be discussed by either Planning or Council.
Hudson was concerned they may be putting the cart before the horse by deferring to the Comp
Plan rather than having conversation on the application itself.
Dominick suggested a possibility of the Planning Commission’s recommendation count as a vote
on the Council. Brixius replied that the Planning Commission is strictly advisory to the City
Council and Couri explained that MN State Statute specifically gives the elected officials the
final ruling on these changes. Hudson stated the he understands the Planning Commission can
be more exploratory in a sense, but in the end it is the elected officials that must deliberate the
consequences of certain decisions. Sorensen added that very rarely has the City Council voted
against the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Vetsch added that elected officials
are vested in the community over the long term. Sorensen and Hendrickson referred to several
changes that were made to the Comp Plan such as Darkenwald, Dominium, and Guardian Angels
properties.
Brixius stated that staff tries to make it successful for those who want to build and invest in
Albertville. Staff never says no to an applicant, but tries to facilitate direction they have received
from the Council. He commented that it is sometimes difficult because they cannot always
predict how the Council will respond. Hendrickson stated that at the last joint workshop there
may have been a difference of opinion, but she felt it was a healthy dialogue for both City
Council and Planning Commission to have.
Sorensen stated that in the annual reviews he had commented: “I would like to see more
proposals brought in front of the Council. The billboard and land use on 19 are recent ones that
come to mind. I realize that in the past, staff has tried to buffer these requests based on past
direction the Council has provided. But, Council’s views may change and I personally don’t
mind spending some time hearing a proposal, even if we end up saying no at the end of the day.
I don’t want to miss out on an opportunity based on direction that this council or any past
Council has given.” Hendrickson felt they have more time now to make sound decisions
whereas in the past development was happening quickly. Olson agreed he would also like to see
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8
Workshop Meeting of April 14, 2015
more concepts/proposals brought to Council. Brixius indicated he would add this as a goal and
policy statement to the Vision Study and bring it forward to the Planning Commission at their
next meeting and then to Council.
Barthel inquired if planning for right-of-way has been done for the areas that will have future
road improvements. Brixius replied that is addressed during the subdivision process.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Motioned by Olson, seconded by Hendrickson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Ayes:
Hendrickson, Barthel, Dominick, Edgren, Hudson, Klecker, Lindberg, Olson, Sorensen, and
Vetsch. Nays: None. Absent: None. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Kimberly A. Olson, City Clerk
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Adam Nafstad
FROM: Alan Brixius / Ryan Grittman
DATE: May 7, 2015
RE: Albertville - Kolles Building Relocation CUP
FILE NO: 163.06 - 15.03
BACKGROUND
Richard Kolles has requested approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the
relocation of an existing garage from St. Albert’s Church to his property located at 5098
Lansing Avenue. According to the City Code, a conditional use permit is required for
the permanent relocation of any building requiring a permit in the City.
The subject site is zoned R-1, Residential Single Family and is presently occupied by a
single family home; an attached garage; and a detached garage. The applicant plans to
remove the existing detached structures after relocation of the new garage onto the
subject site.
The garage to be relocated is 16 feet by 22 feet. In conjunction with the building
relocation, the applicant plans to remove the existing detached shed on the east side of
the home. The applicant hopes to move the building to the subject site in the month of
May.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Applicant’s Notes
9
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Performance Standards. Section 1400.4 of the City Code establishes a specific set of
standards which must be satisfied in the consideration of building relocation requests
(via CUP). The following is a listing of the various performance standards followed by a
City staff response:
A. Upon relocation, the building shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the State Building Code.
Staff Comment. As a condition of CUP approval, the garage to be relocated
must comply with the applicable provisions of the State Building Code. As part of
the application for building permit, the submission of detailed site and building
plans will be required. The applicant will also need a building permit for the
construction of a concrete slab for the relocated building to be placed on. This
issue will be subject to review and approval by the City Building Official.
B. The proposed relocated building shall comply with the character of the
neighborhood in which it is being relocated as determined by the City
Council.
Staff Comment. The subject site is bordered by single family residential uses on
three sides. Most homes in the neighborhood are similar. The area adjacent to
the north of the property is zoned P-I, Public Institutional and is a public park.
The applicant has indicated that the garage to be relocated will have lap siding to
match the home and will be painted to match the existing principal structure on
the property. It is the opinion of City staff that the garage to be relocated will be
compatible in appearance with existing homes in the area.
C. The relocated use will not result in a depreciation of neighborhood or
adjacent property values.
Staff Comment. Considering that the garage will be compatible with other
garages in the area and that the Building Code compliance will be made a
condition of the CUP approval, the proposed use is not expected to depreciate
neighborhood property values.
D. The relocated structure shall be similar to the market valuation of adjacent
principal structures as determined by the City or County Assessor.
Staff Comment. The garage to be relocated exhibits a ground floor footprint of
352 square feet. The existing attached garage is 484 square feet. This brings
the total square footage to 836 square feet. City Code states that the total
square footage cannot exceed 1,150 square feet according to Section
1000.4.B.2.c.
10
E. The relocated structure shall be ready for occupancy within six months
from the date of location on the site.
Staff Comment. As a condition of CUP approval, the relocated structure will be
required to be occupied within six months of the date of City Council approval.
F. The travel route of the building move must reflect proper capacity of the
street with regard to load bearing capacity, will not interfere with utilities,
and will not create congestion or traffic safety issues on the public street.
Staff Comment. As required, the applicant has described the proposed travel
route to the site. The move is expected to occur sometime during the month of
May. City staff is willing to consider waiving the requirement of hiring a licensed
building mover due to the relatively small size of the structure.
The applicant has indicated the proposed route is to go south on Main Avenue
NE, then east on 51st Street NE to Lansing Avenue NE. This route is subject to
review by the City Engineer. The time of day that the structure will be moved is
also subject to review by the City Engineer.
Setbacks. The following is a listing of minimum R-1 District principal building setback
requirements, as well as setbacks proposed by the applicant:
Required Proposed
South Front Yard 30 feet 35 feet
West Side Yard 20 feet 40 feet
East Side Yard 10 feet 27 feet
North Rear Yard 25 feet 82 feet
While the proposed setbacks meet applicable setback requirements of the Ordinance,
some concern exists in regard to their accuracy as the submitted site plan is not drawn
to scale. Compliance with required setbacks should be confirmed prior to the
placement of the building upon the site via identification of lot monuments and staked
building corners.
Landscaping. It is assumed that placement of the new structure and the removal of
the existing detached structure will not significantly impact existing site vegetation (turf
and landscaping). In this regard, it is recommended that the following conditions be
imposed as conditions of CUP approval:
1. The lot area remaining after the existing detached garage is removed must be
seeded or sodded to restore turf.
11
2. Impacted front yards and side yards which abut the public streets shall be
restored with seed or sod.
3. The preceding requirements be satisfied within six months of building occupancy.
Driveway Access. According to Section 1200.4.H.12, single family uses shall be
limited to one curb cut access per property unless a conditional use permit is approved.
The property owner has not applied for an additional access. Staff recommends that no
additional access be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
Provided certain conditions are imposed, we believe the relocated garage can
compatibly exist within the neighborhood in which it is proposed. As a result and based
on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional
use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The garage to be relocated shall comply with the applicable provisions of the
State Building Code. The applicant shall secure a building permit prior to
building relocation.
2. The relocated structure shall be occupied within six months of the date of City
Council approval.
3. The existing detached outbuilding (10 feet x 10 feet) be removed within six
months of the relocation of the new garage.
4. The proposed travel route (of the home to be relocated) and related timing shall
be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
5. The detached garage shall be painted to match the existing house.
6. The following landscaping-related conditions shall be satisfied:
a. The lot area remaining after removal of the existing outbuilding and any
other impacted area shall be restored to green space through seeding and
sodding prior to issuance of a certificate of building occupancy.
b. Disturbed front yards and side yards which abut public streets shall be
seeded or sodded.
c. The preceding landscaping-related requirements shall be satisfied within
six months of building occupancy.
7. Comments of other City staff.
12
c: Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
Richard Kolles, 5098 Lansing Ave, Albertville, MN 55301
13
EXHIBIT A
14
EXHIBIT B15
EXHIBIT C16
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Adam Nafstad
FROM: Alan Brixius / Ryan Grittman
DATE: May 7, 2015
RE: Albertville – Albertville Premium Outlets PUD Amendment
FILE NO: 163.06 – 15.05
BACKGROUND
Albertville Premium Outlets has requested an amendment to their Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to allow for limited use of temporary storage containers behind the
mall, as well as banner signs on light poles within the parking lot. The lighting is also
being updated to LED fixtures and the angle of the existing fixtures will be readjusted to
direct lighting downward.
Currently, Albertville Premium Outlets uses an event permit to allow the use of
temporary storage containers (“pods”). The applicant has requested a change to their
PUD in an effort to avoid reapplying for an event permit on an annual basis. The
applicant is seeking the temporary storage units as a solution to increased sales during
peak shopping times throughout the year.
The applicant is also seeking an amendment to allow for banners to be hung on select
light poles within their parking lot.
The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development using the B-3, Highway
Commercial District as the standard to regulate uses.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Applicant’s Notes
Exhibit B: Storage Unit Details
Exhibit C: Site Plan
Exhibit D: Banner Example
17
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Temporary Storage Units. Seasonally, the major retail tenants of the Outlet Mall
need additional merchandise storage to keep their stores stocked during peak sales
periods (i.e., Back to School, Christmas). The current buildings do not offer sufficient
warehouse space to address the growing demands of the successful anchor stores. In
response to their tenant needs, the Outlet Mall is requesting the use of temporary
storage units as a means to provide expanded on-site storage. In meeting with staff, we
identified that outdoor storage is an allowed conditional use within the B-3 Zoning
District, however City staff noted the following issues:
1. Location. The location and placement of the storage units would have to be
located at the rear of the shopping center buildings. These locations cannot take
up required parking, cannot interfere with fire lanes or delivery truck
maneuvering, and the storage area must be screened from public streets.
The applicant’s site plan shows six storage unit locations at the rear of the
shopping center Phases 1 and 2. These locations are intended to disperse the
storage facilities to the major tenant locations for ease of access. In review of
the site plan, we find the locations to be acceptable provided:
a. The storage unit location shall be on a paved surface, painted and signed
for the storage unit. This physical demarcation is intended to keep the
units in approved locations, prevent intrusion onto the drive aisles, and
prevent expanded storage unit.
b. The applicant shall maintain a 24 foot or greater drive aisle around the
building for a fire lane and to allow for tenant deliveries by large trucks.
Storage units shall not encroach into the drive aisles.
c. The Outlet Mall has an oversupply of parking. These storage unit
locations will not consume required parking.
2. Storage Unit Size and Security. The applicant is proposing to limit storage unit
size to 8 feet high by 8 feet deep by 16 feet in length. The applicant believes that
this size is appropriate to meet the needs of the tenants. The PUD will limit the
maximum storage unit size to that requested by the Outlet Mall. The on-site
demarcation for the storage unit space should be over-sized to include access
and door swings of the unit.
The City requires outdoor storage areas to be entirely fenced to secure the
storage area. The proposed units are entirely enclosed structures with locked
doors for security. In this respect, no fencing will be required.
3. Temporary Use. The units are temporary storage structures. They will be used
for a period of 60 days, two times a year. The temporary nature of these units
allows the City to treat them as outdoor storage rather than permanent accessory
18
buildings, which would require them to meet the City’s accessory building
standards for permanent structures.
4. Screening. The City requires all outdoor storage areas to be screened from
adjoining properties and public streets. The applicant is proposing that the units
themselves provide screening in that all storage will be enclosed. The applicant
also proposes that the units will be of a neutral color with no graffiti. Additionally,
all trash receptacles and trash compactors should be repainted this summer to
match the color of the buildings.
In review of the site locations, the areas on the east and west ends of the Outlet
Mall raise some concerns for visibility and appearance from County Road 19 or
Interstate 94.
The east end may not be an issue in that the storage unit area will be set back
approximately 160+ feet from the east property line. This storage unit location
will be screened by a trash enclosure and the Omann Bros. building.
The west location will have exposure to Interstate 94. The applicant will be
painting the current trash handling equipment and they indicated that their 2016
budget includes monies for landscaping. City staff will evaluate the visual impact
of the western units once in place and direct the applicant on additional
screening if needed.
Banners. The Outlet Mall is requesting flexibility from the Albertville Sign Ordinance to
allow the placement of banners on their parking lot light poles. Their request for the
Phase 1 and 2 shopping centers is for 11 light pole locations. The banners will be three
feet by five feet in area. In review of the request, we offer the following comments:
1. The Outlet Mall is a very large site accessed via a private street. The proposed
locations of the banners will be visible from County Road 19 and Interstate 94
and will not have messages legible from outside the parking lots. In this respect,
the banners serve as an aesthetic feature to the light poles rather than signs.
2. Within the site, the banners will advertise select tenants and provide directions to
the tenant bays or will include a generic message such as “Happy Holidays.”
Due to the uniqueness of the Outlet Mall as a land use and its overall site design, staff
supports the proposed banner request with the following conditions:
1. The banners shall be limited to the 11 locations proposed for Phases 1 and 2.
We would also approve 12 locations for banners in Phase 3. This is to avoid a
future PUD application for this site.
2. The Phase 1, 2 and 3 banner sizes shall all be limited to three feet by five feet.
3. No more than two banners per light pole.
19
4. Banners shall be mounted on the poles to provide a minimum of 10 feet of
clearance between the bottom of the banner and the parking lot.
5. All banners shall be maintained in good condition. Torn, frayed, or faded
banners shall be removed or replaced.
Lighting. The Outlet Mall lighting preceded current City light performance standards
that require all new commercial exterior lighting to be 90 degree cutoff lighting to
prevent glare issues for surrounding properties.
The Outlet Mall lighting has produced nuisance complaints from residents south of the
Interstate. The applicant is now proposing that all parking lot lights will be converted to
LED light sources and light fixture heads will be adjusted to a 90 degree cutoff with
shielded light bulbs. This will serve to reduce glare issues.
RECOMMENDATION
In review of the Albertville Outlet Mall request to amend the PUD, we find their requests
to be reasonable in the context of the overall site design and land use. Staff
recommends approval of the PUD amendment with the following conditions:
Temporary Storage Units. The temporary storage units are approved with the
following conditions:
1. The proposed storage unit locations shall be limited to the six storage unit
locations identified on the approved site plan. These unit locations shall be
paved and painted on-site to demark the unit location. No storage unit shall be
located outside the approved pad locations.
2. No storage unit shall be placed so as to obstruct the fire lanes or drive aisles for
truck deliveries at the rear of the Outlet Mall buildings. The drive aisles shall
maintain a 24 foot unencumbered width.
3. Storage units shall not exceed 8 feet in height, 8 feet in depth, and 16 feet in
length.
4. Storage units may be placed on site twice a year for a duration that shall not
exceed 60 days. Upon expiration of this period, the storage units shall be
removed.
5. Storage units shall be self-contained and secured.
6. The storage units shall be of a neutral color (no graffiti). All trash handling
equipment and compactors shall be painted to match the principal buildings.
20
7. Upon locating the storage units, the applicant shall screen the equipment from
County Road 19 and Interstate 94. Upon placing the storage units in place, the
applicant shall work with City staff to identify the location, type and quantity of
screened needed.
Banners. Staff recommends the approval of the PUD amendment to allow banners on
light poles internal to the parking lots, subject to the following conditions:
1. The banners shall be limited to the 11 locations proposed for Phases 1 and 2.
We would also approve 12 locations for banners in Phase 3. This is to avoid a
future PUD application for this site.
2. The Phase 1, 2 and 3 banner sizes shall all be limited to three feet by five feet.
3. No more than two banners per light pole.
4. Banners shall be mounted on the poles to provide a minimum of 10 feet of
clearance between the bottom of the banner and the parking lot.
5. All banners shall be maintained in good condition. Torn, frayed, or faded
banners shall be removed or replaced.
6. All parking lot light fixtures shall be readjusted to a 90 degree cutoff with the light
source (bulb) shielded prior to the installation of the banners.
c: Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
Laurie Summerland, CPG Partners, 6415 LaBeaux Avenue, Suite A-109
21
EXHIBIT A22
EXHIBIT B-123
EXHIBIT B-224
EXHIBIT C-125
EXHIBIT C-226
EXHIBIT D
27
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Adam Nafstad
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: May 7, 2015
RE: Albertville – Niemeyer Trailer Sales Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO: 163.06 – 15.04
BACKGROUND
In 2008, the City approved the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District,
PUD/BW zoning, final plat and conditional use permits for outdoor storage and outdoor
sales lots and a site and building plan for property at 6550 Karston Way. Over the last
year, the site has been developed and Niemeyer Trailer Sales has relocated from Maple
Grove to Albertville.
The original site plan neglected to illustrate a location for a propane filling station that is
inherent in their business of recreational camper trailer sales, service and storage.
Niemeyer Properties LLC has now applied to amend the PUD site plan to locate a
propane filling station on the west side of the building, along a private street that serves
two other vacant lots. The location near the street presents concerns related to
setbacks, appearance, and operation.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location Map
Exhibit B: Applicant’s Letter
Exhibit C: Site Plan
Exhibit D: Filling Station Slab Detail
Exhibit E: Fence Detail
Exhibit F: Fence Detail
28
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Zoning. The site is zoned PUD/B-W, Business Warehousing. This zoning was put in
place to allow the subdivision to be accessed via a private street with B-W zoning
regulating the range of uses. The trailer sales, service and storage are allowed through
an approved conditional use permit. The propane filling station is an accessory use to
the larger business.
The Zoning Ordinance generally prohibits accessory uses from being located in yards
abutting a street. The applicant is requesting flexibility from this restriction through the
PUD amendment to site the filling station at a location that best fits the operational
needs of the site.
There is a precedent for considering this requested flexibility. The City approved a
propane filling station for Emma’s Express along County Road 37 in the northeast
corner of the community.
Location. The applicant’s proposed location was selected to keep the propane filling
station in a secured fenced area of the site. This location works with two site access
gates, providing appropriate maneuvering for motorists and trailers to circulate to and
from the filling station. Staff agrees with the functional design of the filling station
location, however, its location along a street raises concerns for appearance and
security.
Fencing/Screening. In response to staff concerns, the applicant is proposing to
enclose the propane tank on three sides with a screen fence six feet in height. This
screen fence will be integrated with the proposed chain link fence. The screened
enclosure shall be 34 feet long and extend 10 feet into the site. Staff is comfortable with
either Imperial, Columbia with Lattice, or the Millbrook fence options.
In addition to the screen fence, green space exists between the fence and private street
curb. The applicant is proposing to break up the fence length with landscaping in
accordance with an approved landscape plan.
Security. The propane tank will be located within a secured fence. The filling station
design will have bollards located around the propane tank to protect it from automobile
traffic.
RECOMMENDATION
Through the PUD process, the City may grant flexibility in the location and setback of
the requested propane filling station if its location fits in the context of the site, and will
compatibly coexist with surrounding properties. Based on the application, project
narrative, and plan submission information, staff recommends approval of the PUD
amendment to allow the location of a propane filling station along the west side of the
29
property located at 6550 Karston Way per the plans received 4/15/15, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The filling station location and design are consistent with the approved plans with
regard to location, setback, and fence screening.
2. The applicant shall install the approved landscaping between the screen fence
and the private street curb.
3. The propane filling station installation is subject to building permit and review by
the City Building Official and Fire Chief.
c: Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
Tim Niemeyer, Niemeyer Trailer Sales, 6550 Karston Way, Albertville 55301
30
EXHIBIT A
31
EXHIBIT B32
EXHIBIT C
33
EXHIBIT D34
EXHIBIT E35
EXHIBIT F36
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Adam Nafstad
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: May 7, 2015
RE: Albertville – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor Storage:
Retaining Walls
FILE NO: 163.05 – 15.06
BACKGROUND
The City of Albertville allows residential properties to store recreational vehicles and
trailers along the side of their garages provided the storage area meets the following
standards:
1. The storage area must be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, or crushed rock. If
crushed rock is used, it must have a border to prevent erosion or spreading.
2. The storage area must be set back a minimum of two feet from the property line.
3. The vehicle storage and pad shall not interfere with stormwater drainage or side
lot line drainage and utility easements. If the vehicle storage encroaches into the
City’s side yard drainage and utility easement, the storage area is subject to
review and approval of the City Administrator.
Many residents have taken advantage of this use allowance, however recently, we have
discovered that some residents have used retaining walls in the side yard to create a
level storage area. In looking at these occurrences, we discovered that use of retaining
walls within two feet of the side lot line is a zoning violation of Section 1100.5 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which requires these permanent retaining walls to maintain a five
foot side yard setback.
In discussions with the City Engineer, we are proposing to amend Section 1100.5, Yard
Encroachment, to allow retaining walls to encroach within two feet of the property line,
provided:
37
1. The retaining wall does not change side yard drainage patterns that negatively
impact the adjoining neighbor.
2. The property owner understands that the encroachment into the public easement
is at their risk. If the City needs to remove the retaining wall to access the utility
easement, the wall may be removed and not replaced.
RECOMMENDATION
The City currently has this condition occurring within the City. The proposed ordinance
will bring these conditions into conformance, while still protecting the adjoining neighbor
and the City easement interests. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review the ordinance changes and if found to be acceptable, recommend approval to
the City Council.
c: Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
38
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2015 – ___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1000.15.A.b. 2.(3) OUTSIDE STORAGE,
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, AND SECTION 1100.5.A.3.
YARDS, OF THE ALBERTVILLE MUNICIPAL CITY CODE, RELATING TO
OUTDOOR STORAGE PAD CONSTRUCTION AND RETAINING WALLS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1000.15.A.b.2(3) is amended as follows:
1000.15 A. b. 2. (3) Permitted recreational vehicle storage shall not interfere with storm water
drainage or be located over an existing utility and may be subject to the review and approval of
the zoning administrator.
1000.15.A.b.2(3) Outdoor storage pads may constructed within public utility and drainage
easements provided that:
a. Permitted recreational vehicle or trailer storage shall not interfere with stormwater
drainage or divert stormwater to neighboring properties.
b. No parking pad shall be located within a drainage or utility easement without written
permission of the City Engineer.
c. Removal of a parking pad or a portion thereof for the purpose of utilizing an
established drainage and utility easement shall be at the property owner’s expense and
will not be replaced by the City.
SECTION 2. 1100.5.A.3. Yards is amended as follows:
1100.5.A.3. Walks or steps for negotiating ground slopes, retaining walls, terraces, accessibility
ramps, steps, uncovered porches and decks, stoops, hedges and natural growth, or similar
features, provided they do not extend above the height of the first floor entry of the principal
structure or five feet (5') into the front yard or to a distance less than five feet (5') from any side
lot line. Except that retaining walls for the purpose of recreational vehicle or trailer storage
pads per Section 1000.15 A.2.b of this ordinance can be located two feet (2’) from the property
line with the following conditions:
1. The retaining wall does not interfere with stormwater drainage or create a drainage
problem for adjacent property.
39
City of Albertville
County of Wright
Ordinance No. 2015 - ___
Outdoor Storage and Retaining Walls Regulations
Page 2 of 2
2. The City engineer must provide administrative approval of the site plan, parking pad
construction plans, filling, and drainage.
3. If a retaining wall encroaches into a drainage or utility easement, the City may
remove the encroachment to utilize its easement and it will not be replaced by the
City.
THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION.
Approved by the Albertville City Council this ____ day of May 2015.
___________________________________
Jillian Hendrickson, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kimberly A. Olson, City Clerk
40
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Adam Nafstad
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: May 7, 2015
RE: Albertville – Vision Study Goal Setting
FILE NO: 163. 05 – 15.01
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2015 and April 14, 2015, the Albertville City Council and Planning
Commission conducted joint meetings to review the Albertville Vision Study Goals,
Policies, Priorities and Proposed Land Use Plan. Through that meeting, the City
Council and Planning Commission directed staff on the following:
Priorities: The City evaluated completed projects and outlined priorities for the next 10
years.
Goals and Policies: The City requested Goals and Policies language that would
bring projects not in line with the Vision Study policies or land use plan to the City for
some consideration and possible changes to the Vision Study.
Land Use Plan: The workshop discussions determined that the Proposed Land Use
Plan would remain unchanged.
CONCLUSION
We have attached a resolution and attachments for Planning Commission
consideration. If you find these documents reflect the directives of the workshop
meetings, we recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
resolution to the City Council.
c: Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
41
ALBERTVILLE VISION STUDY – POLICIES
Pace of Growth
Goal 2: The Vision Study Policies and Proposed Land Use Plan guide the City’s
desired land uses and development patterns. However, the City wishes to be open to
potential land uses and/or development options that may not be totally in line with the
stated ambitions of this Vision Study.
Policies:
1. The Vision Study policies and land uses will represent the expressed goals of the
City, however, land use and/or development options that are in conflict with the
Vision Study may pursue City Council feedback prior to submitting a
development application with the submission to concept plan and narrative to the
City Council.
2. Concept plan submissions must be received two weeks prior to a Council
meeting where the item is to be considered to allow the concept plan and
narrative to be included in the Council packet and to allow time for Council
consideration.
3. All concept plans will be weighed against the policies of the Vision Study and
changing conditions within the community to determine if the new project has
merit and benefit.
4. The Council discussion and direction on a concept plan shall be advisory only
and does not represent any project approvals.
EXHIBIT A42
2015 – NEXT TEN YEAR PROJECTS:
STATUS:
Transportation Improvements
County Road 19 North / 70th Street Agreement with Wright County and Otsego 2018
I-94 Third Lane / I-94 Coalition
I-94 / CR19 East Ramp
57th Street / CR 19 Intersection Dedicated Left Turn
57th Street Improvement Project 2015
50th Street Improvements / Sewer & Water
Street Maintenance and Repair Ongoing
Main Street
Improved Pedestrian Connection Between Outlet Mall
Replacement of Bituminous Trails
Trail Around Hunter’s Lake
Residential Improvements
Market and Develop Prairie Run Lots Ongoing
Housing Maintenance Code – Point of Sale
Build Out of Hunter’s Pass
Build Out of Town Lakes 7th Addition
Future Development of Compost Site
Guardian Angels / Engel Haus Phase II
2015 – NEXT TEN YEAR PROJECTS:
STATUS:
Public Facility Improvements
Ice Arena Expansion Ongoing
Waste Treatment Plant (Phosphorous Reduction)
Waste Treatment Plant (Pond Removal)
Waste Treatment Plant (Digester/Reed Beds)
Green Haven Utility Improvements
County Ditch 9 Improvements / Clean Out Ongoing
New Community Playfield North of Waste Treatment Plant
Stormwater Pond Cleaning Ongoing
Central Park Plan Implementation / Caboose Depot Ongoing
Splash Park
Trail Around Hunter’s Lake
STMA Soccer Facility Expansion 2020
EXHIBIT B43
2015 - NEXT TEN YEAR PROJECTS:
STATUS:
Commercial Improvements
Economic Development Incentives Ongoing
Darkenwald
City Owned Lots
Infill Commercial
Re-examine Sign Code
ZACHMAN Property
Industrial Improvements
Economic Development Incentives Ongoing
Mold Tech Expansion 2015 - 2016
City Owned Lots
Old Castle Glass Expansion 2015 - 2016
City Improvements to Create Addl Industrial Land – ZACHMAN Property
EXHIBIT B44
-04,000 8,0002,000FeetSources: Northwest Associated Consultants, DNR, Wright County, City of Albertville.Note: For planning purposes only. January 18, 2010.City of AlbertvilleProposed Land Use PlanProposed Land Use PlanAgriculture/RuralLow Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialHigh Density ResidentialCommercialBusiness ParkIndustrialPublic/Semi-PublicPark/Open SpaceGolf CourseparcelsAlbertville City LimitsWaterMUDLAKESCHOOLLAKESWAMPLAKEEXHIBIT C45
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ALBERTVILLE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/VISION STUDY ADOPTING THE 2015 TEN YEAR
GOAL LIST; GOALS AND POLICIES CHANGES; AND THE PROPOSED
LAND USE PLAN AS AN ADDENDUM TO SAID PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Albertville adopted the Albertville Vision Study to define vision,
goals, and priorities of the community for the next 20 to 30 years; and
WHEREAS, the Albertville Vision Study addresses key issues identified through a series of
interviews with the City Council, Planning Commission, property owners, and City staff, and
establishes goals, priorities, and strategies to address each issue; and
WHEREAS, the Albertville Vision Study will provide direction for the City in future
planning, administration, and investment efforts; and
WHEREAS, the Albertville Vision Study includes a 10 year goal list and the City has been
successful in its pursuit and completion of a number of these projects; and
WHEREAS, the Albertville Planning Commission and City Council met on March 16,
2015 and April 14, 2015 to re-examine the Albertville Vision Plan Goals, Policies, and Proposed
Land Use Plan and updated the 10 year goal list representing future needs of the City.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Albertville, Minnesota
hereby approves an amendment to the Albertville Comprehensive Plan/Vision Study, adopting
the attached amended Goals and Policies (Exhibit A), the 2015 Ten Year Goal List (Exhibit B),
and the Proposed Land Use Plan (Exhibit C) as an addendum to the Albertville Vision Study.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Albertville this _________ day of May 2015.
___________________________________
Jillian Hendrickson, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kimberly A. Olson, City Clerk
46
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Adam Nafstad
FROM: Alan Brixius / Ryan Grittman
DATE: May 7, 2015
RE: Albertville – Mold Tech Building and Site Plan Review
FILE NO: 163.06 – 15.06
BACKGROUND
Mold Tech is a local industry that was established in 1998 and produces molds for
plastic parts for medical equipment and other devices. This is a clean industry with high
paying jobs. In 2014, Mold Tech approached the City to explain their needs for
expansion of an additional 12,000 square feet.
Mold Tech has requested a building and site plan review for their property at 5166
Barthel Industrial Drive NE. The subject property is zoned I-1 and is presently occupied
by a 12,132 square foot building (approximately 100 feet x 120 feet). The building
expansion seeks to add an additional 12,000 square feet (approximately 100 feet x 120
feet).
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Grading Plan
Exhibit D: Floor Plan
Exhibit E: Building Elevations
Exhibit F: City Engineer Comments
47
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. The promotion and expansion of Albertville’s local industries is
consistent with the City’s long range Comprehensive Plan. The City’s Vision Plan
establishes the following goals and policies that support this industrial expansion:
Albertville Visioning Study 2012 - Industrial
Goal 1: Promote continued industrial development in order to expand local employment
opportunities and the City’s tax base.
Policies:
1. Pursue an industrial land use pattern consistent with Albertville’s Proposed Land
Use Plan.
2. Aggressively market and promote the sale of its City-owned industrial lots.
Primary focus shall be the retention and in-place expansion of Albertville’s
existing industries.
The City of Albertville has clearly established industrial park development and economic
development as a top priority. Expansion of the Mold Tech business falls in line with the
City’s goals.
The proposed expansion is consistent with the City’s Vision Study goals to retain and
expand the City’s industrial land use, tax base, and local employment opportunities.
Zoning. The subject site is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial. Mold Tech manufactures
molds for plastic parts for medical equipment and other devices. Within the I-1 District,
manufacturing, office, and warehousing are permitted uses. The Mold Tech operation is
allowed within the I-1 Zoning District.
Lot Area and Setbacks. The Mold Tech site is approximately 2.95 acres in area and
has a lot width of 225 feet. This exceeds the I-1 District standards. The site is a corner
lot. The following table illustrates that both the existing building and the addition meet
the district building setbacks:
Required Proposed Compliant
Front Yard (west) 35 feet 92 feet Yes
Side Yard on Street (north) 35 feet 40 feet Yes
Side Yard Interior (south) 10 feet 140 feet Yes
Rear Yard (east) 20 feet 70 feet Yes
Maximum Site Coverage. Within the I-1 District, total hard cover is limited to 85%.
The total lot area is 2.95 acres and total hard cover is estimated to be 67,911 square
feet or approximately 52.9% of the total lot area.
48
Maximum Building Height. The City recently amended its industrial zoning districts to
allow for industrial buildings of 48 feet in height. The proposed building height matches
the existing height. The building height will be approximately 20 feet, which is well
below the district maximum standards.
Building Type and Design. The proposed building addition will be integrated within
the existing structure. The exterior walls will be constructed of rock face block, painted
to match the existing building. The east elevation is an exception to the exterior design.
This wall is proposed to be constructed of smooth concrete block. The change in
materials is intended to allow for future building expansion to the east, with the current
east wall becoming an interior wall with future expansion.
The masonry construction and matching colors and accent lines exceed the City’s
industrial district materials requirement.
The entire building will be sprinkled. The site plan must illustrate the Fire Department
connection on the building at a location that will not be obstructed by parked
automobiles.
Site Lighting. The site plan does not show any freestanding light poles, however the
site and building elevations illustrate wall pack lighting on the south and east walls. The
wall packs must meet the following standards:
1. The wall packs must be 90 degree cutoff lights with a shielded light source.
2. The lights shall not exceed more than one foot candle measured at the street
right-of-way.
The applicant must provide cut sheets on the light fixtures to demonstrate the 90 degree
cutoff along with photometrics illustrating light levels.
Trash Enclosure. Section 1000.14 requires all commercial and industrial properties to
either store trash or recycling handling equipment within the building or within an
exterior trash enclosure designed to match the building.
The existing building has a trash enclosure along the south side of the building. This
existing trash enclosure is adequate to accommodate the proposed building addition.
Parking. Based on City parking standards, the following parking calculations have
been prepared:
Gross Floor
Space
Net Floor Space Required
Spaces
Office Use 3,415 SF X .9 3,073 ÷ 200 = 15 + 3 18
Manufacturing 20,717 SF X .9 18,645 ÷ 350 = 53
TOTAL REQUIRED 71
49
By ordinance, the proposed building uses are required to provide 71 parking stalls. The
site plan provides 88 parking stalls which exceeds the City standards. The site will have
four disability parking stalls which is appropriate for an 88 stall parking lot.
The parking lot design is properly dimensioned with 9 foot by 20 foot parking stalls and
drive aisles 24 feet or wider. The parking lot will be paved and have concrete perimeter
curbing. An exception to the concrete curbing has been recommended by the City
Engineer along the eastern edge of the parking area. Surmountable curbing is being
recommended in this area of the parking lot for ease of snow removal and to allow for
future parking lot expansion.
Loading Area. The Albertville Zoning Ordinance requires industrial buildings in excess
of 10,000 square feet of floor area to provide a minimum of two off-street loading areas.
The applicant’s site plan shows two overhead doors along the south side of the building.
The western loading area is designed for large trucks and semi-trailers providing 80 feet
of maneuvering area between the building and the south edge of the parking lot.
The eastern loading area is designed for shorter trucks. The site plan shows a ramped
drive leading to the overhead door. The ramped drive is supported by retaining walls
that extend into the parking lot drive aisle, shown on the grading plan. The design,
height and length of retaining walls raise concerns over obstructing the parking lot drive
aisle. Details of the loading area ramp and retaining walls is needed to evaluate its
potential impact on the parking lot circulation and access and egress to this overhead
door.
The loading areas are properly dimensioned to meet the City Code.
Landscaping. The Albertville Zoning Ordinance requires a landscape plan for all
commercial and industrial properties. In review of the applicant’s plan, we
recommended the following landscape conditions:
1. All turf areas that are disturbed by site grading and building construction must be
restored by either sodding or seeding.
2. Currently, the existing building provides three Maple trees along the north side of
the building to break up the building mass along 52nd Street. We would
recommend that four additional Maple trees, having a 2.5 inch caliper, be planted
to visually break up the building length of the new addition.
Grading Plan. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan that directs
all hard surface stormwater to an on-site stormwater pond. The City Engineer will
review and comment on the site’s grading and drainage.
50
RECOMMENDATION
Based on our review of the plans submitted on behalf of Mold Tech dated 4/2/15, we
recommend approval of said plans with the following conditions:
1. The site and building plans illustrate a Fire Department connection that is
unobstructed by automobile parking.
2. The applicant provide light details and photometrics for all exterior lights. All
exterior lights must meet the City’s 90 degree cutoff standards.
3. The applicant must provide a detail of the ramp and retaining walls for the
eastern loading area. The ramp and retaining walls shall not narrow the parking
lot drive aisle width to less than 24 feet.
4. The applicant address the following landscaping conditions:
a. All areas disturbed through site grading and construction, that are not
paved, are restored to ground turf through seeding or sodding.
b. The applicant provide four Maple trees, having a 2.5 inch caliper, to be
spaced at intervals along the north side of the new building addition to
visually break up the length of the building.
5. Subject to comments of the City Engineer.
c: Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
John Lee / Rebecca Ford
Mold Tech Inc.
5166 Barthel Industrial Drive NE
Albertville, MN 55301
Monte Helget
Sharp and Associates
10907 93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
51
EXHIBIT A
52
EXHIBIT B53
EXHIBIT C54
EXHIBIT D55
EXHIBIT E56
Albertville City Hall ● 5959 Main Avenue NE, PO Box 9 ● Albertville, MN 55301 ● (763) 497-3384
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: May 5, 2015
To: Al Brixius - City Planner
Cc: John Midddendorf - WWTP and Utility Supervisor
Paul Heins - Building Official
Chief Bullen – Fire Chief
From: Adam Nafstad, P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Mold Tech Expansion
Site Plan Review
I have reviewed the submitted civil plan (sheet 1 of 1) prepared by Oliver Surveying and
Engineer, Inc. and dated 4/02/15.
Please incorporate the following civil review comments into your Mold Tech report:
1. Plans shall comply with MSFC for Fire Features found in Chapter 5.
2. Water supply and fire flow shall meet the requirements of MSFC, Architect to verify.
3. Structural design for retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building Official for
review.
4. Applicant shall verify existing sewer and water services are adequate for proposed use.
5. Plan does not indicate location of handicap stalls. Applicant shall ensure handicap stalls
and accessible routes are compliant with ADA standards.
6. It is recommended that the turning movements and truck maneuverability for loading
ramp access be reviewed with Owner.
7. Erosion Control shall be constructed prior to any construction and shall be maintained at
all times.
8. A 4- foot concrete apron shall be constructed as part of 52nd Street access.
9. Applicant to verify location of existing sanitary sewer service to ensure it does not
conflict with proposed storm sewer.
10. A 4-inch minimum sanitary sewer service cleanout shall be constructed outside and
adjacent to the building. Applicant to explain what modification will be made to the
portion of the existing sewer service under the building expansion.
11. A signed civil plan shall be submitted for final review.
EXHIBIT F57