2005-07-05 CC Packet
.
.
.
~
AJ~€...'!'!ilL€
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, July 5, 2005
7:00 PM
6:30-7:00 City Hall Work Session
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - ADOPT AGENDA
3. MINUTES
a. June 20,2005 City Council Minutes (pgs. 3-14)
b. June 15,2005 City Council Special meeting (pg.15)
4. CITIZEN FORUM - (10 Minute Limit)
5. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approve payment of claims check numbers 021579 to 021615 (pgs. 17-21)
b. Approve S.E.H.' s recommendation for Application for Payment No.2 for
Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade to Gridor Construction in the amount of
$217,654 (pgs. 23.24)
c. Approve S.E.H. Architectural Agreement to Design at a cost of $33,500 subject to
the STMA Hockey Association escrowing those funds in advance of the signing the
Architectural Agreement (pgs. 25-29)
d. Approve entering into an Agreement with Bonestroo for design services (pgs 31-32)
1). Telephone and Network Systems at a fee of$300
2). Security System at a cost of$750; Card Access at a cost of $750.00. Further
establish the capital construction budget for City Hall's Telephone and
Network System at $12,500; Security System at $12,500; Card Access
System at$12,500, with quotes and bids brought back for council
consideration
e. Award Low Bid of$127,600 to C S C Contracting, Inc. for Hunter's Pass Lift
Station (pg. 33)
f. Award Low Bid of$70,923.14 to Ellingson Drainage for Mud Lake Watermain
Crossing (pg. 35)
6.
ACTION ON PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
7.
DEPARTMENT BUSINESS
a. Fire Department Update - Steve Long
1). ISO Update (attachment)
b. Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Plant
1). Public Works Department Written Report (pgs. 37-40)
a). Sprinkler System
b). Sod and Landscaping
c). Electric Gate Opener
d). Hockey Rink
2). Wastewater Treatment Plant Written Report (pg. 41)
.
c. Planning Department
1). Wendel Fence (pgs. 43-48)
a). Setback Variance
2). Albertville Body Shop (pgs.49-57)
a). Conditional Use Permit (CUP) - Major Auto Repair
b). Parking Variance
3). Sign Ordinance Amendment - Banner Signs (pgs. 59-78)
4). Welcome Furniture - temporary off-premise sign
d. Engineering
1). MacIver Avenue Street and Utility Proposal (pgs. 79-80)
2). S.E.H. Monthly Report (pgs. 81-82)
3). S.E.H. Progress Report on Wastewater Treatment Plant (pg. 83)
e. Legal
.
f. Administration
1). Written Report (pg. 85-88)
2). Joint meeting with STMA School Board, City of St. Michael and City of
Albertville for Monday, August 29,2005, time unknown
3). New City Hall (pgs. 89-97)
a). Schematic Design Approval
b). Project Cost Summary
c). Resolution No. 2005-22
d). City Hall Site Layout Approval
4). Potter Purchase Agreement (pgs. 99-103)
8. OTHER BUSINESS, MINUTES AND MATERIALS
a. Updated 30-Day Calendar of Events (pg. 105)
b. Planning & Zoning Commission June 14,2005 minutes (pgs.107-132)
c. Albertville Premium Outlet Mall Fence-Berm (pgs.133-135)
9. ADJOURNMENT
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
2
.
~
AJ~~r.!:!.ilL€
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
June 20, 2005
Albertville City Hall
7:00 PM
PRESENT: Mayor Don Peterson, Council members John Vetsch, Ron Klecker, LeRoy Berning
and Tom Fay, City Attorney Mike Couri, City Planner Al Brixius, City Engineer Mark Kasma,
City Administrator Larry Kruse, and City Clerk Bridget Miller
Mayor Peterson called the Albertville City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ADOPT AGENDA
MOTION BY Council member Klecker, seconded by Council member Berning to approve the
agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
Amend the Consent Agenda
Adding item
. 7.e.7. ISO - Fire Department
MINUTES
MOTION BY Council member Fay, seconded by Council member Berning to approve the
June 6, 2005 regular City Council and June 15,2005 City Council Workshop minutes as
presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN FORUM
Linda Pauling of 12440 - 58th Street NE, Lot 3, Block 1, Barthel Rolling Hills reported that back
in the 90's there was an easement in the rear portion of her lot. As years went by there has been
sitting water. In the past couple of years it is more of a water issue to deal with. She explained it
was like a creek running through the backyards. Ms. Pauling informed the Council she had tried
to keep the easement or creek clear so it would run off.
Ms. Pauling went on to explain she has been dealing with neighbors plugging the drain causing
water problems. As of today, with all of the rain we have had it has turned from a creek to a
lake. Because of the water Ms. Pauling was unable to access the area except through the
neighbor's property to clear it.
Ms. Pauling shared with the Council in her research regarding this water issue there is an 8"
drain pipe on her land, which farther down becomes an 18" pipe. She suggested beginning with
an 18" pipe on her property and increasing it down the line.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
3
Mayor Peterson recommended City Administrator Kruse and City Engineer Kasma look into this .
easement and water issue.
Another concern that Ms. Pauling has is with mosquitoes in the area. With all the water sitting
around it is probably a breading area for them. Hearing about the issues of the West Nile virus
that mosquito's carry I don't care to go outside for fear of getting bitten by a mosquito carrying
the virus.
Mayor Peterson informed Ms. Pauling there are mosquitoes all over the place. The City did
spray the downtown area for Friendly City Days. At this time we did not have funds in the
budget for misquote control.
Mayor Peterson asked again if there was anyone else present to discuss an item, which is not on
the agenda.
Aaron Arnic of 10457 - 49th Street NE in the Albert Villas addition. He informed the Council he
attended the informational meeting on Wednesday, June 15th. He explained that his wife does
daycare and they would like to put a fence in the backyard to allow the kids to go outside to play.
With the wetland situation they are unable to identify where or how far back they could put the
fence. At the informational meeting they heard there was the possibility of grandfathering in
some of the lots. Moving to Albertville their expectations has put a hardship on their situation
and not being allowed to install the fence.
Mayor Peterson informed Mr. Arnic the City is dealing with the Albert Villas on a case-by-case .
basis. Right now the main item the City wants to resolve is the wetland as a whole.
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION BY Council member Vetsch, seconded by Council member Klecker to approve the
consent agenda pulling check numbers 21526,21536 and 21555. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Approve payment of claims check numbers 21515- 21568
11. Resolution No. 2005-18 entitled No Fault Sewer Back-up Insurance
12. Resolution No. 2005-21 entitled Direct Deposit
13. Accept a Donation of Gambling Funds from the Albertville Lions in the amount of
$230 and make a donation to the Albertville Queens Committee for in the amount of
$230
14. Approve an application for a 3.2 Malt Liquor License for the St. Albert's Parish Center
on Sunday, July 17,2005 at the St. Albert's Parish Center for Parish Festival
15. Intent to Finance Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Resolution No. 2005-23
16. Approve an extension of time from June 17,2005 to June 24,2005 to record the
Shoppes at Prairie Run Plat
ACTION ON PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Council asked if check number 21526 should have been made out to DJ's Total Home Care
instead ofDJ's Heating and AlC.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
4
.
Council wanted more information as to what check number 21536 to L.M.C.I.T. was for.
City Administrator stated one of the PW employees was in a little fender-bender and this was for
the damages to the vehicle.
Council wanted to know more details on check number 21555 made out to Steffen's Bros.
City Clerk reported it was for the Fire Department.
MOTION BY Council member Berning, seconded by Council member Fay to approve the
pulled consent agenda check numbers 21526, 21536 and 21555. Motion carried unanimously.
DEPARTMENT BUSINESS
ENGINEERING
Edina Development Albert Villas Wetland Mitigation Deric Deuschle (S.E.H.) and City Attorney
Mike Couri
Deric Deuschle with S.E.H. reporting on the Albert Villas Wetland Mitigation. The
recommendations are listed in Resolution No. 2005-24 provided in the packet. Mr. Deuschle
stated an informational meeting was held with the residents last week. Deuschle stated there are
ways to deal with the wetland areas and bring the development in compliance with the DNR
regarding the wetland issues. Some will require Edina Development to complete while others
may require individual residents to comply.
. City Attorney Couri stated items 1 through 9 of Section B are of more importance. These items
must be completed by Edina Development assuming they comply with the other items in the
agreement and before the City would approve any further building permits for lots in the Albert
Villas Development.
City Attorney Couri pointed out areas within Resolution No. 2005-24 such as: Edina shall provide
written permission from the property owners of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1, Albert Villas 6th
Addition authorizing the establishment of wetlands consistent with the mitigation area shown on
the Amended Mitigation Plan; and Edina shall provide the City with a letter of credit approved
by the City Attorney in the amount of $114,600 reflecting cost estimates of $50,000 for Edina to
restore unauthorized wetland filling as required by paragraph B.1l. of this resolution; $50,000 as
the estimated cost of constructing the mitigation wetlands required by the Amended Mitigation
Plan; and $14,600 as the estimated cost of monitoring the mitigated wetlands for a period of five
years; and this ghost plat shall be submitted prior to the establishment of mitigated wetlands on
such property. Edina Development need to come forward with a concept plan demonstrating this
could be developed without wetland issues.
Other areas City Attorney Couri brought to the City Council's attention are The Response (also
referred to as "Amended Mitigation Plan") attached as Exhibit A to this resolution is hereby
approved, subject to the following conditions listed below:
.
1. Edina shall pay all City costs incurred as a result of Edina's failure to comply with the
wetland mitigation plans, including all legal, planning, engineering, and environmental
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
5
consultant fees incurred by the City, as well as the value of the City Administrator's time
(at a rate of$50 per hour) devoted to the issues arising from Edina's failure to comply
with the wetland mitigation plans. The City shall send invoices from the Consultants to
Edina for review.
2. Edina shall provide the City with drainage and utility easements over the following lots:
Lot 8, Block 1, Albert Villas Second Addition; Lots 4, 5 and 7, Block 3 Albert Villas
Sixth Addition, and that area labeled "Future 7th Addition Concept" shown on the
attached Exhibit B. All such easements shall be on a form approved by the City
Attorney, shall include all wetlands and wetland mitigation areas on said lots, and Edina
shall provide proof of good title for all easements, including subordinations of all existing
mortgages and release of all liens on the properties. Edina shall provide written
permission from the property owners of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1, Albert Villas 6th
Addition authorizing the establishment of wetlands consistent with the mitigation area
shown on the Amended Mitigation Plan. For all properties owned by Edina upon which
Edina has or is required to establish mitigated wetlands, Edina shall record a Declaration
of Restrictions and Covenants employing substantially the same form as shown on the
attached Exhibit C. Edina shall provide proof Edina has good title to such property
immediately prior to such recording, including proof that no mortgages or liens take
precedence over such Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants.
3. Edina shall mail a notice to all owners of properties on which no covenants and
restrictions have been recorded related to wetlands. The notice shall be approved by the
City Administrator and shall conform to the wetland-related notices required of Edina
with the original plat approval.
4. Edina shall provide the City with a letter of credit approved by the City Attorney in the
amount of $114,600 reflecting cost estimates of $50,000 for Edina to restore
unauthorized wetland filling as required by paragraph B.ll. of this resolution; $50,000 as
the estimated cost of constructing the mitigation wetlands required by the Amended
Mitigation Plan; and $14,600 as the estimated cost of monitoring the mitigated wetlands
for a period of five years. The letter of credit shall be unconditional except that the City
may only draw on the letter of credit upon presentation of a written statement to the
issuing authority by the City detailing Edina's failure to comply with the terms of this
resolution and presentation ofthe City's statement as to the amount of money needed to
effect such compliance. The form of the letter of credit and issuing bank must meet the
approval of the City Attorney. As Edina performs the wetland restoration work required
by paragraph B.ll. of this resolution in a manner acceptable to the City and DNR, the
City shall, at Edina's request, reduce that portion of the letter of credit attributable to such
restoration, provided that the amount of the remaining portion of the letter of credit
attributable to such restoration shall not be less than the cost estimate of such restoration
remaining to be completed pursuant to this Agreement.
5. On all lots in the Development currently owned by Edina, Edina shall record the wetland-
related restrictions required with the City's initial approval of the respective
Developments.
6. Edina shall provide the City with a list of all property owners who were given wetland-
related informational materials, which the City in its initial approval of the respective
Developments required to be given to purchasers of the lots within the Developments.
7. Edina shall install wetland marker signs of a type and in such locations on easement areas
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
within the Developments as required by City staff. For all lots upon which no building
permit has been issued as of May 6,2005, said signs shall be placed at the leading edge
of the 30-foot wetland buffer area required by City Ordinance.
8. The City of Albertville shall be provided a ghost plat of "Phase 7" (the property adjacent
to Albert Villas 6th Addition which is owned by Edina and is to be used for constructing
mitigated wetlands) so it can be determined that the anticipated land uses and layouts will
be acceptable with the proposed mitigation areas. This ghost plat shall be submitted prior
to the establishment of mitigated wetlands on such property.
9. Edina shall obtain the written consent from the owners of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 of Albert
Villa's 6th Addition sufficient to permit the recording of the Declaration of Restrictions
and Covenants attached as Exhibit C over said Lots and sufficient to permit the
establishment of wetland mitigation areas over said Lots. Edina shall be responsible for
recording said covenants and providing proof of good title for such covenants, including
subordination of any existing mortgages and release of any liens.
10. Unless a different date is specifically set out in this Agreement for any particular
paragraph, All wetland creation and restoration work to be performed by Edina shall be
completed by August 1,2005. All other work required of Edina under this Agreement
must proceed in an uninterrupted and expeditious manner.
11. Edina shall restore all wetlands that have been filled without proper authorization as of
the date of this resolution in the Developments where such filled wetlands: 1) are within
City drainage and utility easements; and 2) were not posted with wetland boundary
marker signs prior to the unauthorized filling; and 3) are located on the lots listed on the
attached Exhibit D. Edina shall coordinate all restoration actions with City staff and the
landowners on whose properties the filled wetlands are located. Edina shall not be
required to restore wetlands on properties, which the City finds the property owner has
failed to sufficiently cooperate with the City to restore the wetlands in a timely and
acceptable manner. Edina shall pay the costs incurred by the City in facilitating the
restoration of these wetlands, including all environmental, engineering and legal
consulting costs. The City shall send invoices from the Consultants to Edina for review.
All such restoration work shall be performed by Edina by September 15,2005, unless a
later date is specified by the City. In restoring such wetlands, Edina shall not remove,
damage or destroy trees, bushes or shrubs planted by the property owners if the planting
of such items are not deemed fill under the Wetland Conservation Act and the removal of
such items are not required to restore the wetlands.
12. Edina shall pay all engineering, environmental and legal consulting costs incurred by the
City in monitoring the mitigated wetlands for the period required by state law. The City
shall send invoices from the Consultants to Edina for review.
13. In the event one or more property owners of Lots 1-6, Block 6, Albert Villas Third
Addition apply for the relocation of the wetlands on these lots from the wetlands' current
location to another location on these lots and such petition is approved on a I-to-l
replacement basis, Edina shall relocate and re-establish said wetlands on the lots
receiving approval under the Wetland Conservation Act, provided the property owners
receiving such approval grant Edina access to one or more of the lots to perform the
work. All such work shall be done at Edina's expense, but Edina shall not be responsible
for costs associated with said application. Edina's obligation to perform the work
required in this paragraph shall expire for any lot not receiving such approval by
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
7
December 31,2005.
14. Edina Development shall provide the City a survey of the mitigation sites for Albert
Villas Phases 1-6, which identifies the location of those sites in relation to existing
easements of the City including, but not limited to, wetland mitigation, drainage and
utility easements. The purpose of this condition is to allow the City to identify which
mitigation sites are currently within City controlled easements and which are located on
private property.
15. Mitigation areas 1m though 4m shall surveyed in their current state to accurately identify
the proposed construction limits. The wetland delineation, as identified prior to
construction, shall also be staked in the field. These surveys will be evaluated by the
LGU and/or TEP panel members to determine if corrective action has been completed as
proposed. Previous surveys shall be abandoned.
16. As-built plans shall be provided on mitigation areas 1m through 4m. As-built drawings
shall also be provided for all wetland mitigation on Phases 3, 4, and 6. Mitigation and lor
buffer deficiencies in Phases 3, 4, and 6 if present, must also be compensated for either
with corrective action or replacement at 4:1
17. Following construction, any areas determined to be deficient, either due to inadequate
construction or inability to gain access to complete construction, will be included in the
mitigation plan to be replaced at a 4: 1 replacement ratio. This specifically referenced to
the east side of mitigation 2m, but may apply to additional areas.
18. The additional wetland impact located between areas 7fand 8fshall be replaced 4:1
rather than the proposed 2: 1.
19. Mitigation areas 1 m through 4m shall be re-seeded with a wetland seed mixture and will
be disk anchored with clean straw. The tag (list of species and quantities provided from
the vendor) from the wetland seed mixture used in the mitigation areas must be provided
to the City of Albertville.
20. The area between mitigation areas 3m and 4m must also be re-seeded and re-graded if the
survey referenced in Item 1 identifies this area as being filled wetland. This area can also
be mitigated off-site at a 4:1 ratio if restoration cannot be completed.
21. Mitigation site 3m shall have the sod removed from the bottom of the open water. The
removed material must be removed from the property and disposed of properly. Any
exposed bare ground will be seeded and mulched as per Item 6.
22. Damage to private property resulting from corrective action shall be restored immediately
following construction activities. This may include but not limited to, replacement of sod
damaged by construction vehicles.
23. Required signage shall be of a size and dimension and contain information as approved
by the City. A plan sheet identifying the proposed placement locations must also be
submitted for approval by the City prior to installation.
24. Edina Development Corporation shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary
permanent or temporary easements and/or rights-of-entry on private property for the
purpose of accessing, repairing, and maintaining mitigation sites and for sign placement.
All such easements and rights-of-entry are subject to approval by the City Attorney and
City Engineer.
25. Monitoring for all mitigation areas within all Phases of Albert Villas shall be reset to year
one status. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by August 15 of each year, starting in
2005, to allow for field verification within the growing season.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
26. Edina Development must prepare education materials that describe the benefits of
wetlands and buffers, and identifies the land uses allowed, or not allowed in these areas.
These materials must be provided to all residences within the Developments and shall
include figures that identify the wetlands present in all phases of the Developments.
These materials must meet the approval of the City Administrator. Examples of similar
materials may be obtained from the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
27. The large earthen mounds currently located in the vicinity of the new mitigation areas in
"Phase 7" must be removed.
28. Edina Development shall notify the City and its wetland consultants prior to any activity
that will require a field review and/or visual inspection. This will minimize resident
impacts, and will allow for prompt approval or identify additional corrective actions.
29. Edina Development is responsible for obtaining permission to enter private property to
perform corrective actions, and must obtain this permission in writing. These permissions
shall also include access rights for the City of Albertville, their representatives, and
regulatory personnel related to this project. Permission to access property to perform
corrective work related to compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act shall be
granted in perpetuity. Verbal approvals are vague, unreliable, and shall not be accepted.
30. Initiation of corrective action by Edina Development prior to approval of this permit
application is at their risk. Placement of signage, restoration or corrective action, or
creation of mitigation areas does not constitute approval.
31. Any violations or unwillingness to comply with this permit, or any of the attached
conditions, will be considered a violation of the Restoration Order and a violation of the
Amended Mitigation Plan and will be enforced with legal action and will be grounds for
the suspension of the issuance of building permits pursuant to the developer's agreements
applicable to the Developments.
City Attorney Couri reviewed number 13 listed above stating that Edina Development shall
relocate and re-establish said wetlands on the lots receiving approval under the Wetland
Conservation Act, provided the property owners receiving such approval grant Edina access to
one or more of the lots to perform the work.
City Attorney Couri informed the City Council they need to approve the contract prior to making
a motion to approve the Resolution No. 2005-24.
City Attorney Couri stated that when they went out and observed there were no wetland buffer
markers posted on a number of the lots in the Albert Villas Additions. There were lots 4,5, and
7, which would like to grandfather in from the wetland buffer. In order to accomplish this would
require a variance and a public hearing.
City Attorney Couri reminded the City Council the Amended Wetland Mitigation Agreement
needs to be approved prior to the Council taking action on the Resolution.
City Attorney Couri reported there are several different classifications for the homeowners. The
homeowners have not been notified as of yet with the exception that one homeowner has been
notified and does not want a wetland in the backyard. City Attorney Couri stated it is a mixed
bag, some backyards have been corrected yet some have not.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
9
Kyle Hegna, representing Edina Development informed the City Council there has been a lot .
going on here with the Albert Villas Addition. The original case was presented in March 2005.
Since then we have recently met with staff on June 14,2005 and reviewed the contract along
with the Resolution. Due to some e-mail errors I did not receive the revised copy until today,
June 20th. The revised copy has been forwarded to others within Edina Development for their
reVIew.
Mr. Hegna proceeded to address the concerns with the revised Resolution. Item B.13. Mr.
Hegna did not think was going to be addressed in the Resolution. Item B.1. Edina Development
does not agree to pay all ofthe costs incurred as a result of Edina's failure to comply with the
wetland mitigation plans, including all legal, planning, engineering, and environmental
consultant fees incurred by the City, as well as the value of the City Administrator's time (at a
rate of$50 per hour) devoted to the issues arising from Edina's failure to comply with the
wetland mitigation plans.
City Attorney Couri pointed out they will be obligated to pay these costs as stated in the original
Developer's Agreement. The City can hold Edina Development to pay these costs.
The next item Mr. Hegna had a concern with was B.2. stating it is our position by placing the
Letter of Credit to draw from to ensure the easements are put in place. Edina Development
brought this before the City Council in April 2005 hoping the Letter of Credit would allow
building permits to be approved and released.
Mr. Hegna stated Edina Development would get notices out to the homeowners, but we need
addresses to send them to.
.
Mr. Hegna reminded the City Council they will be placing a Letter of Credit to ensure things are
completed. Edina Development needs to progress on the site, therefore we need the building
permits to be approved. The bankers we are working with are concerned as to why there is no
current construction of homes on the site.
Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Hegna if Edina Development agrees to the Amended Wetland
Mitigation Agreement. Mayor Peterson confirmed that the City Council cannot proceed on this
until we come to an agreement on the contract. Once the City Council and Edina Development
are in agreement then we can approve the Resolution, Edina Development can complete the
issues and we can allow building permits to be issued. Mayor Peterson stated that $114,000 does
not cover the City's expenses. From what the City Council is hearing you have 9 areas you are
not in agreement with in the Resolution (1,2,4,8,9, 11, 13,29, and 31).
City Attorney Couri confirmed the agreement presented in the Council packet is not much
different than the one, which was presented to Edina Development in a staff meeting.
City Administrator Kruse responded to Section B.2. of the Resolution suggesting a ratio of a 4 to
1 replacement as an option.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
10
.
.
.
City Attorney Couri stated that would be a possibility but would need to go before the TEP Panel
for approval.
City Administrator Kruse suggested extending the date from August 1, 2005 to August 15, 2005
allowing for rainy days to complete the work required by Edina Development to create and
restore the wetland areas.
Mayor Peterson asked Edina Development representatives if they agree to the Wetland
Mitigation Agreement. Mayor Peterson then came to the conclusion that Edina Development is
not in agreement as Edina Development did not respond to the question. He then suggested staff
along with Edina Development get together one more time to re-write the contract and present it
to the City Council.
Mr. Hegna stated Edina Development had submitted sufficient information to City Attorney
Couri and S.E.H. Edina Development feels as if we have done what was expected of them.
Edina Development cannot control what the homeowner's eventually did. That is why Edina
Development is going to put up the Letter of Credit to correct the issues. When Edina
Development presented this option in March of 2005 it was $55,000 and now we are nearly
$114,000.
Mayor Peterson then stated the City Council will allow you to take 10 minutes to resolve the
concerns you have in the Wetland Mitigation Agreement and the Resolution. At that time you
should be in agreement of the contract and Resolution so that we can approve them tonight.
City Attorney Couri reported there were some minor changes in the language in the Resolution.
Section B.2. the part, which talks about the easements. City Attorney Couri stated that Edina
Development need to get the easements from the property owner's. If Edina cannot obtain the
necessary easements after offering fair value to the property owners, Edina Development shall
replace said wetland at a 4 to 1 ratio on the property attached in Exhibit B. and shall provide
easements over said property. Section B. 10. extending the date from August 1,2005 to August
15, 2005 to allow for rainy days, with the exception the seeding may be completed by August 31,
2005. Edina Development negotiated this anticipating building permits would be issued. If
Edina Development is unable to obtain building permits we are not in agreement. In Section B.
16. the words and/or buffer will be omitted. In Section B. 21 last sentence shall read: Any
exposed bare ground will be seeded and mulched as per Item 19.
Mr. Hegna stated Edina Development would like the City to send out the notice rather us.
City Administrator Kruse shared that the City will work together with Edina Development
getting the notices out and meeting with the property owners.
Mayor Peterson informed Edina Development they need to complete items 1 through 9 of
Section B with or without. Once those are completed building permits will be issued.
City Attorney Couri stated there is an amended Mitigation Plan included in the City Council
packet. The City will have to monitor the progress of the work to ensure compliance.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
11
MOTION BY Council member Berning, seconded by Council member Fay to approve the
amended Edina Development Albert Villas Wetland Mitigation Agreement as on file in the
Office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously.
.
MOTION BY Council member Berning, seconded by Council member Klecker to approve the
Resolution No. 2005-24 entitled a Resolution Approving Wetland Mitigation Plan as on file in
the Office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously.
MacIver Avenue Street and Utility Proposal
City Engineer Kasma reported based on the request we have prepared an estimate to prepare a
Preliminary Engineering Report. Our proposal for Street and Utility Improvement for MacIver
Avenue NE from the Wastewater Treatment Plant to N/S MacIver Avenue NE is estimated at
$9,500. We propose to use Braun Intertec at an additional cost of$I,750 for three (3) soil
borings and a geotechnical report. If you would like a feasibility study done to provide sewer
and water service to the city-owned property northeast of the plan, we estimate the cost not-to-
exceed $4,500.
Motion was made by Mayor Peterson to table the MacIver Avenue NE Street and Utility
Proposal to the July 5, 2005 City Council meeting.
Update on Streetlight on Kassel Avenue NE
City Engineer Kasma wanted clarification as to where Council recommended the streetlight .
should be placed on Kassel Avenue NE. The street has the first lift on and he wanted to make
sure so when they place the second lift we do not have to relocate the streetlight.
Council stated on the corner of Kassel Avenue NE and Jason Avenue NE as it is rather dark in
the evening and hard to see the street sign.
Update on Streetlight Replacement on the 1-94 East exit ramp & CR 19
City Engineer Kasma informed the Council he would report on this combined with the temporary
stop lights on the corner of CR 19 and 50th Street NE at a future meeting.
City Engineer Kasma reported staff is meeting with the TEP Panel on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at
2:00 p.m. at Albertville City Hall to discuss the Hunter's Pass Estates. At that time I will ask
them about the streetlight replacement on 1-94 and CR 19 along with the stop lights at the
intersection of CR 19 and 50th Street NE.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Monthly Report
MOTION BY Council member Klecker, seconded by Council member Fay to approve the
Building Department Monthly Report as on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion carried
unanimously.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
12
.
.
.
ADMINISTRATION
Written Report
City Administrator Kruse informed the Council Dan Temple requested an extension on recording
the Final Plat for the Shoppes at Prairie Run. There is a Resolution under the Consent Agenda
regarding this.
City Administrator Kruse asked the City Council if they would support a temporary sign for
Welcome Furniture. The temporary sign would be an off-premise sign and for the term not-to-
exceed 6-months.
Council member Berning suggested staff bring this back to the July 5, 2005 Council meeting.
Wright County Highway Dept - All-way Stop Request at Main Ave. NE & 57th Street NE
City Administrator reported writing a letter to confirm the stop sign and request Wright County
to install it at their earliest convenience.
Schedule 1-94 Funding Workshop. Wastewater Treatment Proiect Financing and City Hall
Building Proiect Financing Workshop
City Administrator Kruse asked the Council if they would like to schedule a workshop. Mayor
Peterson recommended holding a workshop on Tuesday, July 19,2005 at 6:30 p.m.
MOTION BY Council member Klecker, seconded by Council member Fay to host a workshop
on Tuesday, July 19,2005 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Federal 1-94 Access Permit and Funding,
Wastewater Treatment Project Financing and City Hall Building Project Financing.
City Hall Schematic Plans - Resolution No. 2005-22
City Administrator Kruse reported on the minor changes that were discussed at a previous
meeting. Bonestroo has taken the comments into account and provided in the packet are new
drawings for Council review.
MOTION BY Council member Berning, seconded by Council member Klecker to table the City
Hall Schematic Plans - Resolution No. 2005-22 to the July 5, 2005 City Council meeting
pending confirmation of the building size.
Joint Meeting with St. Michael (June 28 or 29th at 7:30 p.m.) Request for Participation on
Committee to Review Fitness/Community Center and to review other issues.
The Mayor and Council member Berning were unable to attend either the June 28th or 29th
meeting. Council recommended suggesting Monday, July 25,2005 following the Joint Powers
Water Board meeting for a joint meeting. The meeting could be held at the Joint Water Board
room as several council members from both cities will already be there and it is usually a very
short meeting.
ISO - Fire Department
Council member Berning asked about the Fire Department and the ISO Report. Council would
like to see a report for the July 5, 1005 meeting.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
13
OTHER BUSINESS .
Mayor Peterson brought to the staffs attention the area behind Coffee Cubby and the fact that it
is not being maintained. Council was under the impression this was resolved last year, now we
are back trying to get them to mow and maintain the area.
City Administrator Kruse stated staff would look into this matter to get it mowed and continued
maintenance.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY Council member Klecker, seconded by Council member Berning to adjourn at
9:34 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Don Peterson, Mayor
Bridget Miller, City Clerk
.
.
M:\Public Da1a\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
14
.
.
'.
~
A!~€I!'!ilLE:
City of Albertville
City Council Special Workshop Meeting
June 15, 2005
Albertville City Hall
6:00 PM
PRESENT: Mayor Don Peterson, Council members Tom Fay, Ron Klecker and LeRoy Berning
S.E.H. City Engineer Bob Moberg, Deric Deuschle, City Attorney Mike Couri, City
Administrator Larry Kruse,
ABSENT: John Vetsch
Mayor Peterson called the Special City Council meeting of the City of Albertville to order at
6:00 p.m. stating the purpose of the workshop was to discuss the 30-foot wetland buffer
ordinance. Council gave staff some direction on how to answer questions or concerns of
residents of Albert Villas Addition, who will be attending an informational meeting at
7 :00 p.m. following this workshop.
Staff outlined that Edina Development had not installed the wetland buffer signs as required by
the ordinance and their development plan. As a result, numerous homes in the Albert Villas
additions are non-compliant with the ordinance causing major setback problems.
After much discussion the consensus of the City Council is to go through the Planning and
Zoning Commission and seek grandfathering in those homes, which are non-compliant prior to a
certain date. It was stated that lots, which have not had building permits issued would be required
to comply with the ordinance.
Workshop adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Don Peterson, Mayor
Larry Kruse, City Administrator
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
15
.
.
.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
*Check Detail Register@
06/29/05 3:43
Pai
July 2005
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 Premier Bank
Paid Chk# 021579 7/5/2005 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
E 601-49450-580 Other Equipment $314.37 05-04695
Total ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC $314.37
Paid Chk# 021580 7/5/2005 ALBERTVILLE BODY SHOP,INC.
E 101-43100-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip $62.91
E 602-49400-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip $44.51
Total ALBERTVILLE BODY SHOP, INC. $107.42
Paid Chk# 021581 7/5/2005 BOYER TRUCKS
E 101-42000-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip
Total BOYER TRUCKS
7/5/2005 BRACK BUILDERS
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Total BRACK BUILDERS
Paid Chk# 021583 7/5/2005 CARQUEST
E 101-45100-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip
E 101-45100-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip
E 101-43100-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip
E 101-45100-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip
E 101-43100-404 RepairlMaint - Machinery/Equip
E 601-49450-404 RepairlMaint - Machinery/Equip
Total CARQUEST
Paid Chk# 021584 7/5/2005 CDW.G
E 466-49000-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL) $1,156.58 SR26512
Total CDW-G $1,156.58
Paid Chk# 021585 7/5/2005 CHOUINARD OFFICE PRODUCTS
E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL) $14.68 55025
Total CHOUINARD OFFICE PRODUCTS $14.68
Paid Chk# 021586 7/5/2005 CICHOS, CHAD
E 101-42000-404 Repair/Maint - Machinery/Equip
Total CICHOS. CHAD
Paid Chk# 021587 7/5/2005 CNA SURETY
E 101-42050-437 Misc. Donations
Total CNA SURETY
Paid Chk# 021588 7/5/2005 CNH CAPITAL
E 601-49450-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL) $36.97 IB42115
Total CNH CAPITAL $36.97
Paid Chk# 021589 7/5/2005 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO.
E 201-45200-520 Buildings and Structures $202.65 2426987
Total DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO. $202.65
$221.14 423474
$221.14
Paid Chk# 021582
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$9,000.00
$4.96 0274806
$10.97 0275239
$19.89 0275250
$38.12 0275285
$55.67 0275468
$71.62 0275699
$201.23
$35.14
$35.14
$105.00 0601
$105.00
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
50 ft & 100 ft blue PVC dischg
1998 Chev K3500 4X4 left hand I
2000 GMC L2500 4X4 HO left han
repair for ladder truck
1/2 escrow 5085 Kahl Ave R# 93
1/2 escrow 5131 Kahl Ave R# 93
1/2 escrow 5109 Kahl Ave R# 93
1/2 escrow 5093 Kahl Ave R# 93
1/2 escrow 5077 Kahl Ave R# 93
1/2 escrow 5069 Kahl Ave R# 93
turn tail lamp
rbr belt
Oil filter
air filter
bearings, belt & hose
adv gen battery & core
computer replacement
ink pads
tire gauges for truck maint. F
Fire Relief Assoc MN P E Posit
blade
corr perf tubing, snap drain t
17
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
*Check Detail Register@)
Check Amt Invoice Comment
Paid Chk# 021590 7/5/2005 DJ'S TOTAL HOME CARE CENTER
E 101-42000-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL) $60.04 001113/1
E 101-42000-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL) $35.16 00135611
E 101-42000-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL) $9.80 001778/1
Total DJ'S TOTAL HOME CARE CENTER $105.00
Paid Chk# 021591 7/5/2005 FASTENAL COMPANY
E 602-49400-407 RIM - Water Mains
Total FASTENAL COMPANY
Paid Chk# 021592 7/5/2005 FTTH COMMUNICATIONS
E 101-43100-321 Telephone
Total FTTH COMMUNICATIONS
Paid Chk# 021593 7/5/2005 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL
E 602-49400-209 Locates $268.65 5050127
E 601-49450-209 Locates $268.65 5050127
Total GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $537.30
Paid Chk# 021594 7/5/2005 GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING INC
E 101-41940-405 Repair/Maint - Buildings $116.32 05-5290
Total GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING INC $116.32
Paid Chk# 021595 7/5/2005 GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION
E 491-49000-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)
Total GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION
7/5/2005 HEART OF THE LAKES
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Landscaping Escrow
Total HEART OF THE LAKES
Paid Chk# 021597 7/5/2005 INSPECTRON INC.
E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)
Total INSPECTRON INC,
Paid Chk# 021598 7/5/2005 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY
E 101-42000-310 Other Professional Services $265.43 1006420082 sfty vsts
E 101-42000-310 Other Professional Services $175.76 1006477890 signs refl stop/slow
Total LAB SAFETY SUPPLY $441.19
Paid Chk# 021599 7/5/2005 METROPOLITAN UNDERGROUND SERV
E 101-43100-403 Repair/Maint - Catch Basins $3,727.02 400-05
E 101-43100-403 Repair/Maint - Catch Basins $3,327.68 401-05
E 101-43100-403 Repair/Maint - Catch Basins $2,444.82 402-05
E 101-43100-403 Repair/Maint - Catch Basins $1,755.71 403-05
E 101-43100-403 Repair/Maint - Catch Basins $1,664.83 404-05
Total METROPOLITAN UNDERGROUND SERV $12,920.06
Paid Chk# 021600 7/5/2005 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES INC
E 101-45100-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $4,075.62 2250
E 101-45100-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $250.00 2289A
E 201-45200-520 Buildings and Structures $34,148.00 2536
July 2005
$38.07 MNMON19230
$38.07
$64.95
$64.95
$217,654.00
$217,654.00
Paid Chk# 021596
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
G 101-22800
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$12,500.00
$3,400.00
$3,400.00
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
broom, hexkey
utility knife, stops, staking
flag
parts
300 3071 06105
Locates - Water Dept
Locates - Sewer Dept
fluorescent lamps, arc lamps
Pmt # 2 WNTF
escrow R# 93415
escrow R# 93452
escrow R# 93446
escrow R# 219
escrow R# 93504
May 05 Service
remove/replace curb gutters 57
remove & replace damaged curb,
repair catch basins Co Rd 37 &
repair curb section at catch b
repair curb section at catch b
Picnic table (6)
Installation of RockBlock clim
playmaker playstructure
18
06129.' 3
a!
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
*Check Detail Register@)
06/29/05 3:43
Pal
E 201-45200-520 Buildings and Structures
E 201-45200-520 Buildings and Structures
Total MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES INC
Paid Chk# 021601 7/5/2005 Mil LIFE
E 602-49400-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $3.90
E 101-41400-131 Employer Paid Health $4.80
G 101-21710 Other Deducations $7.50
E 101-42400-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $18.90
E 101-45100-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $3.90
E 101-41300-131 Employer Paid Health $14.10
E 101-43100-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $18.00
E 601-49450-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $3.90
E 101-41500-131 Employer Paid Health $2.40
Total Mil LIFE $77.40
Paid Chk# 021602 7/5/2005 MILLER TRUCKING/LANDSCAPING SU
E 101-45100-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $184.03
E 101-45100-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $138.03
Total MILLER TRUCKINGILANDSCAPING SU $322.06
Paid Chk# 021603 7/5/2005 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
E 101-41400-323 Nextel Radio Units $40.34 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-42400-323 Nextel Radio Units $40.37 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-45100-323 Nextel Radio Units $41.41 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-41300-321 Telephone $49.30 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-42400-323 Nextel Radio Units $82.44 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-43100-323 Nextel Radio Units $40.34 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-43100-323 Nextel Radio Units $40.34 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-45100-323 Nextel Radio Units $40.34 718183318-04 Nextel Phones
E 101-43100-323 Nextel Radio Units $40.34 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 602-49400-323 Nextel Radio Units $58.34 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 601-49450-323 Nextel Radio Units $54.73 718183318-04Nextel Phones
E 101-41400-323 Nextel Radio Units $40.34 718183318-04Nextel Phones
Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $568.63
Paid Chk# 021604 7/5/2005 OFFICE MAX - A BOISE COMPANY
E 101-41400-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL) $43.62 807577
Total OFFICE MAX - A BOISE COMPANY $43.62
Paid Chk# 021605 7/5/2005 OMANN BROTHERS
E 201-45200-520 Buildings and Structures
Total OMANN BROTHERS
Paid Chk# 021606 7/5/2005 PITNEY BOWES
E 101-41400-322 Postage $516.99
Total PITNEY BOWES $516.99
Paid Chk# 021607 7/5/2005 PROFESSIONAL MOSQUITO CONTROL
E 101-41000-300 ProfessionaISrvs(GENERAL) $1,195.00 14820
Total PROFESSIONAL MOSQUITO CONTROL $1,195.00
Paid Chk# 021608 7/5/2005 S.E.H.
E 101-41700-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
July 2005
Check Amt Invoice
$5,762.00 2536
$639.00 2536A
$44,874.62
$51,220.00 18995
$51,220.00
$6,224.50 130871
$4,272.64 131449
$85.76 131451
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07-QS-OS.doc
Comment
Install play equip, table, woo
Engineered wood fiber
Emp Life Ins
Emp Life Ins
Emp Life Ins Emp Portion
Emp Life Ins
Emp Life Ins
Emp Life Ins
Emp Life Ins
Emp Life Ins
Emp Life Ins
agricultureallimestone
red limestone
bags, business cards
excavation, site work, soil co
postage
Barrier Spray
GIS Services
Albert Villa 6th
Towne Lakes Phase III
19
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
*Check Detail Register@)
06129/.43
af
July 2005
E 465-49000-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
G 101-22825 Hunters Cove Escrow
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41700-303 Engineering Fees
E 465-49000-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41700-303 Engineering Fees
E 473-49000-303 Engineering Fees
E 476-49000-303 Engineering Fees
E 400-47000-303 Engineering Fees
E 101-41710-303 Engineering Fees
Check Amt Invoice Comment
$11,262.96 131452 CSAH 19 Ramps
$543.19 131453 Kollville Estates 3rd
$456.65 131454 Shoppes at Towne Lakes
$802.80 131455 Hunters Cove
$432.40 131456 Towne Lakes 5th
$357.60 131457 Parkside Commercial
$508.30 131457 Old Castle Glass
$680.00 131457 General Engineering HJ Develo
$98.93 131457 CSAH 19 Upgrade
$377.99 131458 feas rpt
$11,988.04 131644 Prairie Run
$2,486.91 131645 CSAH 37 Bike Path
$1,260.00 131815 2002 Frontage Ave
$74.00 131816 Mud Lake
$41,912.67
Total S.E.H.
Paid Chk# 021609 7/5/2005 SPRINT- MO
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-42400-321 Telephone
E 101-42400-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-42000-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-42000-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-42000-321 Telephone
E 101-43100-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-42000-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-41940-321 Telephone
E 101-42400-321 Telephone
$48.78
$48.78
$55.73
$48.78
$221.23
$48.78
$185.82
$39.99
$39.95
$39.95
$31.04
$30.00
$30.00
$29.96
$29.01
$25.39
$29.18
$48.78
$20.92
$109.17
Total SPRINT-MO $1,161.24
Paid Chk# 021610 7/5/2005 STEFFENS BROS. MEATS, INC.
E 101-41300-399 Miscellaneous $49.04
Total STEFFENS BROS. MEATS, INC. $49.04
Paid Chk# 021611 7/5/2005 T & S TRUCKING OF BUFFALO, INC
E 101-43100-227 Street Sweeping $455.00 27
Total T & S TRUCKING OF BUFFALO, INC $455.00
Paid Chk# 021612 7/5/2005 TOSHIBA AMERICA INFO SYS INC
E 101-41400-413 Office Equipment Rental $496.16 42304018
Total TOSHIBA AMERICA INFO SYS INC $496.16
Paid Chk# 021613 7/5/2005 VETSCH, GARY
R 101-00000-32110 Liquor Licenses $2,666.67
Total VETSCH, GARY $2,666.67
Paid Chk# 021614 7/5/2005 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOPERATIVE
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
497-4182
497-7416
497-5106
497-3758
taxes & surcharge
497-7485
497-3384
497-4836
497-3145
497-0179
497-7474
497-0774
497-0452
497-1888
497-4214
497-2215
497-3210
497-3106
Idst
497-5007
.
employee luncheon
Sweeping Friendly City Days
Copier Maintenance Agreement
reimburse liquor license fee
.
20
.
.
.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
*Check Detail Register@)
E 601-49450-381 EI~ctric Utilities
E 101-43160-381 Electric Utilities
E 101-45100-381 Electric Utilities
Total WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOPERATIVE
Paid Chk# 021615 7/5/2005 XCEL ENERGY
E 101-41940-381 Electric Utilities
E 101-42000-381 Electric Utilities
E 101-45100-381 Electric Utilities
E 101-45100-381 Electric Utilities
Total XCEL ENERGY
10100 Premier Bank
Fund Summary
101 GENERAL FUND
201 PARK DEDICATION
400 CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS
4652003 CSAH 19 WIDENING
466 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
473 PRAIRIE RUN
476 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN - BIKE TRAIL
491 WWTF Phase 2
601 SEWER FUND
602 WATER FUND
06/29/05 3:43
Pal
July 2005
Check Amt Invoice Comment
$60.04
$59.21
$170.24
$289.49
Towne Lakes Lift Station
Street Lighting - 58-59-60 St.
parks
$360.97 514689784906
$152.66 514689784906
$8.18 514689784906
$99.65 515807893406
$621.46
$405,642.12
5975 Main Ave
11350 57th St
5801 Main Ave
11401 58th St. Skating rinklba
10100 Premier Bank
$66,539.30
$91,971.65
$1,260.00
$11,361.89
$1,156.58
$11,988.04
$2,486.91
$217,654.00
$810.28
$413.47
$405,642.12
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
21
.
'cation for paytn<l1tdoc
1I(J4
Vadnais Center Drive, St Paul, MN 55110-5196
.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
23
-
GRIDOR CONSTR.. INC.
1886 BERKSHIRE LANE
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
763-559-3734
Owner CITY OF ALBERTVILLE Date 20~JIUl~OS
For Period 6/1/05 TO 6/20/05 Reauest No. 2
Enaineer SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON ,
nQUEST FOR PAYMENT
W ASTEW ATER TREAtMENT FACILITY UPGRADE
SUMMARY:
1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 3,705,000
2 CHANGE ORDER - ADDITION $
3 CHANGE ORDER - DEDUCTION $
4 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 3,705,000
5 VALUE COMPLETED TO DATE $ 99,500
6 MATERIAL STORED $ 158,654
7 AMOUNT EARNED TIllS PERIOD $ 258,154 .
8 LESS REI' AINAGE - 5% ALT. $ 0
9 SUB-TOTAL $ 258,154
10 LESS AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY PAID $ 40,500
II AMOUNT DUE 1'HIS REQUEST $ 217,654
Recommended for Approval by:
SHO, RT ELLJ01T HEND~,ON.INC.
c-..:2-~ ~
(Project Engineer)
/HO""A.s. En- .DYE
Approved by Contractor:
GRIDOR CONSTR., INC.
~~
Approved by Owner:
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
"
-.10..
. . . . .
..-. . . . .
. ... . -. . . -~
<I .. ... . . .
.. : :~:,:,: : :: : .
. .. .. ....
:..: :: .:" : .
... .,'. ,.:
.. .
. .
.
:,.'.
.'. ..
. . ,. .
....
. . .-. . .
. ;:';:: :.:;
~<..". .-.
. e.iI
.'
~4~/ar
DATE
6/20/2005
Specified Contract Completion Date:
Date
.
PAYXlS 6120/2005
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas12005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
24
.
.
.
}
~
SEH
June 28, 2005
RE: Albertville, Minnesota
Ice Arena Locker Room Addition and
Study For New Ice Sheet
SERNo. P.ALBEV0515.00
Mr. Larry Kruse
City Administrator
City of Albertville
5964 Main Avenue NE
Albertville, MN 55301
Dear Mr. Kruse:
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEIf'>) is pleased to submit this proposal for architectural and
engineering services for the above-referenced project. SEH is a full-service, multidiscipline
architecture and engineering firm. We are uniquely qualified to deliver this project based upon
our superior architectural and engineering design capabilities and our ability to provide you with
the full range of professional services that are needed for your project..
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
1. Project Description: It is 01J1' understanding that this project is to include both services for
presently required construction and a master plan for the future work. The inunediate need is
construction of an addition for locker rooms. The second part of our services is to include
master planning for a future addition ofa hockey arena with additional locker rooms and
bleachers. We will include a maximum (jf two site plans indicating existing construction, the
proposed near term addition, and the future addition. Our estimated cost for the locker room
addition is $750,000.
2. Assumptions: The locker room additions will be similar to plans completed in August 2004
by SEH. Changes to the plans include removal of stairs, changes of some room sizes, and
possibly flopping the plan north - south, thus placing the corridor on the north side of the
locker rooms.
3. Proposed Schedule:
City of Albertville approval to start project:
Study and Locker Room Documents Completed and Approved:
Bidding Completed:
Construction Starting:
Construction Completed:
July 15, 2005
August 15, 2005
September 15, 2005
September 29, 2005
December 30, 2005
SCOPE OF WORK
Our architectural, engineering, and projectrnanagement services include the following
designated services:
Short Elliott Herldrlck$Olllnc., 76S8 Desi." Road,Sui~ 300. P.O. Box 406. Brainerd, MN 56401.0406
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehlnc.com I 218.855.1700 I 866.852.88801 21&.855.1701 fax
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
25
Schedule of Designated Services
Locker Room Addition and Study
.
Schematic Design Phase
Project Administration X
Owner/Citizen Input Session X X X Completed
Develop 2 Schematic Designs X
Survey of Existing Site Conditions X
Review wfOwner 1 Mtg. X X
Owner Approval X X
Design Development Phase
Project Administration X
Architectural Systems Development X
Structural Systems Development X
Civil Systems Development X
Outline SpecifICations X
Materials Selection X X
Construction Document Phase
Project Administration X .
Architectural Bidding Documents X
Structural Bidding Documents X
Civil Bidding Documents X
Mechanical Bidding Documents . X Design Build
Electrical Bidding Documents X Design Build
Specifications X
Materials Selection X X
Final Cost Estimate X
Final Owner Review X X
Regulatory Review/Approval X
Reproductions X
Bidding & Negotiations Phase
Project Administration X
Bidding Materials Preparation X
Invitations to Bid X
.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\CoWlcil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
26
.
.
.
Schedule of Designated Services
Locker Room Addition and Study
Advertisements ForBid Preparation
Addenda
Pre-Bid Meeting
Attend Bid Opening
Analysis of AlternateslSub~titutions
Bid Evaluation/Recommendation
Prepare Construction Contract
A reements
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contract Administration Phase
Pre-Construction Meeting
Project Ad ministration
Shop Drawings Review/Approval
Change Orders
Payment Requests Review
~Onsite Inspections
-1-. Final Compliance Inspection
Project Schedule Monitoring
Project Closeout
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
27
Mr; Larry Kruse
June 28, 2005
Page 4 of5
.
FEES FOR SERVICES
The Architect shall be paid on the following basis:
The fees will ~ computed on a lump sum basis for the amount noted below, not including reimbursable
expenses, ie., mileage, meals, printing costs, etc., related to the project. We will bill you monthly for
services, expenses, and equipment based on the percent of work completed to date.
Master Planning Including Civil Verificanon of Surrounding Area:
Design and Documents for Locker Room Addition:
Total Fees:
$6,000
$27.500
$33,500
SCHEDULE
The following is our understanding of the project sched\1lc:
The Architect's services shall ~ performed as expeditiously as is consistent with the orderly progress of
the Work. Upon request of the Owner, the Architect shall sublllit for the OWner's approval a schedule for
the performance of the Architect's services, which may be adjusted as the project proceeds, and shall
include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review and for approval of submissions
by authorities having jurisdiction over the project.
PROJECT TEAM
At SEH, we are fortunate to have a broad range of professionals, with experts in many fields. The
project team has a wealth of internal resources to draw upon as needed. The project team and roles are:
.
Russell D. Gilson - Project Manager
Brian D. Phelps, AlA - Project Architect
Paul E. Steward, PE - Project Structural Engineer
Daniel R. Vian, PE - Project Civil Engineer
Our project team is available to start on this project upon written approval of this proposal.. We would
like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to establish communication plans and discuss project
issues.
REMARKS
This letter represents the entire understanding between you and SEH in respect to the project and may
only be modified. in writing, signed by both parties. We look forward to working with you on this
project. If this letter proposal satisfactorily sets forth the conditions of our agreement, please sign in the
space. below and return one copy to our office. Thank you again for the opportunity to propose these
services.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\COlDlcil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
28
.
.
.
Mr. Larry Kruse
June 28.,2005
Page 5 of5
Architect:
BY:~'~~, "
BrianD:Phe~Al : ~
Owner:
By:
Larry Kruse, City Administrator
kad
U;\A\albev\OSI SOOIagreCmcnl\a1bertviJle ice lRI\8 revised proposaldoc
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
date:
date:
29
.
.
.
.w =roo
II::. AnderIIc &
1\11 AssocLates
~fS&ArcNtfttl
1.335 West HighWiJY 36 · s,t Paul, MN SSIl3
OffIce: 651-636.4600 .. Fax: 65l-636-00
www.borIe$tl..OO.com
June 15, 2005
Mr, Larry Kruse, City Administrator
City ofAlbertviUe
5975 Main Avenue NB
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, MN 55301
Re: New Albertville City HaJJ
Project No, 1028-05-100
Special Electrical Systems
Dear Larry:
..t-4'a
~/~
The following is a proposal for desipServicel for Spec:ialElectrical SystemsllOt included in the
current scope of basic services. The list below ill prioritized, and ranD in importance eacb Special
Electrical Sys.tem for which BonestrQQ Ro$ene AnderJik &AAo<:iates can provide de$ign drawings
and specifications. This work could then be included in the cOltSt1'uCtlon documents. Designing these
systems now assures the City of quality control. competitive pricing during bidding, ami maintaining
design and installation responsibilities with the eaginecr and contractor currently building: the City
Hall. The basic services include some provisions for the Special Electrical Sys,tems as described
below, Each item also includes a description of design service,. the fee for those services, and
estimated cost of consuuction to add the. work to the project. Items 5-10 am. ~ systems that we
do. not see a need for ontma project; bowe'<o'ef, if you . desire, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik &.
Associates would be happy to provide you inrormation for these items.
1. Telephone and Network Systems
The srope of work C'lJt1'eotiy includes empty conduits. boxes. and power provided at locations
per your vender's requ.est. BOIlO$CroO Rosene AnderJik &. Associates ill proposing adding
wire. jacks, and termination at a plywood baekboard fur the t.clcphoneand .network systems.
The cost for this added constJ:uCtion work per our budget estimate is approximately $'000.00. 1;1.
This wort wouldrewlt in a fee adjustment of $300.00. This price does 110t include the
telephones, or computers.
2. Security
The scope of work cummtly includes conduit, ooxs. and power provided at locations per
your vender'Il..request. BottCi$1tOO Rosene Anderlik &. Associates is proposing adding a
security system. which would include door con~ glass break detectors, and OJ keypad for
anning. and disarming for a complete and operable.systcm. The cost for this added
constmction workpcr our budget estimate is approximately $12~SOO.OO. This< work would
result ina fee adjustment of$7S0,00.
Card Access
3.
The scope of work currently includes conduit. box.. and power provided at locations per
your vender's request..Bonestroo Rosene Andedik &. Associates is proposing adding a. card
St. Paul, St. Claud, Rochester. MN .. Milwa~e, WI .. Chicago. Il
A~'" AtllWV.....I~......,pt - ~loyu ~
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07-0S-0S.doc
31
Mr. Larry Kruse. City AAministr4lt;W
City QJ .41berMlle
Me IS. 200$
Page 2
~ system. which would include eJec1ricstri~ card readers. and exiting devices for a
oompleteand operable system. The cost for this added eonstruetion work per our budget
estimate is approximately S 12,500.00. This work would result in a fee adjuIlmeDt of$7SO.00.
4. AudioNideo
.
The J(X)peof work currently includes oonduit. box~ and power provided at locations per
your venders :request. Bonestroo .Rosene Andedik &: Associates is proposi:na adding an
audio/video system in the oouncil ~ which would include projectom, acreeos,
televisions, microphcmes. speakers, etc... fur a complete and operable system. Tho eost tbr
this added constrlJetion work per our budget estimate is appmximatdy 560,000.00. This work
would result in a fee adjustment ofS3600,OO.
5. Generator
The &COpe of work cmrently docs not include a generator.
6. Master TV Antenna
The scope of work cunently does not include a master TV antenna.
7. Master Clock System
The scope of work cunendy does not include a IJ'JIUter clock sySWn.
8. Intercom System
.
The scope ofworkcunently does not include an intercom system.
9. SnowmehingSystem
The scope of work ClJJ"'l:'entlY does not include a snow melting system.
J O. Lightnlng Protection
The scope of work currently does not include a lighting protection system.
We look furward to woddngwith you 00 this project; please can me at 6S1-604-4896 to discuss
further.
Sincerely,
B()NESTROO, ROSENE, ANDBRLJK &. ASSOCIATES. INC.
/11~~
Mike Fitzhtrick
Cc: MCF
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
32
.
.
.
..
Hunter., Pass Lift StatioD - Bid OpeniDg
City of Albertville, MN
BMI Project No. T15.21649
Bids Take_: June 28, 2005
Time; 11:30 A.M.
!!iUu
Bmnarossa and So~ Inc.
Bid Boad
Amount Bid
Cad Bolander &, Sons. Co
;::Cm~~
/ Di~Mar ConstrUCtion, Ioe
! Eagle Construction Company,hlC
l
I laTour Constuction Inc.
!
I Penn Contracting. Inc.
--__.fft
-PJ:.
-Il.t:!~l(l r "0
/ /p;.z.Jpg,a 0
.5(,
1IIIl..............
.lz
-----
I / (~.~-:;~~- cO
--+-------
II :$41..zt 110
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
33
.
.
.
Bids Taken: June 28, 2005
Time: 11 =00 A.M.
DidHt
Carstensen Contractin& Inc.
Chris Riley Uti titles
EartbBumers. Inc.
~asooDraI~
OM Con1mcling.lnc
liydro Logical S)'Stems. me.
Minncomm Utility Construction
Penn Contracting, Inc.
Bid DoDd
AIDOR.t BId
---~-
./ ~i'?.L:t;.J. Itf
.-------
to
"___.i~
J~
.; _~J{! I 00
f _~~LII;. 00
I _~1f. t?fJ
f /iP; <15.1. tJo
S R Weiderna J-K
.IA ~ J ;f!X'
/"ffl;tJK u>~~~er.6'" lL~_ ~
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
35
.
.
.
~
i\!~~t!'!iJL€
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tim Guimont, Public Works Supervisor
DATE: June 28, 2005
SUBJECT: Public Works/Parks Maintenance Report
Parks Department
The grading, base and curbing has been installed at the Albert Villas Park along, with the
playground equipment and wood chips. A six (6)-foot climbing wall was installed at Westwind
Park.
Mowing the parks and maintaining the ballfields takes up a considerable amount of our time.
Public Works Department
We have started landscaping at the PW Building. So far we have spent $239 on poly and edging,
plus an additional $700 for rock. It would be beneficial to install a sprinkler system to water the
sod and trees that are being planted. Two (2) quotes that have been received are:
Sunshine Irrigation
$3,380
$2,550
Midwest Landscape
The system would have the capabilities to be added to in the future.
The grass areas should be sodded because most of them are sloped and require some type of
ground cover, and this will need to be done in phases due to the WWTF construction. The first
phase estimate would cost about $500. The plan is to plant trees and shrubs later this fall or
spring of 2006 with an estimated cost not to exceed $1,000.
There is a need for an electric gate opener to be installed at the PW Building, as the gate is large
and rather heavy making it difficult at times to open. Quotes have been obtained for installation
in fall of2004 and the best price was from Century Fence for $4,595.
I would like to purchase a 2006 Chevy half-ton pickup. Now that the PW Building is located
across the Interstate, it requires us to put the mowers on trailers in order to utilize the part-time
help. Having an additional vehicle would help as it always seems we are short one vehicle.
The Chevy half-ton comes with 4.8L V8, automatic transmission, air conditioning, trailer tow
package, and locking rear axel. The price ofthe truck is $13,376.10 plus tax and license on the
state contract.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
37
Hockey Rink
U)
w
t=
-
I-
Z
<(
:J
a
c
w
~ ~
:::Eel-;"
1-- =0
.,..w
en ('II S2.
W .Ul
W It) )(
.J T"" -'
lL. ::! ~ 81
o ~>O~
I-z~Z~
Zzr:WI-.5
wcmo~
.JW-m
:::E w<c ..., Q)
w ~LI.. ~ i
~ A.Oo..~
I-~~:i;
U)n.omi:
0 0 0 0 0 0 8
0 0 q 00 0
-m ~ Lri 0 ~~ ci oj
0 co I'- to 0 co
0 cq, '<t 0 '<t co co
I- u; I'- u; N .,j u; cr)
..... '<t
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
8 g 0 8 8. 0 0
0 0 0
.;;: cO Lri ci N ~
a. co
- (") (") .....
'2
=> .... .... .... .... .... ....
0> Lt) co ~~ 8
~ to N '<t
..... N co 0 N r-:.
.:.: N N ....
g
:c
;t:: 0 0 0
t: Z Z Z >- >- >-
=> 0 0 ~ => 0 =>
l- I- U C/') U
I..... C"'
"'r
~ s:::!.
..... I.....
1= Is:::!. S-
O) 0) d.
~ Ul ;;"' g
...
::l ::l ~
0 0 c
E U U II) 0 u 0
~ i ~ Ul a:I ';;: ~
Ul ... .c
III III III III
~ a:I (3 '5 l.L
, t: 0) X
Ul II) I W
::l ::l .! l!? ~ c
0 0 If C)
t: C 0) 0
'E "E 13 l- E
l:c: I~ 0) I E
::l .a 0
Z ... ~ 0) 0
<< ai ai C) ()
~ ci
Z
u E ..... N (") '<t II) to
0 ~
:J:
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
.
0000000
0000000
m. Nil)' 8' N N '<t~' Lri
..II).... 1'-.... I'-
OtO(")......... '<t
1-1lir-:U;.....,jI:15N
.... "<t
............................
~8.8.8.8.8.8.
:::ltOII)OCON'<t
~(")(")....
C/')........................
.....O>ONCOCO
g~~~~:g:g
i ~NN
.:.:
C/')
;t:: 000
5zzz>->->-
ooo=>o=>
I-I-I-UC/')U
.
l:c:
Z
<<
C)
z
~
CI)
LlJ
LlJ
~
IL
- IC"'
.- "'r
~ N
..... ~ I:::
=~ >
~O)......d
::l ::l'~ ~
o ; c_ l5
E U U II) u .-
.! lu Q) = CD .;;: J
-O)!llslui)lll
~a:I()'5l.L~
II)Ul~5i.!!!W
:J:J.,L..:i:ic:
gg~Cl~o
'-'-ps-t-E
~~8j2E
ffiffi<c~C)8
ci
Z
E....N(")"<tLt)CO
~
.
38
.
.
.
..:".: '-;''-:'. . i:. " .": '.:: :'" "', . .
.:: . . :':.: " :.: ..".: >. >....: ::...:...~
1.5" WEAR COURSE (LVWE45030B) (2350)
BITUMINOUS TACK COAT (2357)
2" NON WEAR COURSE (LVNW35030B) (2350)
6" AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CL 5 (2211)
24" SELECT GRANUlAR
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NOTE: 4" UNDERDRAIN TO BE PLACED BENEATH RINK.
.'t\ BOLTO...N. &M.E N...K.. INC...lYPICALSEC.TIO.N.
ConeuItIng EngInMr8 ~ SU.w,or. . HOCKEY AND FREE SKATING RINKS
WANkATO. MN FAIRMON1'. MNSLEEPY EYE,MN WIU.MM, loIN CllY OF ALBERlVlLLE
BURNSYILLE, IotN CfWll(A. loIN AMES....
., lSe t 06-27- 4.47 JUNE. 2005 FIGURE NO.1 Of 1
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\COIUlcil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
39
1_' -
o
z
5
...
....
gl
UW a
':: ~ 5 "(n iii
o ~ 11. '" <.>
0.,4) ?:. O:z
~.-' ::J :5 i2
3~5~:
.
I
---------~~ . I ~
'.,~ i
8
"ct,;' ,~'!...--._--r.:-.;..
,'- ----.
~
\
'\
~
\
-\
f~ <D,. .' ,
>J! v. \
:i'_. J.
, ... ~ \
.t~o+''O & 'f"1' ,
~~ :;Il~' ~I ~ '0, :t
.. ......Il~ II
....
\
\
""' '.>... \
., '- ~ ~
ro~~ ..,0,. ~
<loq, ''!}~'--11.
. :..... ..-'- '1>... \
~I..r ..~\
J II J
~'_ ~/f
'" z _ ........,4.;_._...:~,_r--_...:-I'"',:...<
i
.1il*...19l!l
3
19
I!
EI
I
I
-~
o I
z
ill..-
z I'
II If.
1".SI
,,}..
~.f !I
~I
II
~
![
~IA
'0,-
/!I ..
"..~~. ....r;.
-w.
.,( ~.
~ '0..
f . 1
.
~<-..;
"'I>,
..
;~
;
i. t... -~._-.--."'..
" ......----- -...._~
'....c-,...~ ,-
/.'!j,;/" - - .
...//
/'
........./:....;j; ii
/ !
/'
/
....~1....
/
l
/
""../
f
"'~,1
f
I
I
,
!
f
~""'i
,y
i
I
I
.... ./
y"'"
/'
---
....._,;....,-------
I
\
.....-\
'"
\
~
c-'\
\
\
.\
.
40
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07-0S-QS.doc
.
.
.
~
~l?-~r.!!iJl€
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Middendorf, Wastewater Department
DATE: June 26,2005
SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Facility Report
Water Department
We had a water main break on CR 37 and Kalenda Court NE. We replace two (2) ofthe faulty
valves. At a later date we plan to replace a third valve located farther down from the
intersection.
Wastewater Department
The Wastewater Treatment Plant continues to work well. Gridor Construction has started the
second phase and is currently working on the reed beds.
JM:bmm
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
41
.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS,
IN C.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 202
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimil~. 763231 2561G01d, en V~ey, MN. 55422
. .. P anners{Btnacplannlng.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Larry Kruse
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: June 8,2005
RE: Albertville - Wedel Fence Variance
FILE NO: 163.06 - 05.20
BACKGROUND
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. 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 comer 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
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.
.;
'''''~
---/
ORDINANCE LANGUAGE
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)(l) and (2) as follows:
(g) Residential District Fences. All residential fences shall be placed within the
property being fenced.
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
(1)
43
. \2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
. "C'ty Council\CounC11 Agendas
M:\Public Data, 1
Spectator's Grille & Bar - 5651 LaCentre Avenue NE
The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial and currently maintains wall
signage, interior window signage, and banner signage (see Exhibit B).
-
The planning report for Albertville Second Addition Site Plan Review of Building 'A'
dated January 9, 2003, states that signage shall consist of building wall signs that singly
identify the restaurant location. W, all signage is located on the front, side and rear
elevations. The Albertville Crossings Architectural Design Standards mention that wall
signs for any single tenant building over 5,000 sq. ft. should not exceed 15% of the wall
area of that wall sign is affixed to. Also, said buildings may be allowed one sign per
street frontage affixed to the exterior wall, canopy or marquees.
Wall signs are compliant with the PUD standards (see Table 3).
Table 3
Front
Elevation SF
Total
Allowable
SF Front
Wall Sign
15%
Side
Elevation SF
Total
Allowable
SF Side
Elevation
Wall Sign
15%
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign*
Current
SF
Utilization Front Utilization
Wall
Si **
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign*
Current
SF
Utilization Front Utilization
Wall
Sign**
.
Rear
Elevation SF
Total
Allowable
SF Rear
Wall Sign
150.10
Current
SF
Rear Wall
Sign*
Current
SF
Rear
Wall
Si **
Utilization
Utilization
*measured in
total.
**measured on basis of smallest geometrical
configuration of graphics.
According to Ordinance, the size of the interior window signage shall not exceed twenty
percent (~O%) up to the maximum of forty square feet, of the entire window area of the
one (1) SIde of the building upon which said signs shall be displayed.
Interior window signs are compliant with Ordinance (see Table 4).
.
M:\Public DatalCity CouncillCouncil Agendas\2005 AgendaslA 07-05-05.doc
64
.
.
.
--
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Larry Kruse
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: June 8, 2005
RE: Albertville - Wedel Fence Variance
FILE NO: 163.06 - 05.20
BACKGROUND
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. 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 comer 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
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.
ORDINANCE LANGUAGE
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
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
43
--
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.
VARIANCE
Section 500.1.C(2) below outlines the review criteria for considering a major or minor variance.
(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.
3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not
be a result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a
buildable parcel. (Also see Section lOOO.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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
44
.
.
.
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.
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.
CONCLUSION
Based on our 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: D.eny 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.
pc: Bridget Miller
Jon Sutherland
Mike Couri
Mark Kasma
Jason and Jill Wedel, 10615 61 st Street NE, Albertville, MN 55301
M:\Public Data\City Council\COWlCil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
45
.
.
EXHIBIT A
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\CoWlcil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
46
.
.
.
ill
>
I....t
:J
(j)
t:.)->;~ :r'-~
? t.j"'-:: 0.... V ,
:;t:~5. i
,.,,;; ~ $ ,~.. . " J~;
,,"'g....::tr .~r:
.~ '- ".... "~!'''''J'< - 1..0
t.1 o~ 0 ~ 'j!: ," .-.'''. r;
~ ',1'1 o..u~- _, - -!~
_c......"'_ '\>\.~\._
~.; ~,~~..J -::-~r:~
.,'~..c: -g" . '~..\r
1.~ ....... <> e ". \Y \liij.
.-- .~-~:g .---'.' ~ -.__.._..-.:~~
nt~;t~~
~ii}Q'...<~
'0 _ -, 0 ,.~ >.._ - .-...-_._.._~
(,jc.....o.e.-c' - >-
~=OC'J'"""Q---...: ;Q
ri.
C>,
"'"
-~-;;;
:-'_.1
-
+--
I....
Q)
o
f-
Z
-
::<
::>
"- ~ Z
<, 0
d ..:
-.) \oJ
'::' Z
~-f:::: ..J 0
<: '"
V
'"
c;; c?
Co. ... U ...,
0 t-
r- ~'I c:: 0
....,.., z
<: w
... Cl:
S .., 0
_, I
0
L~
';.
/'.
Q
j;"
<,.,
"<>
,,;y
<-;/ 4...~'. \
'\-/ /\~ -:t ~\
":'_~/~ "t\ ~ 't.. \
~\ - ~ ~ \ ~ <> '\
''\~ ~~ ~ \~-" -=:.---..~ ) ~ ',', \
\\.l() ~ ~_-_- -c,/'--, ~ ' /" <-' _ _ _ \t?'
''!> /" .." -- c7 /'
'" /' \ ..,;> r:", . .... . .'. ,/ '" \.
~~'\ V.'_..... ~\~ '7.~-<" ~ \
\ \~ ~ \ ~ l':-:-.: \ /: ---~,.:;
\ ~~ ?\.'-{!\;{?:"r.~>\ \ \) " ~_ <"~.~V't-
",. > , <?,. "'..> *' '. ;,:t.~, <'~" I " <<4Y
~ , .--~ '\'" ;X '. .1" "J'" . ~/ ,&,#
... .' '<\. 0 'E" ~~ \ .~.. ,,,,,~. j . _ " . '<\ .~_. /;?' ~
'" ~ '\ o. d- \ \\:'.'" ~ \-,,' ~-A"> J~ ""
\.1-,;.,\ \, %, ..~/ \ \ /",'i""",A'-'9 "'/~'. .r-:;>-
.\....). ',,_'.~.., o? y >..~ ._>~, ...;;-'~ .......y
\ 74:, \~"'/ ~.../ , J:<'~V' ... ./'
~::\" \\-, 'J> :> ~.~~. _ ~'>~ \~,~;Z{(f
- '<' -.-. ~, .- ~ .--- _ .~'v' ..;::.../ --
\' .' ,,~, . #,..-
~..'. ' ~ //
\:;;: c,_.... f
"';' '~~'
:;:.~ ':F
~ /'
d? ,..-/
.' \~\ .//'
\- /"'''\ ''U
\/"...... "-....J
4-
o
Q)
-+-'
cd
o
c
v
c::
o
\-
o
~
::L
,-~
,
-
~
\
"'I(i)'"
'\,<r
::l..\'~
e \_'
\
....,:.;:r
/".
/i?
//\/
/' r-.'\.
// ,<'\.C:."v
\~~;,.
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
,
\
'"//~\ ~ ',':j~~
/" ,~\
~
%
,
&'
\ -.;J-
~~
V'~
u
L:~
I <i .
l&i C;
l~!~'
I.: ..
o ~
~ :
~ -s
~'~i
:E ~ '
0;(
c::... --.
&:- ~~.
.....
tF
<...~
. ",'
:;~j
~ ......
i I
~..
'"
<,.
""
'"
-':..-
EXHmIT B
47
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
City Council
.
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Wedel Fence Variance
Applicant's Name: Jason and Jill Wedel
Request: Jason and Jill Wedel require a 10-foot side yard setback variance for a six-foot tall
fence at 10615 61 st Street NE in Albertville.
Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: June 14, 2005
City Council Meeting Date: July 5, 2005
Findings of Fact: Based on the review of the application and documentation received, the City
Council presents the following findings of fact:
A. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 5, Block 3, Parkside First Addition,
Albertville, Minnesota.
B.
The planning report dated June 8, 2005 from Northwest Associated Consultants is
incorporated herein.
.
C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the variance request at their June 14,
2005 meeting.
D. Based on the Planning Commission review and public testimony at the public hearing, the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the fence setback variance (5-0 vote) with
the following findings:
1. Misinformation by the City on the required setback is a public action that created
need for the variance.
2. Relocation ofthe fence presents a hardship not created by the property owner.
3. The fence is not out of character with the neighborhood.
4. The fence location does not create a concern for public health, safety or welfare.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the City
APPROVES the variance request for a 10-foot side yard setback for a six-foot fence along a
street right-of-way for 10615 61 st Street NE in Albertville.
Adopted by the Albertville City Council this 5th day of July 2005.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
48
.
.
.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Larry Kruse
FROM: Michael Darrow / Alan Brixius
DATE: June 8, 2005
RE: Albertville - Albertville Body Shop: Conditional Use Permit/Variance
NAC FILE: 163.06 - 05.16
BACKGROUND
An application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance has been submitted by Jamie L.
Stevens to allow for the expansion of the 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.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Survey
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Building Section Plan
Exhibit D: Floor Plan
Exhibit E: Albertville Body Shop Letter dated May 3,2005
ANALYSIS
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 of 9,360 square feet. The expansion of major auto repair in a B-4 District requires
a Conditional Use Permit. When considering a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional
use. 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.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
49
2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future uses of the area.
.
3. The proposed use conforms with 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.
The operation and expansion of the building is allowed by a Conditional Use Permit, provided
the following measures are adhered to as part of the application.
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the historical downtown for
commercial use and encourages reinvestment and renovation of existing businesses. The
proposed business expansion is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Compatibility. The proposed site is zoned B-4, General Business, which allows the
major auto repair (auto body) as a conditional use. Commercial uses surround the site. The
proposed expansion should not present compatibility issues with adjoining sites.
Lot Area/Setbacks. The proposed use calls for the expansion of the building on the
southeastern portion of the building. The expansion will create a uniform building along the
southern end and will not encroach further into setback areas. Below is a review of the site area
and setback information:
.
Standards Required Proposed
Lot Area None 12,424 square feet
Lot Width None 45 feet
Setbacks
Front None 10 feet
Side None 3 feet
Rear 20 feet 30 feet
Maximum Building Height 35 feet 14 feet
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. The conditional use
permit conditions require a 20,000 square foot lot area and a ISO-lot width. The applicant's site
does not meet this standard. This standard would exclude all B-4 properties, which consist of
smaller lots. Staff is 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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\COIUlcil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
50
.
.
.
Screening and Landscaping. The Albertville Zoning Ordinance requires landscaping
screening ofthe 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.
As a condition of the conditional use permit, we recommend that 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.
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.
AccesslParking. 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:
8 spaces
1,680 X.9 = 1,512 + 200 =
Body Shop: 7,620 - 1,000 = 6,620 X .9 = 5,958 + 800 = 7 + 8 = 15 spaces
TOTAL SPACES 23 spaces
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
51
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.
Absence of a City downtown-parking plan, staff 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. If the 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.
CONCLUSION
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, we recommend
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.
Roof top equipment shall be located and screened from view of Main Street.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
52
.
.
.
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 off lighting.
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.
pc:
Bridget Miller
Jon Sutherland
Mike Couri
Mark Kasma
Jamie L. Stevens, 1754 50th Street NE, Buffalo, MN 55313
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
53
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
City Council
.
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Albertville Body Shop
Conditional Use Permit for Major Auto Repair
Variance for Parking
Site and Building Plan Review
Applicant's Name: Jamie L. Stevens, Albertville Body Shop
Request: Jamie L. Stevens of Albertville Body Shop has requested approval of the following
applications:
. Conditional use permit - major auto repair
. Variance from required parking.
. Site and building plan approval.
The expressed intention of these applications is to expand the existing auto body shop at 5890
Main Street in Albertville, Minnesota.
Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: June 14, 2005
.
City Council Meeting Date: July 5, 2005
Findings of Fact: Based on the review of the application and documentation received, the City
Council presents the following findings of fact:
A. The legal description of the subject property is attached.
B. The planning report dated June 8, 2005 from Northwest Associated Consultants is
incorporated herein.
C. The Fire Inspector report dated June 1, 2005 from Futrell Fire is incorporated herein.
D. The proposed use can be accommodate with existing public services and will not
overburden the City's service capacity.
E. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property
as proposed.
F. The requirements of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance have been reviewed in relation to
proposed plans.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
54
.
.
.
G.
The proposed actions have been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and have been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
H. The proposed development will be compatible with present and future land uses of the
area.
I. The proposed use conforms to all applicable Zoning Ordinance performance standards
with the exception of the off-street parking.
J. The physical conditions within the B-4 Zoning District related to lot size, lot
configuration, property owner patterns, and historic development patterns present a
unique hardship for this site to provide required off-street parking in accordance with the
Albertville Zoning Ordinance.
K. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
L. The Albertville Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing for the requested
conditional use permit and parking variance. Upon their review and receipt of public
testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the
requested development application with the conditions outlined in the June 8, 2005
planning report.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the City Council
APPROVES the conditional use permit (major auto repair), variance from off-street parking
standards, and site and building plan based on the most current plans and information received to
date subject to the following conditions:
Conditional use permit - major auto repair and a variance from lot area and width are approved
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 of flighting.
Parking Variance. The physical characteristics of the downtown present hardship for providing
the required off-street parking. In recognition of these constraints, the variances are approved as
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
55
an interim parking solution until the City can develop a downtown-parking plan, 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.
Adopted by the Albertville City Council this 5th day of July 2005.
City of Albertville
By:
Don Peterson, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Bridget Miller, City Clerk
.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
56
.
.
.
Legal Description of Record:
A tract of land in Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 120.
Range 24. described as follows:
Begin at the Southwest comer of Lot 1, of Block 2 in the Northwest Quarter of
Northeast Quarter of said Section 1; thence South 26 feet to the North line of the
right of way of the G.N.R.R.; thence Easterly along the North line of sold right of
way, 19 feet: thence East parallel with the South line of said Lot 1. 133 feet:
thence North 34 feet; thence West along the South line of sold Lot 1, to the point
of beginning. saki land being situated in the Village of Albertville.
ALSO
All of that port of Lot 7 of Lot A of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section '. Township 120, Range 24. occorOmg to the recorded plot thereof and onflle In
the office of the. County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota, except that part of soid Lot
7 lying Northerly of a line 25.00 feet Southerly of. measured at a right angle to. and
parallel with, the South line of Lot 6 of said Lot A . of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter.
AND
Lot 1, Block 2, located in the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1.
Township 120. Range 24, according to plot of record.
survey.
red by me
ision and
Land
fthe
Web Site:
www.offoassoclates.com
TTO ==~
SSOelATES Ph: {763J682-4727
Fax: (763J682-3522
Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc.
e # 14343
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
Revised:
4-13-05
Job No.
1-05-0126
57
.
.
.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Larry Kruse, City Administrator
FROM:
Ann Kluessendorf / Alan Brixius
DATE:
June 22, 2005
RE:
Albertville - Sign Ordinance: Banner Signs
NAC FILE:
163.05 - 05.01
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.
Please find the enclosed amendments to the Sign Ordinance, Sections 9 & 10 for your
review. These changes are reflective of the dialogue at the Planning Commission public hearing
and the City's wishes to regulate the number and placement of temporary signage. Hopefully
with clear regulation pertaining to these items, we can avoid issues related to the visual blight
that is created by the over abundance of these signs. These amendments are subject to further
modification if the Council wishes to include.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas12005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
59
.
.
.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Larry Kruse, City Administrator
FROM:
Ann Kluessendorf / Alan Brixius
DATE:
April 7, 2005
RE:
Highway Commercial and General Business Signage
NAC FILE:
163.05 - 05.01
BACKGROUND
We have 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, of the 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.1. (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. *
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
61
C.
Banners and Pennants. Section 9, Subd.l. No banner, pennant, streamer, string
of lights, search lights or any other similar sign shall be permitted.
.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Casey's General Store
Exhibit B - Spectator's Grille & Bar
Exhibit C - 152 Club
Exhibit D - Geez Sports Bar & Grill
Exhibit E - Smack Down's Sports Bar & Grill
ANALYSIS
Casey's General Store - 11000 57th Avenue NE
The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial and currently maintains interior
window signage, wall signage, and banner signage (see Exhibit A).
Interior window signs are compliant with Ordinance (see Table 1).
Table 1
Wall signs are compliant with Ordinance (see Table 2).
Table 2
Total
SF
Front
Wall
Area
Total
SF
Window
Area
Total
Allowable
SF
Window
Si
Total
Allowable
SF Front
Wall Sign
Current
SF
Window
Sign
Utilization
.
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign*
Utilization
Current SF
FrontWall Utilization
Sign**
*measured in total.
**measured on basis of smallest geometrical
configuration of graphics.
Currently, two (2) banner signs are temporarily attached to the front building elevation.
Banner signs are not compliant with Ordinance.
Casey's General Store has two (2) framed areas for banners. This manner of display
limits the number and size of the temporary signage. It also serves to improve the
appearance of the temporary signs.
Exhibit A - Casey's General Store: March 29, 2005
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
62
.
Front Elevation
.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
63
Spectator's Grille & Bar - 5651 LaCentre Avenue NE .
The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial and currently maintains wall
signage, interior window signage, and banner signage (see Exhibit B).
The planning report for Albertville Second Addition Site Plan Review of Building 'A'
dated January 9, 2003, states that signage shall consist of building wall signs that singly
identify the restaurant location. Wall signage is located on the front, side and rear
elevations. The Albertville Crossings Architectural Design Standards mention that wall
signs for any single tenant building over 5,000 sq. ft. should not exceed 15% of the wall
area of that wall sign is affixed to. Also, said buildings may be allowed one sign per
street frontage affixed to the exterior wall, canopy or marquees.
Wall signs are compliant with the PUD standards (see Table 3).
Table 3
Front
Elevation SF
Total
Allowable
SF Front
Wall Sign
15%
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign*
Current
SF
Front Utilization
Wall
Si **
Utilization
Side
Elevation SF
Total
Allowable
SF Side
Elevation
Wall Sign
15%
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign *
Current
SF
Utilization Front Utilization
Wall
Sign**
.
Rear
Elevation SF
Total
Allowable
SF Rear
Wall Sign
15%
Current
SF
Rear Wall
Sign*
Current
SF
Utilization Rear Utilization
Wall
Si **
*measured in
total.
**measured on basis of smallest geometrical
configuration of graphics.
According to Ordinance, the size of the interior window signage shall not exceed twenty
percent (20%) up to the maximum of forty square feet, of the entire window area of the
one (1) side of the building upon which said signs shall be displayed.
Interior window signs are compliant with Ordinance (see Table 4).
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\CO\U1cil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
64
. Table 4
Total Total Current
SF Allowable SF
Front SF Front Front Utilization
Window Window Window
Area Si Si
Albertville Crossings Architectural Design Standards state that portable signs designed to
be movable from one location to another and which are not permanently attached to the
ground sales display device or structure are prohibited. Ordinance allows 32 sq. ft. sign
lay license for 10 days, three times a year per business. Currently, two (2) banner signs
are temporarily attached to the front and rear building elevation. The banner signs are not
compliant with the approved PUD sign standards.
.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas12005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
65
Exhibit B - Spectator's Grille & Bar: March 29,2005
.
Front Elevation
.
Side Elevation
Rear Elevation
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
66
.
.
.
152 Club - 5794 Main Avenue NE
The subject site is zoned B-4, General Business and currently maintains interior window
signage, wall signage, and banner and pennant signage (see Exhibit C).
Interior window signs are not compliant with Ordinance (see Table 5).
Table 5
Wall signs are compliant with Ordinance (see Table 6).
Table 6
Total
SF
Front
Wall
Area
Total
SF
Window
Area
Total
Allowable
SF
Window
Si
Total
Allowable
SF Front
Wall Sign
Current
SF
Window
Sign
Utilization
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign*
Utilization
Current SF
FrontWall Utilization
Sign**
*measured in total.
**measured on basis of smallest geometrical
configuration of graphics.
Currently five (5) banner signs and forty-four (44) linear feet of pennant signage are
temporarily attached to the front building elevation and adjacent fence. The banner and
pennant signage are not compliant with Ordinance.
Opportunity exists for additional permanent wall signage perhaps in the form of a reader
board to advertise special events.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
67
Exhibit C -152 Club: March 29,2005
.
Front Elevation
.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
68
.
.
.
Geez Sports Bar & Grill- 5788 Main Avenue NE
The subject site is zoned B-4, General Business and currently maintains interior window
signage, wall signage and banner signage (see Exhibit D).
Interior window signs are compliant with Ordinance (see Table 7).
Table 7
Wall signs are compliant with Ordinance
configuration of graphics (see table 8).
Table 8
Total
SF
Front
Wall
Area
Total
SF
Window
Area
Total
Allowable
SF
Window
Si
Current
SF
Window
Sign
Utilization
based upon the smallest geometrical
Total
Allowable
SF Front
Wall Sign
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign*
Utilization
Current SF
FrontWall Utilization
Sign**
*measured in total (the
entire canopy).
**measured on basis of smallest geometrical
configuration of graphics.
Currently two (2) banner signs are temporarily attached to the front building elevation.
The banner signs are not compliant with Ordinance.
Opportunity exists for additional permanent wall signage up to thirty (30) square feet,
perhaps in the form of a reader board to promote special events.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
69
Exhibit D - Geez Sports Bar & Grill: March 29, 2005
.
.
Front Elevation
Smack Down's Sports Bar & Grill- 5772 Main Avenue NE
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
70
.
.
.
The subject site is zoned B-4, General Business and currently maintains interior window,
wall signage, and banner and pennant signage (see Exhibit E).
Interior window signs are not compliant with Ordinance (see Table 9).
Table 9
Wall signs are compliant with Ordinance (see Table 10).
Table 10
Total
SF
Front
Wall
Area
Total
SF
Window
Area
Total
Allowable
SF
Window
Si n
Total
Allowable
SF Front
Wall Sign
Current
SF
Window
Sign
Utilization
Current
SF
Front Wall
Sign*
Utilization
Current SF
FrontWall Utilization
Sign**
*measured in total.
**measured on basis of smallest geometrical
configuration of graphics.
Currently one (1) banner sign and fifty-two (52) linear feet of pennant signage are
temporarily attached to the front building elevation. The banner and pennant signage are
not compliant with Ordinance.
Opportunity exists for additional permanent wall signage, perhaps in the form of a reader
board to promote special events.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07-OS-OS.doc
71
Exhibit E - Smack Down's Sports Bar & Grill: March 29,2005
.
Front Elevation
.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
72
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Examination reveals the following:
1) Over reliance on temporary banner signage.
2) Under utilization of front wall signage square footage (with the exception of
Geez's Sports Bar & Grill).
3) Spectator's Grille & Bar violates current sign ordinance under PUD standards.
4) Location of banner signs on the downtown business area are often obscured from
view by on-street parking.
It is our recommendation that it is necessary to regulate banner signage size, location and
number. Besides being an aesthetic nuisance, when placed adjacent to on-street parking, banners
become hidden when vehicles utilize parking stalls.
If the City intends to allow banner signage we suggest:
1)
Temporary signage be permitted if framed in a permanent, interchangeable case
or a reader board (see Casey's General Store, Exhibit A). The total front wall
signage area and banner signage area must not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the
total front wall area.
2) An amendment be drafted for the Albertville Crossing PUD to include
temporary signage text for Spectators Grille & Bar.
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
73
.
.
.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Kruse, City Administrator
FROM: Ann Kluessendorf / Alan Brixius
DATE: April 28, 2005
RE: Albertville - Sign Ordinance: Banner Signs
NAC FILE: 163.05 - 05.01
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.
Please find the enclosed amendments to the Sign Ordinance, Sections 9 & 10 for your
review. These changes are reflective of our dialogue and wishes to regulate the
number and placement of temporary signage. Hopefully with clear regulation pertaining
to these items, we can avoid issues related to the visual blight that is created by the
over abundance of these signs. These amendments are subject to further modification
if the Council wishes to include.
pc: Mike Couri
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
75
.
.
.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - 04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9 AND 10
RELATED TO TEMPORARY SIGNS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 9, Subd.1. (General Standards, Banners, Pennants, Streamers,
String of Lights, Search Lights) is herby amended to read as follows:
Subd.l. Banners. Pennants. Streamers. String of Lights. Search Lights. No banner,
pennant, streamer, string of lights, searchlights, or any other similar sign shall be permitted,
except as provided in Section 11 of this Ordinance. Banner signs will be permitted as temporary
signage as regulated by Section 9 Subd 15. and Section 10 Subd. 10 of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Section 9, Subd. 15.(a) and (d) (General Standards, Temporary and
Portable Signs) is herby amended to read as follows:
Subd.15. Temporary and Portable Signs. In all districts, temporary and portable
signs may be permitted subject to the following:
(a) Permit Application. Temporary and portable signs or banners shall not be
permitted without a permit. Applications for a permit, non-refundable fee and
fifty dollar ($50.00) deposit must be submitted to the City Building Official ten
(10) days prior to the special event.
(d) Maximum Size. Maximum banner sign size shall be limited to thirty-two (32)
square feet. Maximum portable sign size shall be limited to sixty-four (64) square
feet.
SECTION 3. Section 10, Subd. 10 (a)(I) (General Standards, Signs
Accessory to Single Occupancy Commercial or Community Store Uses) is herby amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 10. Signs Accessory to Single Occupancy Commercial or Community Store
Uses. No business sign or accessory sign to any commercial or community store use shall be
permitted, except in compliance with the following regulations:
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
77
(a)
Front Wall Signs.
(1) Not more than two (2) signs shall be permitted on the front wall of any
principal building. The total area of two (2) signs shall not exceed fifteen
(15) percent of the wall area. One (1) sign may be a changeable message
board (including reader boards/changeable banners) that is framed to
define its perimeter.
SECTION 4. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION.
Adopted by the City Council of Albertville this
day of
2005.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
By
Don Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
By
Bridget Miller, City Clerk
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
78
.
.
.
E30L. -rOI'J & ~ E: I'J 1<., II'JC.
Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 · Chaska, MN 55318
Phone(952)448-8838 · FAJ<(952)448-8805
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 24, 2005
To: Larry Kruse, City Administrator
City of Albertville
From: Mark D, Kasma, P .E., Albertville City Engineer
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Subject: Project Status Update
"'~
The following is a brief project status update:
1. Lachman Avenue
Preparing a preliminary assessment roll to be discussed with the benefiting ptoperty
owners (Barthel's and Cascade II).
2. Mud Lake Watermain Crossing
Bid opening will be at 11 :00 AM on Tuesday, June 28th.
3. Hunter's Pass Estates - Lift Station
Bid opening will be at 11 :30 AM on Tuesday, June 28th.
4. Building Permit Review
We are presently reviewing between 5 and 10 building permits per week for John
Sutherland.
5. Temporary Signal at County Road 18 and County Road 19
Weare in the process of requesting that Mn/DOT consider a temporary signal at the
intersection of County Road 18 and County Road 19.
6. Oldcastle Glass
'-~
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
79
..L.'t".... \J. !o.lV..'" ""'''''"'-....J _V\Ol..l.............,'-'v\OU.J........... L..6""..I.II..u..."v.,vV..l L..6.........-.....,'~.. v, ~v...-VJ.uv.....
.
.
.
~
~~€I!'!QL€
Date: July 28, 2005
To: City Council
From: Larry R. Kruse, City Administrator
Re: 1-94 Update
On June 21 st, our working group met with MnDOT and Federal Highway for the purpose to
receive comments back from them on the 1-94 Access Report. Federal Highway stated they have
a new employee starting who will be making the recommendation on our request. They did give
us an indication that they are leaning towards not allowing a full interchange on CSAH 37
because of the following: 1) lack of need or purpose, 2) they do not want two highway entrance
points on the north side and 3) they do not see the expensive layout being a good use of public
funds when the same outcome can be achieved at a much lower cost. We asked Federal Highway
not to give us a determination at this time, as it would not have been the City's preferred option.
Rather, we asked for an opportunity to work with Federal Highway's new employee to assist him
in his determination. Ifwe were to press for a decision today, Federal Highway's position would
be: 1) A full interchange at CSAH 19 and an overpass at CSAH 37 or 2) A full interchange at
CSAH 19 and a half on the easterly side of CSAH 37.
On June 29th, 1 held a joint meeting with S.E.H. and B&M to identify a strategy to achieve
Option 4. B & M's Jon Huseby had an opportunity to review the 1-94 Access Report Study and
S.E.H. reviewed the last five year's history of their work to date. Huseby agreed with the work
and cooperative strategy done to date. We discussed a multitude of different angles to achieve
Albertville's desired outcome, but did not identify anything specific that has not been in the
works. We all agreed that our next plan should be for a very small group to meet with the new
Federal representative to discussllobby the City's position. We identified that the following
people should be at this meeting: Jamison Sloboden, S.E.H., Jon Huseby, B&M, and Terry
Humbert of MnDOT, City Administrator, Larry Kruse and possibly EI Tinkleberg of the
Tinkleberg Group.
Both MnDOT and Federal Highway representatives have offered to meet with the City Council,
which could take place at our July 19th scheduled workshop. Our consultants and 1 are not
advocating the Council meeting with Federal Highway right now, but prefer to continue to gain
their support at a staff level. We fear that holding a meeting right now might solidify an answer
that the City will not like. Sloboden will be calling to inform them of our desire to meet again
and Huseby will arrange the meeting schedule.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
87
One option we briefly discussed with MnDOT and Federal Highway was to add a full Collector .
Distributor on the north side with just one exit and entrance off ofI-94. This was presented
somewhat in one of the previous scenarios but was not a preferred option. It was mentioned that
this would push the construction cost to the $20 million mark, not including right-of-way
acquisition which could be significant. Huseby cautioned that when discussing project financing
with the City Council that this number usually can go much higher.
On Tuesday, June 28th, City Attorney Couri and I met with Linda Fisher, legal council for the
Phil Morris property. They requested a modification to the 1-94 design going from the current
230' radius to a 190' radius, thus not impacting the Morris development so much. Following the
meeting, I visited with both Sloboden and MnDOT representative Humbert about this, and they
both mentioned that the 230 radius was an effort to achieve the minimum required separation
from CSAH 19, and anything less would compromise any pending approvals. Fisher cautioned
the City when looking how to finance this project to be careful of levying impact fees and
assessments for something of a regional benefit such as the ramps and CD system. Fisher also
stated they may be willing to give the City the right-of-way if the City pursued the 190' radius.
Couri and I left the meeting saying we would research the issue and share it with the Council.
PROJECT FINANCING:
As this project has grown from four million to now possibly well over 20 million, I have
concerns regarding its affordability. Although we have an opportunity to receive some Federal
funds for this project, you can bet our political representatives are visiting with other
knowledgeable people competing for similar dollars saying Albertville should pursue other lower
cost options to achieve similar outcomes. Transportation funds are so limited and competitive, .
that it is tough sledding. We have initially narrowed our funding options eliminating the local
option sales tax and are probably now focusing on an assessment bond. At these significant
project costs, it will require a considerable assessment on all businesses to make this project
affordable to Albertville homeowners. We have scheduled a workshop for July 19th to review
funding options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue to have staffmeet with MnDOT and Federal Highway to lobby Albertville's preferred
option 4. To specifically schedule a small informal meeting in early July with the new Federal
Highway representative (Stan), who is familiar to both S.E.H. and B&M. Following this
meeting, schedule an opportunity for the City Council to meet with MnDOT representative Terry
Humbert to have a conversation on Albertville' preferred option. Although Federal Highway has
volunteered to meet with the City Council, which according to our consultants is unusual, we
feel this would be counter productive at this time. I would appreciate the City Council's
confirmation of this strategy and any additional input you may have.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
88
.
.
.
~
i\!l?.~r.t!iJl€
Date: July 28, 2005
To: City Council
From: Larry R. Kruse, City Administrator
Re: City Hall Update
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Now that Bonestroo is entering the Design Development phase, Mr. Forbes would like to
recommend another full-council workshop for sometime during the week of July 11 tho
BUILDING SIZE REDUCTIONS:
I have worked with Mr. Forbes to try and achieve additional building size reductions. We will
continue to work at this through design development. Attached to this memo is one of Mr.
Forbes e-mail summarizing these reductions.
PHONEINETWORK WIRING, SECURITY SYSTEM AND ACCESS CARDS
I have asked Bonestroo for a proposal on the above items. They have proposed a fee of$300,
$750 and $750 to design these systems and bid/quote them. Further they have proposed a budget
of $5,000, $12,500 and $12,500 respectively for these items. It is my recommendation that we
higher Bonestroo for these items and seek bids/quotes to co-inside with the building bid. I have
placed this on the consent agenda for your consideration.
AUDIONIDEO/LIGHTING
This work is more specialized and I have been working with a number of my colleagues to
identify firms that specialize in this area. The ones that I am seeking have significant experience
with other cities. This work includes planning, designing and developing specifications for
audio, video, lighting and related equipment. Obviously, whoever we select will need to work
with Bonestroo to accomplish this task. I ask that you hold off on this task until I complete my
research and develop a recommendation.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
89
~~
Andertik &
Associates
~m~liln" A'~tect$
2335WatHghw~36.. St Paul,. MN 55' 13
~: 65'-636-%00" Fait' 651~)6..1311
W'MN borlesl100 .com
.
Larry,
Following is an update on the plans with regard to reducing the area of the building.
We have drawn the floor plans on the computer with the discussed modifications identified in the hand
drawn plan labeled "Reduce 3R" and dated 6/15/05 and additional square foot reductions have been
realized at the basement and first floors. I believe this is due to inaccuracies in and refinements to the
hand drawings as they were entered in to the computer. Refinements to the basement plan were able
overcome the additional 3'-6" added to the plan on 6/1/05 resulting in a net reduction in area.
The second floor has grown only slightly with the additional 3'-6" added due to the same refinements
discussed above.
Following is a summary of the current areas for each floor and the amount of area reduced from that
summarized in the Project Cost Summary dated 5/17/05.
FLOOR AREA (5/17105) AREA (6122/05) AREA REDUCTION .
Basement Floor 3,300 sq. ft. 3,142 sq. ft. 158 sq. ft.
First Floor 12,300 sq. ft. 10,902 sq. ft. 1,398 sq. ft.
Second Floor 3.563 SQ. ft. 3.571 sq.ft. (8) sq. ft.
Total 19,163 sq. ft. 17,615 sq. ft. 1,548 sq. ft.
It is important to note that these numbers will likely move around a little as the plans are refined during
the Design Development phase. In fact they have changed slightly since I did the last area take-offs that I
quoted to you on the phone. I believe however, it is safe to assume that they will ultimately reflect area
reductions close to if not better than that shown above.
If you have any questions please give me a call.
Mark C. Forbes, A.I.A.
Bonestroo, Rosene, and Anderlik & Assoc.
2335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul, MN 55113
(651) 604-4852
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
90
.
.
.
j fl. Bonestroo
g Rosene
--- Anderlik &
1\11 Assodates
engineers &. Ard1itects
2335 Wm Highway 36 . St PiliuI. MN 55' 13
Oflice:651..Q36.4600 .. ralC 651.(i36-1311
'WW'W OOl1esttoo.mm
J tine 8, 200S
Mr, Latty Kruse
City Administrator
City of Albertville
5975 Main Avenue NE
PO, Box 9
Albertville, MN SS3<ll
Re: City Hall Schermttie Design Approval
DearUl.rr.Y~
Thank you for your e-mail update On actions taken relative to the City Hall project at the June 6, 2005
City Council meeting. It is our understanding that the City Council approved the latest schematic plan
(Reduced. Plan tit dated May 17,2005 and amended floor plan dated June 2, 2(05) showing 8 building of
18,276 sq. ft, at an estimated constl:UC!ion cost of $2,931,957 and total project cost of $3,5 11, t 26, The
City Council al$o ff:qucsted that tbefollowing changes be miWe to the plans:
1) Eliminate the janitorial and sromge space on the wat end of the building;.
2) Shorten the vestibulelhallway at the northwest entrance,
The COMcilfurtbcr requested tbnt we attempt to absorb tbcspaec: being cut into the existing space and
provide cost e$timatcs on concrete planking. veltlUS steel for the second floor expalllion afe.l.
Sinceot.lr contract (section 12J ,2.1 A) requires written approva.l ofthc completed $CMmatic design plans.
for the building, we have drafted the enclosed resolution for considemtion by the City Council at its next
nlt:eUna. alonf; with a clean set of schematic plans and a revised proj~t cost SiummlUy. We appreciate the
City COWKlillll<ing fClt"n:laJ action on the schematic design plans,
Please contact us if you have any questions or need further assistance,
Sincerely,
BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANPmUK AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
tltM~-
Mark C. F tlrbcs, AlA
-L&c:dd'~
Michelle E. Lease
. S1. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester. \Vlllmar, MN · Milwaukee. W1 · Chicago, IL
AffImlaUn ^tII~..al Op~11J I!norpl\Opf oIJul ....pl..\'... ChI/Mil
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
91
Albertville City HaU
Alberl.vllle, Minnesota
Project Cost Summary (Revised)
6/6105
Area Reduction with additional 3'-6" at Basement6 Rrst, and Second Roors
Basement
3,300s.f. + 147s.f. ::; 3,4478.f. x $85 per square fest:::: $292,995
10,972$1, + 1478.f. = 11, 1198.f. x $180 per square feet :::: $2,001,420
31563s.(. + 1478.(. = 3. 710$.( x 1100 Pfjr ~u8re feet = $371.000
First Floor
Second Floor
Subtotal
18,2768,(.
$2,665,415
1266.542
$2,931,957
$585.169
$3,517,126
10% Contln9fJoov
Total Building and Site
Total Soft Costs
Total Project Cost
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07.oS-0S.doc
92
.
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-22
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLAN
AND PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE NEW ALBERTVILLE CITY HALL AND AUTHORIZING
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Albertville ("City") entered into a professional services agreement
dated February 7,2005 with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. ("Bonestroo") for
the design of a new city hall; and
WHEREAS, Bonestroo has been meeting regularly with City Staff and City Council Members
to develop schematic design plans for the new City Hall; and
WHEREAS, in a work session with the City on May 17,2005, Bonestroo submitted a complete
set of schematic design plans for a two-story, 19,163 sq. ft. city hall at an estimated construction
cost of$3,126,530 and a sketch of a reduced floor plan (Reduce # 1) for a 17,835 sq. ft. city hall
at an estimated construction cost of $2,863,597; and
WHEREAS, at the May 17, 2005 work session, the City directed Bonestroo to work with the
City Administrator to revise and resubmit the final schematic plans and construction cost
estimate to the City based on the reduced floor plan sketch of a 17,835 sq. ft. city hall at an
estimated construction cost of$2,863,579; and
WHEREAS, Bonestroo worked with the City Administrator to revise the schematic plans
and on June 6, 2005, the City Administrator presented and received preliminary approval for
a revised schematic plan to the City Council for an 18,276 sq. ft. City Hall at an estimated
construction cost of $2,931 ,957.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA THAT:
The schematic design plan (Reduce No. 3R dated May 17,2005 and amended floor plan dated
June 15,2005) for the construction of a 18,276 sq. ft. city hall at an estimated building
construction cost of $2,931 ,957 is approved and Bonestroo is authorized to proceed with design
development of the approved schematic design plan as attached.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Albertville this 20th day of June 2005.
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
93
1~1
~~~ ~:M
!,
?
~
"
~
~
~
~
1
I
~:-'-' ?
I'JIII1'IIIi ''''''
I
I
~
~1Fl
~
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
.
.
.
94
.
.
.
j~
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
95
.
....~-~
"i....~-1
$'
r"~..
l \~
-I
i.... .~
1 f"
j.1 *,t'/
! .it:/
,~ ~:/
'.:Sl
~f
I
.I
;'
/
/'
i
/
!
~~J
If;...~~~.......Jt,,!.~.':,,.~.~_..~. ......M,A,I"tA~.t.l~
..,'
$C. ~
~.
>}o'~m;::~ ;~~~}
,"W""""''''''.,."""",__",,,,,,,,,
.
M:\Public Data\City CounciI\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
96
.
~
!
".
'So
j
.
'f>
l~
""
.....'\
U"
.
-.ry-,=
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
....'
\or
~
c.,
\z
I
<\-'
. ...
" ..-.
::::..
-f:
-I.
-
~
-S-
97
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
'1'l'Ubm ____1htliMnllNlMa ~ at
~ ""'*"..............
.... aulof _ ormlll.M d VIllI form;.
o 201M ........... "-<,*&;b., of ~ Edinll, MN
RECElYEDOF C". ~ (J~~
1M wm of . ~. DolIIm (4 -e--- )
. n ~E_ [3......-. ONOl'lll _ ...... -.., to'" .......... ... ~_ till .......Afr....... bF .. ....... 11ft -
____ c
7. ........ ,hit thInI .......... ..,. ......40...'-. .. the1nHlll. _...... ., ..... ..... .... to ... nItumad to ....,... If ....__
.. ,........., I. n a~ br....... Said .~Mt molllJey lIS part PlI)lI'MIIlJI for 'he purchaM .r tfto property loatH at:
.. SINot
10 CiIy III
11. IilIglIIIy ~ '*
1~ ()
1& ~.. ~ Qflh ~ ~ If ownId_ .....nUHdn IOcdd llrIaIIid ~ lncludInt "'_lImiIIIIdlOfIIIWI tIuIII.
14 ~ tiMJi:lra n ........ _ $Ul'l, IIlOmI ~ ...... n ~ WIfndaw IlhtldM. bIIrlcls. __ n CUl'lIlIn iIInd drapefy !Ol:f$; ....ched
15..lIOh'Ino ItlftUM 1Nf1!Ulbt; ~. lhltu-. ....r hMlor. hNlina pIIlnIa (with II.nV bu,.,...... t!m...Q.. ....,...~. other ~ uMd in
16. connec:Ilon~" buil!toln .aiMlolIdlliiolIilIQ.~ ~.... __...... [JOWNEDOAl!!N'l'l!D .. E. bull14n humidifier
~_.
17. aDd dehumidifier. liqutd 9M tarIk end coOO'ale Of 1M ~ of SelIlJr). -..p pulIIp; ~hlltMlIlon ~. eUle TV jaeb end
18. _rinQ; BUIL'1=-INal dlshwuM... ~ dlllpou.. truh ~ ....... cook-top ---'.mIc_ _.. hood tan.. lnlefcOms;
18. ~ ~ lI'lfmIq; prlIQlI door ClpII'IIIIll ..., II oonhII; ...... ....... ~ -. dDoIs end hlNlIlIiIior'I: .wi) ....laIIcrIIlno
.lIO. ~pnlp8fty.
a l~~~ Q~LV
22.
~. .. of wl'lldl Pf'CIIIJI1Y SdD.!: ~ VIllI day ...-ct 10 ... to Buyar lDuwn (lit (t I :J. ",_ Q9 .. 12- )
24. ~.. -r;:v-~ ~11f It I wi 'II- ~. ~ - 00IlIn,
:25.. wtIictI.".,.....1O JlIIlY rn.... ~ "*,,*..,,. dMm PlIYmlInt (lIt.llaut ~ ~('lG.) .1'J4 .... .... fP'lOIIi whIr.tIlrIdudn .... earner4
m. ~ atId.11I'IIN:IfICI. 1M lOIaIlIiI'ftOUI'Il.$lICUNIId .......~1011.1rd VIllI p.nh-. _10 ___ ~ f") of Iho"~
:: =-~=J:=!r=!fI:m;;i~~~:O:-~ .~~,_~kth
2&. Th6"'OI~""bB . Q-4J'.20 LiS lilt sc ,..-4.""
an. na~ ~~"""lOaCol"IgIflC'r AddIonc:Iun lOr"'0I8Ir)w'a~(II_11a IS. _ 8lIacNd AddoInt\Ilm,)
31. (If _lIaNDr.... ~of ~~.an,. l11li)'1111.... ~lIlIIyloGlll8il'l~ Irtlnanclnoll ~l
s:r, ""Pu~'-'-!l[]~"""**'lMtto___.-anOl.~WIlMn"-'-~dIIIad .... .... . .'
Au. (If-.......,_~ r 1flllHlh..bt~no."thon . .llIO-o.-. l"IIk:l~"'OI'l._ClblII/nIld
W'""9ot by.aId dattl,this ~l/l'Qtl_ AjJrMmoml$~. 8"l*' and hRer .nail ~ .~ .. ea'-"tlor! f;4 PIII'llh_ ~...
36. ClOI'ItImllrtg uld _1IaIIlDin and ~ all UI'YIlNI rnontIV pl1kt ~ 10 be ,*"dId to ~.)
36. ""Pu~"""I*~ [Jls N01" nbjec:l: to.. ~ Land AdcIendum, (1lI.NWel' 10&.8. _ ~ Adftnd!llm.) euy., h..
...........-~
ST. been.......... (lit filii ~d~~ IIiu)W 0 lIlIIIlIlI. %.,!:IR..IO'-aprapar'lylnilpllllillClrpelfl:llmedlltsu,.'s~
36. '1lIiIl ~ ~ CIlIS ~':OT SUDjeCl!t to llll lnepeclhm AddeQdwn.<<t _~ .. Iii, Me att:er;heG Addendum.)
3t. ~m1.E: ~ ~ ~l\IuJrW, SIlIIr........r ~,...Ii...... or OOlhar. .....
--~
- Ioined rn I:lv ~'IIO)', ~ -.... .....lllIIliMt to:
41:. (AI building .nd! zOI'llq I_s. ordinances. atateand fed'etal .....tlOMi (8) ....lrlctiOn. .....Ung to un Or Imprc~!'It 0( lhe'
4:.1. property without .ffKI.... for1eItura prow_10M; (Cl _fWItlion 01 -nv 11'11...... tlthta by tfte Sl.... of Mlnn..ota; (D) utility .nd
4&. <!raln.,* "._1. lII'hich do not In..".,. with .xldng Imp_I.; (Ii) ,.a of ~ .. foil... (unI_ spllclhed. no!
44. ~.'O~.
4Il (F) ~ (mlabe ~ In 'MlIlng): .. . .
4& 0 tWtI!R....... MYA!:-' U!tl &HALL MY on date ot ...... ...,' dBIerrad real ..... ..... (8.t.. 0,,_ Aenn. lI4c.1 Of 1P"l.al
----
47. _II II ,1eI'/tI,~. 0Iwhlt:ll1Il NqlIiMd . a ..... of1he ~ (lIt1hl. .....
4. 0 1UYIiR.wI) 8lU..M1ItW.1.1IRORA1'EM""'" EUnOPCI.CMHlGi ~ ._ 8IW.L PAY ON DM'1i OF CLOSING" 1Ji.1ImanlIJ
~-
49. IIlllf)lMllal____ carIIIied far~ 1Ilflh 1M......... __ dUe and.-pblllln" ~ atclDllng.
5O.....,..StW.L.~ [JII!U.I!A SIIAI.L MY Qfl ~ 01 eloIIlng III ClIItI., .... ......m..lllIllMH .. I'J4 1M dIlle (lit.. ~
5t. ~1IHIW.__.~""""'" PMMDI! I'IOR"""'" OF...... m,n~ pendilIg.. at the... of" ~
a for imPl_men" 1hat h..... be1Jn ordered. by any "._InQ .uthot".... ($e1"'" pravlaion for paym.nt: $bell ba bV
.53. ~. irIlO _of~ (2)."..1he tlIIlImlIl-'.~ of... .~ n In,,-* 01'....... ~_ ~ Iendw.)
SA. Iiklyer....., AIW I.InplIid ~ _.__lllI~ in Iho ~ foIIowtno lllot;lnQ ud ..........lha payrnantof whIt:IIlls not ~
55. MnIIn pMMlfIBd. _ ...1'..._
55."" 0111111 dale 019 Ao/MilleI1t SeIer ~!Nt 8allar~J;!.W NOT recaived _ notlCtl reg.rding any 1'1_ In\t3r_m....
57. project from any ......int ............. the CO'" Qt..whidf P4'QjtMt -r be _ad a..n.. tha property. Any _It noli"
5e. ~ ~ S4IIler ..... !he ... of lhla Pun:hMe AjJreomont ..... __ ~ ..,.. be ptollided to 8uw- 1mI.Mldi....y. H lIUI'lfl nodoe
fi9,. it '"'*' "-IM ... pf #!II f'vlnlat All"". ... ., or--. III ... _ .... #!1m thI ..... NY ... In WIilfIllil, on or ~ 1M
to. ... 01 c:kIIIrIg, to PIlW\ IlfO'lIida lOr .. IJr8lIIftMl at. 01 _ Iho ...... "_.1I'Mlll1IL in the ___ of wen ~. eiIher fI8Ity tn!Ilf
. fl'.. ~lbII~ .-____~.....,ll&'lIIcI8to...aIlher~ or___.......'lM'~Iho__.-nv, rn'ltflid>_tia
Il2. ~ ~ lfi~lf""'pIIl1y~1hla ~~IIIC111lO11M. eu,wendSlllllar".lmmadilllilllylllgna~
.._ 0Il"urcMM.~ _A"_lOaIIid _o(Jl.'.~" anddlraCltingll ___ ~peld~t!II_~to~
UN:PA-1 (8IIDofl
.
3-
4..
5.
e.
1. ow. (" <"~ t.-tfJ-
2. PacIe 1 of 4.
of .............
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
99
--l
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
K PaoIt 2 ;;r.-lS
85. Tn'I.E" I!XAIIIHATlOIt: Within. reuonable tt_ aft... .~nce of tills ~.nt. s.uar "'till pl'OVlde
88. evidence of title. ....h aha" Inctua proper llHlChes covering bankruptctea, ..... and fecienII judgments and .an...
f!I7. and levied and ,e"dlng Special. Aua..~te, to Buyw or Bu,...... d......d tilt. ..rvlc4I. provfd4Ir, .. foHow.:
88. tf protl8ftY la ........ s,e,fM "'aI fm,Wlde eIIh., (1) a commitment tOr an owne"'" polICy Of We 1"......1'IC8 on . CQrfW
1lI9. AlTA form IUUedI'lf en ___ ~lD .. _lll'llltnncIt in ~ s..-. ..... pay" coat of en ___ palIqf.lrlil:bInO"
70. ...~ _-*'81IorI_enCI.. .....oflMl:tllnce of_lor sudl... ~ poIlly.rlO.........poIIcy .~orOl'llJ
71. 111. addltlonal coet of Obtaining a ..mult.n.ouaty 1......-:1 own"" ~cy tf . ~. po(Iuy fe Gtltalned (Suva'
n. 'hall pay th. premium and th. .. uamInalIon fe. for ltle frend.r's policy): or (2) an ab8traOl of 1111. C8f'tllled 1.0 date.
73. ...... ..... payfor'''llblIIractlng ....lInd ~ ~.lIblIInIct In ~ 1l'll....lIIon or ~ to BulIW" ~
,
7.. If "rGpeny la1'O,.,..e, S.,.., shall prOYide, a. S",~," oplton and 1'lIqUM1. .nnw (1) . Aegl8te* Properly AbstnIGt
75. (APA) certlflad to d.t..; or (2) .. commitment for an owne,'. polley of tllle Nur.nee on . CurI1In1 Al.TA form l-...d' by
76. an Insur.r lleen..d to writa tit.. IMurano. In MlnnellOU. Sell.r .nafI tie reepcn"br. to pay. tlI'Ider .--. OCIdon. only
77. tt'Ioae coete ,,_...ry to ~e the RPAor comm~t. BtIyer ...... at Bu~" option. PII!f tw ..... the Attom.y.
78. opnionor"""~ PNIftIum MIS-*"dOn-"
79. Sai.., .1'1" UN sell..... ba.. .norta 10 ~ mal'llAltatft .... by the date of ClOalng. In th. event S4I.1et ha. not
80. prOVIded martr;atabie title by "'a dat. of ciolInO, tiellar lIhan t1aW anaOdltlonaJ 30 __ to ma. II'" mIIlIleIMlIa or, In
IU. tn. alternatlw, Sliver may waIVe Uti. defecta by wrln.n notice to s.uer, In .dd1111On to tha 3O-da~ ......I0I'l.
82. Buy., lmd Solie' may, by mutual .lJ""~. furtfl8f extend the CIMInO <let.. lAC"''', $lICIt ....n..On. ~ party
8& '"'lI' ~ '*' PI.IrdIue ~ c:atlOIIlIed by WI'IfIten nodce to "oIher ~ Of ...-- ...~ Of ~ lie __
.... ~ In .wflIdl_ _ Purehaae~. cencehd.1I aIlIwrl*tY.....1hIII ~ ~ C8IICIIId. ewer lIIlId 8IIiIIlI'
e5, 1hIIIl~lIQna~at~~oonlIirmIng"'~e.ncldlnldlng"-"'*mclMVpald~
86. to be l'1IfIIndId lD Buyer.
87. 8UBOlvtSIOH OF LAND: If It\hI; .... constltlftea or reqIIlra. . ...bdIvl.1on of 'and owned by .....,. SeI", .nafI PIIY
88. alii subdlvl$lon. e:lCP8ft... and obtain 8IlI neCMllarylJOY8f_U11 approvals, s...., warrante Ibat _ tegal dnCfIpt!on of
89. ttle real properly 10 be C'OI'IVltyed nas tleen or lIball tie ~lO\IIed for ,~ .. of \'tilt de. Qf ctoalng. SeIer "'l1l'i"-
to. tnat the bulf.cliln9a are or "'Ill' be conSlructed emll'lIIy within the boundary Ine. of the pI'OtMrty. S.IIer_".....
91. Iba' there .. II tlgnt of _ to "'a Pi'OparIy from a pubfie n,tlt,of...1'IMNIe wanaMf.. ..... stIIVt\IIe die deftwery of
92.. IN deed 0' COI1lfectlor deed.
913. Seller warrant. that prior to .. ctO$blo, pa)'1nant. in Ml will haw l:loen mea to, tII. '.bor. _......... _oh'nary,
94. flxlum. or tool. 'umlshed within ltIa 120 day. Immedlat.ly pr-.cedlng the clo8tno In connectfon wittl oonSlruct1oft.
9S. ~ or rwpM.of 1m)' ~on,. orll'ipj~IO,.lt1. ~
.
96.
97.
M.
99.
Seller warran.. that sel.., hall not rec.fV1Id .ny noUae trom lIIlV oov.m~ a"'hortty .. to OOftdemnatlon
proceedlnoa. vletlllion of any 1_. Ordinance or regutati<m. If tne ~ Ie ~ to ,...~" _ante, Sella'
__n.. that Sell... has not r-.celved any nolle. from .ny p.raon or auUlortly u 1.0 . Ill_II of the ~ Any
lIUIll'll'lllllce$"""" by SelIIIr.. be prortlded to ewer ~
.
100, SelIIIr~ to allow l'INl.ll4InllIl__tolhe ~ lOt petIOt"oat ICe oIan)f ~ or In!IpeCllona agreed 10 MNln.
101. fUK OF &..01$; tr thin .. any .. Of demege to" prQp8l'1y beIween .... dale heniIof encI.. dlII8 of c:bIlnq tar...-.cn.1ndudIno
102. fire. vand.ll8m. flood. ..l'ttIqualce or acto' GOd, "'e ,lalt of 108. .hai. M on SeI..... If the pl'Ol)8fty Ie ~
103. Of ~ ~ l:leIcte .... **'tJ dais. .. ~ ~.. -.oIIIIecl, a11!k.1rW'a QpIIOn. by ..., notIoa to ....
104. or IIcIlnaM 1.--' or...... Seller. If &&..., ClM'llIlaIIt1hlll ~ AiQI'MII..... 8u)W and........ l'nnllJl...tjI.....
10$. CWICeIIIIIIIcIn of P\1n:haM ~ oonllmlllnglllllll ~'lll'Id ~ .. eIlm8aI ~ peId ,......... to .. ....... to
tOIl. 811yer,
101. 11IIeot= ~Tlme."oI" _lnthlaPun:lhaM ~
108. ENnRE AGREEMENT; Till. Pvrch... Ag'..~t. any etlaotMld exh.blta a"d any IIdd.nda or am.nd~. ",n.el
109. by the partie. shall con.muto tM lHttJre .,r..mlHtt ~ Saller lIIld 8uyw MCI .upe,..d.. .'" Dlhar wrhtan or
t 10. Ofal agfHmenta between Sell. and ~. lb.. Puldlaea AgreMMlM ean be modified or ~..., 0J"'t In wrIIflQ ....... by
111. SdIf and ~. Of by 0I)8f81I0n 01 law. NIl InDfl8iIaIy ..... .... dMmed 10 be l.JnIted S1etR ~ tar purpolMllt at ... ...........
112. a.,. (If.8eIlw mlIV be Illlqlifed Io..,-ClIrtIIln cbIing CIllIIIa. whIctIl'rIlI't IIIIIclMIiIy lI8duI:lIJ.. pDDIIIda tan......or mer- laClllltl
11 a outley atc:loUlg.
tl... ACCEPTANCe ~ ~ lInd.....lhet ItlIa F'w:haaa AIdI..,,,,,lI"lIllll:lJeGt 10 1lCllllIIl'*l- by SIIlfar In WIIfllng.
116. DI!FMJI:n liIlIuyw.....ln.",of..agI_Vl_~SellerI'rlll't..........PuIdleIlt~..,....~ClfMN
11e. SlaM6l5H2'. II elIher eu,., Of Sdw dIIIlwIIa tI ~ 0I1he ..-- ........ or....... WI ......., cadIan Iller.....
HT. aplIClIled lor fulIlIment. lIiIbef party mIlY cancel .. Purc:tleaa AgrMlMnt under MN SIatilb 5158..217, $UINS. a Whenawt II.. pnMdId
11a. l'IetIIIn 1I'l8t.... ~Aor-..mt" cal'IClCII8d.llIld ~.... ba.... a fIlI'CI'MIon aulhodIlng.. o-a....." Cancll1lll1lDrlllndlllr
119. MN SIlIUe 559..217, 6ubCL.,
120. lI'tis PI.trot'iafIe ~. lanot ~ or 1emllI....... ~ henIUndaI. ....., Of SeIIer~. __ .............._ brNcfI. 01
121. 1hIa Purchase AQrMment or aper::Mic 11*10.......- ollhla ~ ~ ana... to lIp8llllIc ,**,,_-. .... aGdgn IIUIIt be
122. _ICed wIIlIn ... -*-.......... fl9t1t at adIcn ___
128.. MOrICe l'II!!OoAIIOING ~ O"..........1NI'ORIIA'I1ON1 lllbn....., NIlJIIIdng .. pIIedalaIy ~ fIIQIIIIry lInd.....
124. ~" wlIhlMprwcIatory Oftender ~.....,MN ~ 243. tee INIlI' beoblslnolcl byOl:lfltaGtlng..locIIIlIIwlllltrM_I8UI oIICM
125. In the ~ __ .... propIIlIrty.. IooaIed. Of .... MIn..-ra Oeporlmel'ltClf ~ Ill: (1II1) Mi.oaoo, Of from .... 0apa1I1rr1Mt
12&. oI~W8t/"1IIt www._.......I'I'IIU..
~a (MM)
.
M:\Public Data\City CounCil\COIUlCil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05.05.doc
100
130.
.:
133.,
PURCHASE AGREEMeNT
a:: =.-: e~~ '1!~-~
-.(s
.. Buyer.... payt::JPAQftA11!!O ....IMY Of' CI.08IIIIOi 0 o..s .2IhIt PwI...." DHONE '_1 e..... fa_ c;Iil.Ia an. INY'" m
~..., :z::==
the,..,. 2O..A.;r.
...........,~TOIIIA..,OFQ.Q~~O_1...CALLp4toH. ,... _ta.e taxa& due and ~.b" m
.. yeer 20 .~. .It.. aIDainO __Ie ~_nNI1""" ta1lM JlIIld llhal.lf pnntIId, be ....... eo... -.cIoIIno.... Sa1ler
wart1InIa.... d.... WId payeblelnh yeer 20~"'" be OFULL- 0 PAR1l-jJNON-hclmNtlNd c:I...1Ik;don.
.- .....
134. If .... 0/1 ........u 11 ...... cia, ........... .......... EleIler......1D ..,.,... at ~. . d'
UI$. tcMImIN non.~............... EIiI.Iy\ef agrMIllo Pew ., ~ ~all'lCll!HIoIneetead __ ~ \MOJ. ~
1. dUe and~ ........ pay rMII....... __ dUe and ~..In the ~ foIIol/lIllng ~ and ~. ...~ 01 JNII'IIcft Itr;
'37. Qot ofherwt_ her"n pfO'\l4ded. Nor.pr...nta1kmea'l'a m<ade concerning .... a_ntot sub_quem '1'8" ...... ta:IIIe$.
138. P<lBnnlON:.Sa1ler"'~pg.lI_eIclnol"'~no'lllllM__ ;~,( ....f~nU.
1811L AI......... ~ ..lIoOOldilft dI.lIlIlt. .... ..,. all chargM .. cIIly...... cIIly _. ~ and ~ gas ..... be pn:nIlId
140,. t.IeiIwnn 1he ~ _ 01 ~0I c:bIInG. Buyer ... NIl' s.Jfer IDr -.lnlng. gaIIona. 01 fuel GII or 1IqUIlI. pelWlI8Um gas on 1he "'.01
'41. cSoslng.lIt 1he... of the Iut III bJ s.a.r. SIller...... to NiInCN8 AU. DEBAlS /IIHD AU. ~ PflOPa~1 't NOr IINCI.JJDEO
.~. HEREIN from 1he PI"CJflIIII11I:1'/ poe'""kn dID.
1043. EHVIROt.ENTA&. CONCERNS; To 1M NIt of s.1Ier'$~" there_ no haurdoue IUbWlriON (It .~ .~
..... tang 8I!cept l'loeAIfn noIIId: . . ..~ #N t!!:.
146.
146. BE THRTHe PROPERTY 18 01 Y CltRECTL'It'
147. COY_WEAO \'U ~ I cnYWATEIt ovea j:i!1.w:J
,.... ~ APPIIC:"-:~~-.uR 08lUY1lJll AilIAHS 10 PROVIDE WATU GUM.ll"lt'TIIST RUULTS 8HOWING II'01'MU
149. IF'~ 8Y GCWERI_G AIITMON1'V AJIDllIOR U!liICII8L .
150. ~ APPUC'MI Ii 0 I&L.U!R 0 IIUYU.- IlL 4.10 PRCMDI!,..... _ .neT1!R118 OF....PUACI... .lliGlI1&l1EI1T
" ... ---.....
1&1. OR IWGClIIIElW..- A&I'IttOIiU\' AMllOA. U!NDER, A UCEl_. 1H8F1IC1OfI"8 8EP'11C IIY'SI'EM _. EC110ft REPORT
152. NOTICI!! IHDlCAnNG IF THE S't8T&M COMA .. WI1'H AJIIPUCA8L&. REQULA'I'IOHL NC:mCI!: A WUJO CI!R1WIICM'I!
153. COMPLIAMCE P'QA.'IlfI! Sl'STIDiIllAY 8A1'I8FY THI8 0ItUGUl.11Cft. NOn.,a IN UNlI!S.. TO 1U SHAU. aaJGA11!
154. TOIJPGIRADE..AEPAIR OR Rl!Pl...ACl!11tE SEPTIC SYSTEM. UNU!8a em....",.......,1'O 1H'TNlIS PURCHAIIE
1 ER HM ~1Wl 'MI!iU. 0II8CI iOIIUIRIIE aTATEMEHTORA S'UlTEI BI1' ntM'.NQ WELL mtIS'f8 ON 1'H&
AND A 8EP'11C S'l"8TEM 0ISCt .....IAE .........urr OR.A aiM EI..BtrTHATNO _PT1C 8Y811UIEXIBTS ON OR
PROflIlRI Y. ASIII!CllI.Mm BY _HHOrA STATIJ1'Q. .
SELl..ERWAAFLIWTS TH.ArCENTRAL AtR..ooNDtTIONNG, . Pf..UMIINGANDWlAING SYSTSIiISUSED AND
SNOPROPERTYsttM.L BE iI& .WORKINQ OROER ON 0A'lrE OF a..osaNQ. EXCEPT AS NOTED '" TH
HAS TIlE NGHT TO A WALK.TtROUGH REVII!'IW OF "Dt& ~~. T PNDR 10 ... TNA'I'
.. 8U8STAH1'UU.Ly ntE ...... ClONDITION AS Oft THE .... OP ........
ATEl.Y .. WRnING OP AHY ~ANmn!
IItI!GAADINGTHI! > OFntE PROPERTY.
BUYER ACI<NOWU:OGU 'tHAT NO 0fW.. A
W.lmER IN BASEMENT OA.DAMAGE
SOLELY IN THAT REGARO ON THE F STA1"BIiENf BY
SEU.ER 0.... 0 HAS A WET BASEMENT ANOO..... 0 HASHm'
,- ---
BY WATER BUlLOUP. BU'lt'ER D~.!f NOT RECeM:D A SB..l.ER'S PAOPERT't STAr'EMENT OR
DISCl..OSUFE EI..ECTICW FOAM. BUYER HASAECl!M!!!DTHE.....ecmoH .~ 8'It'
WAU. OR CEILING DAMAGE CAJJ
~
o~
Is 0 Sdlr'sAgant a~.~OOUel,..,.. CF~
-..,
A&QUIREIIII!HTl
~
~
....,..,
-
"':""'41 (MM)
.".'"
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
101
la..~. S;)11r,
11M. ....... DIlle
-<.s
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
r::~ ~
'86. <:mER
.
'96..
1$7.
111&
'et.
2100. 0.- edidendIt __ b111lltJ1Ched which .... ..... . pen. of.. ~ Av-nt- (Enbw........... ~ ~ ~ .. Pu~
ao1. ~ InducIlnO IlCIdiIndIl. GIl'lIlM \IMt (2) aI..... _ (1~)
202. I, lMO'lIIlMtollN ~ -"'_~lIIId
203.. Q~ 1M IIIiIIlO bfakefllD w/Ihdraw e8ld ~.1IvIII
204. ..ft'II8IIilItt,~~~lnwtlllr1g,
aos. I '-~... ......,.... ~.-......
IlIgIIM1D"--"~"1M"'__ln llOIlilMMM
with the __.... .calllllllaf....... ......
I '-......................,.,......... AI........
208.
o. ..........I\8IUJ_1t ...........~
:Z;;:i:: ~ (,fz-rltJ.5
~~ ~
X .::Jii1>'tI'H #/t+;/A>f'1'l1t--
~~~
X R~ dF~~j ul't\i be> (l ~-
x
..,.... ........
l!IOI1.
207.
(DIIIt)
..
x
~~~
2.0-
(t. 11""
x
....... .....
(DId8)
x
~~
.
2'11.
x
{StIIIlIn. SlgMUe)
(DIIIII)
2'2. X -___'
~ P'rlIMd ffMIej
x
~~NIlIna)
213, X
(Wiubl StllM)
x
(MInIIII......
214.
..... ~1llld'E
21&.
218.
1HlIIllS A &.mAU.V_ CON'fRACr "'lllilIlilIW ~MD"I"""
IF'II'OU Dl!8IIM LHAL OlIIYAX AIMeE, ~ ./IIII'lla'MM'lIE NOAIIIIMOtW..
217.
1&.
21&.
IACKNOWI.aDGIi THAT I HAV& ltliCUVUJ AND HAD THE 0PP0IIlTUIIITV TO ....,I&W THE
N!8DI!InIM. .... PROPellL I V _..... .... IIIi _fI', -.:N...... 0fl'I'lI0MA&."
SEU..ERC$)
SiI!U.B'f(S)
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
102
.
.
.
3. Addendum to Purc:tlIluIe Agreement between pera.a. dilled
VACANT LAND ADDENOUM
ThlaIlOml~..,..~~at
NiN.~WlliillII.~..llIIII:lilItJt
....Uol__~.OfM&am..
02llCM ~ ~1IlIICId8IIan at AEALJ'OAIlI8\.IilkIa, MN
1. DeI8 I" ""'.;1 , _...J:'
2. Page ...s ~ --5
L- ;:.> " .20 0.$ . pertalnlng to the ~
.Ao1.. ~~
,rf
.6 4' ~1t;"...L.. . ..,'J..t:.
4. and u4e of the property at S~ J ~
5.
6.. SPECIAL CONnNGENaESe This P!..IrctlraM ~ Is subject to 1he following contiogenciea and if 1h81011owing
7. COntingenciea c:tlecked tMlIorw cannot be ....lIGed or watwd. in wrUinO, by Buyer by . 20 .
a. this PuI'Clhaee ~ Ie OIl..,U'.uI .. of 8IIkt da1e. e~ and SeIIlIr...... immediately sign a CanoIIIIlItion of
9. PurdMMla Agreement ~6".1G saki cancelletlan and dilectII", .. eamest -..y paid ~ to be ~ 10
10. Buyer.
11. (&Wcl.~ opI/!c1nlllNl)
12. [J (a) [J BUYER 0 SEl..I..ER shalf ~ a ~ of 8UI'YIIY of the property, atDIliUYEADSELLER....-.
-.... . . . .IlO'-_
~
13. no ..than , 20
1.. 0 (b) BuyerCllMirlil.appI'OY8Iof~of pl~ bulIdIngplana and~ I!lt
15. 0 BUYER 0 SELLER ewpel....
IMdiiM ",'I!I(
16. 0 (c) 8u>,<eroblll!liultlQ appl'OWdot~ otp'ClpQMcUd:dvillllClndll'l 'IlllltJl"*ltpltlnut g~
17. 8lII* ....
18. O. (0) Buyer obtaining lq)pflMlI of oillyJkMn8hIp. tiClr remnlng OJ UN pen'l'Nta at o '!!!!!.R..,.J;l....!r' I '!!t~.
19. 0 c.> B~obtMlil"".aIOBUVER p8EU..ER~.pe.coIatlonlelidBwhiCh.....~toBuyer.
i~"'~
20. 0 (f) ~obtaInlnSl.at OBUVER ~ ...............testawttk:nlndlcMe......ptOPeftytnllYbe~
---
21. ___.~buI~ r'I'NlCho$ or cost.
22. 0 (g} Buyer obI8lnlng appKMIJ of bulking pIIl.n8 and/or ~ In fICClOl'dance wfth any I"8OOJd8d lIUbdlvIsion
23. CCNI8f'IanIa and ~ of 1he lUd1ftectural control com.........
N.lJ.2f'(h) OrnER: .-dLD ,Ar c:::-
25.
28. ....... ~ tiClr tN.. corrIIngenc:iea (If any) ehd not ~ ,
27. Seller grants pelmlll,1 on of.aoceas to .... pn:lpetty tiClr tIIIItinO IInd ..--yJng PUIpOSlR.
28. PLeASE N01'E: Buyer. may incur addfllonlll chargee lmprcMog .... pIIOp8I'1y' if'IClUdIng bUt not Imll:ed 10; hook-up arMilor
2.9. acceee ch8rgM, muniCllp8lchargea, coettl lOr _ access. ~ ~ welet.1lClClH8, park dedicMlon. road.--.
30. utifity~ and COlIlIteding fees. curb cu\I8 and t_ pIlInIing otuargee.
31. SPJ:I'L w:~. . . 8: Seifer. .W8I.. rranlsthat ltIi8 I>>l'CIper'V described In ~"~lH! ~re8ment (lOl'tIlIsts of
32.. .",. ~.. -. ES 0 SQUARE FEET and is Cl.III'NI"Iitl zoned III o;;,IJJKp. liP .
-~1fIiIlIIJ
33. SeIfer warranbIJ, that..... pl'Clperty o..~....... ~ 100:,.... ftood pl8n___
34.. SeIer _18I_IhIdIhepn:1pedy gDCllES~NOI'~ ~p<"''''''''' ~(..g.. G_ ~ecc.).
35. OI'HER:
<<: "
... ~'nLLL ~ .IDh-tIK'
~ .. OF 'Sc..Jc..c",,"bo,.LLc!" -. ~
~1IIIi
P.
-
-.
~
-
38.
38.
MH:VI.A (Mlo4)
THIS" A LEG.IU.I.Y _1IlWtG CONl'RACT _11llIEEN ~ AND ........A(8).
IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OATAX ADVICE, CON8ULT AN ............... PROFESSIClNAL
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07"()5"()5.doc
103
Mon., July 4 ALLDAY Independence Day (observed) City Offices Closed
Tues., July 5 9:00 AM Consultant-Develop Review Staff mtg Conf. Room
Tues., July 5 6:00 PM Public Works meeting Council Chamber
Tues., July 5 6:30 PM City Council Workshop Council Chamber
Tues., July 5 7:00 PM City Council meeting Council Chamber
Mon., July 11 6:00 PM STMA Ice Arena Board meeting HS Board Room
Tues., July 12 7:00 PM Planning & Zoning Commission mtg Council Chamber
Mon., July 18 7:00 PM City Council meeting Council Chamber
Tues., July 19 9:00 AM Consultant-Develop Review Staffmtg Conf. Room
Tues., July 19 6:30 PM City Council Financial Workshop Council Chamber
Thurs., July 21 9:00 AM 1-94 West Chamber meeting varies
. Mon., July 25 6:00 PM Joint Powers Water Board mtg Joint Powers Office
Mon., July 25 6:30 PM Jt. mtg. City of St. Michael & Albertville Joint Powers Office
MaR., Jl:lly 25 6:30 PM Parks COffifHittee meetiftg cancelled CO\:lfteil ClitmtBer
Keep in mq:.d additional m~~tings may be~<J<Jed as themonthprogresses~
Mon., Aug. 1
Tues., Aug. 2
Mon., Aug. 8
Tues., Aug. 9
Mon., Aug. 15
Tues., Aug. 16
Thurs., Aug. 18
Mon., Aug. 22
Mon., Aug. 22
7:00 PM City Council meeting Council Chamber
9:00 AM Consultant-Develop Review Staff mtg Conf. Room
6:00 PM STMA Ice Arena Board meeting HS Board Room
7:00 PM Planning & Zoning Commission mtg Council Chamber
7:00 PM City Council meeting Council Chamber
9:00 AM Consultant-Develop Review Staff mtg Conf. Room
9:00 AM 1-94 West Chamber meeting vanes
6:00 PM Joint Powers Water Board mtg Joint Powers Office
6:30 PM Parks Committee meeting - tentative Council Chamber
.
K~ep in mind additiona.lllleetings may be added as the month progreSses.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
105
.
.
.
~
A!~~E!,!iJL€
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 comer 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
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
107
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:\Public Data\City CounciI\CounciI Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07-QS-QS.doc
108
.
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 ofthis 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 staff's 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 ofthe 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.
. Commission member Meza asked why the Wedel's were told to go ahead with fence.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
109
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.
Mr. Wedel indicated no, they did not have to have a fence for daycare that it was for privacy.
.
M:\Public Data\City CounciI\COlUlcil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
110
.
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 of the 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:
7. 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.
8. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future uses of the area.
9. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained within the Zoning
Ordinance.
. 10. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
111
11. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not over
burden the City's service capacity.
.
12. 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 ISO-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 ofthis 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 ofthe 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.
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.
.
M:\Public Data\City CounCil\COIDlCil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
112
.
.
.
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:
8 spaces
1,680 X.9 = 1,512 + 200 =
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.
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.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
113
2.
If the 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 ofthe 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 off lighting.
.
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.
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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
114
.
.
.
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 of the 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.
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 Pun/Cup, ANn 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 of CSAH 37
and 60th Street Northeast and is currently zoned B-3. The total site area consists of 1.90 acres.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
115
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 proofthereof 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.
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 .
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
116
.
.
.
morning prior to normal business hours. As such, it is not anticipated that these deliveries will
disrupt the overall traffic or circulation plan ofthe 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
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 ofthe 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
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
117
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 of flighting. 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 .4- 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 of the 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.
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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
118
.
.
.
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 a~ked 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 ofthe 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.
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.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
119
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 off94 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 if the 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.
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 ifthere was going to be an entrance from the
westbound traffic lane.
City Planner Brixius sated 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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
120
.
.
.
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.
City Planner Brixius stated in May of 2005, Miller Architects and Builders, Inc submitted a
request for a Site and Building Plan Review, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Rezoning of the
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 of the 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 300.1.f of the Zoning Ordinance:
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
121
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.
.
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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
122
.
.
.
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 ofland has been filed with Wright
County Recorder's Office and proofthereofis 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.
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 ofthe single-family use
and the building would act as a buffer.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
123
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.
.
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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
124
.
.
.
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-l 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-l 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.
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
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
125
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.
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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
126"
.
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 Wagner 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.
. 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.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
127
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.
MOTION BY Commission member Dorenbush, seconded by Commission member Wagner to
continue the Rezoning, Preliminary/Final 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 staffhas 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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
128
'.
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, of the 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.1. (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.1. 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
board. The total front wall signage area and banner signage area must not exceed fifteen percent
(15%) of the 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 if it 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.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
129
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 ifthe 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.
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 of the 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 dues review and issue temporary sign
permits.
Mr. Savitiski asked if a temporary sign had to be on wheels.
.
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\CoWlcil Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
130
.
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
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 dirtpile 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.
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07-QS-QS.doc
131
.
.
.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM - Via E-Mail Transmission
TO:
Sally Duffner
FROM:
Larry Kruse
DATE:
June 29, 2005
RE:
Albertville - Albertville Premium Outlet Mall Fence Height
In July 2004, the City Council approved an amendment to the planned unit development for the
Albertville Premium Outlet Mall to allow for two storage buildings and consideration of
lowering the fence in Phase 3, where it abuts County Road 19. This approval allowed them to
install the sheds per the review of the City Building Inspector and Fire Inspector provided the
building design was found to be acceptable for their intended purposes. The owner also agreed
that the buildings would be removed from the water main easement at the request of the City in
the event of maintenance work on the water main.
Related to the fence being lowered in height, the following conditions were imposed:
1. Lower fence height must still block the headlights of a full size pickup.
2. The applicant must provide a revised site plan that shows trash enclosure locations for
dumpsters located at the back of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Trash enclosures details must be
submitted for City approval. In exchange for the trash enclosures, it was later determined
that if the applicant would paint the trash receptacles in a color that would match the back
of the building and some additional landscaping was inserted to screen the trash
locations, that this would satisfy and the trash enclosures would not have to be
constructed.
3. Finally, the City required as a condition of the fence being lowered that the applicant
establish a strategy for the elimination of the earth berm along the western boundary of
Phase 1 and that the fence would be lowered when the earth berm was relocated.
Since last year, the Outlet Mall has made several attempts to find people or corporations who
might be interested in taking the dirt from their site. They have offered the dirt free of charge
provided that it would be hauled out without expense to them. To date, they have not found
anyone interested in the dirt. They have undertaken efforts to meet the City requirements
pertaining to the trash receptacles being painted.
M:\Public Data\City Counci1\Council Agendas\2005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
133
A recent site inspection revealed that at the back of the building, there were some dumpsters that .
were overflowing, some pallets located in the landscape area, and a pile of landscape mulch
located near one trash receptacle. It does not appear that significant additional landscaping was
added to the site, however, in driving along 67th Street, it appeared that most of the trash
receptacles fall below a berm and are limited in their visibility. Council Member Faye has
expressed concern regarding trash enclosures located behind Phase 2 related to their visibility
from County Road 19.
The Outlet Mall requests some flexibility from the requirement for the elimination of the berm.
They feel that they made good faith efforts and that they have not had any immediate success in
the elimination of the berm. They asked the Council for the opportunity to lower the fence on
Phase 3 without this condition being immediately implemented. At the last Council meeting, the
Council considered it and suggested that they would consider lowering the fence with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant extend the fence along Phase 3 to the south and east to prevent pedestrians
from walking around the fence.
2.
In lowering the fence height to improve visibility into the parking lot, the Council wants
to make sure that the fence serves as a physical barrier that prevents pedestrians from
going over the fence and jay-walking to the Phase 1 and 2 malls. This may require the
Outlet Mall to replace the solid fence with something that would discourage potential jay-
walkers from jumping over the fence.
.
3.
At Phase 2, a wrought iron fence will be required to extend along the Phase 2 parking lot
and beyond the Phase 2 building sidewalk as a means of directing pedestrians to the
controlled intersection at County Road 19. This wrought iron fence should not result in
obstructing views into the parking lot or the Phase 2 mall, but be of a size (six feet high)
and nature to discourage jay-walkers from crossing County Road 19 at uncontrolled
points. This wrought iron fence should be duplicated on the east side of County Road 19
in Phase 3 between the buildings and mall area.
4. In exchange for not requiring the berm removal at this point in time, as a condition of
lowering the fence, the Council has asked that the lighting within the parking lots for
Phases 1 and 2 be adjusted from the current 45 degree angle to a 90 degree angle to avoid
glare issues with properties across the freeway and across County Road 19. Site
examination reveals that the current lighting appears to be on an adjustable swivel that
would accommodate some adjustment in the lighting angle without major investment. It
also revealed that the pole height and the number of individual parking lot lights should
not result in dark spots within the parking lot if the 90 degree adjustment was made.
5.
The City and Chelsea agree that Chelsea shall have two years from the date of this
agreement to remove the berm located west of Lot 1, Block 1, Outlets at Albertville,
Wright County, Minnesota. If Chelsea fails to remove the berm within this two year
period, the City may, but shall not be required to, remove the berm and dispose ofthe soil
in any reasonable manner. In such event, Chelsea agrees to pay the City one-half of the
.
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas\200S Agendas\A 07-0S-oS.doc
134
.
.
.
cost of removing said berm. Said payment shall be made within 30 days of billing by the
City.
In conclusion, we believe that the Outlet Mall has made good efforts in attempting to remove the
berm but have not been successful. In exchange for not requiring the berm to be removed at this
point in time, the Council is willing to allow for the lowering of the fence along County Road 19
in Phase 3 with the aforementioned conditions.
If there are any further questions, please contact me at your convenience. I believe this can
forwarded onto Chelsea Group and with some minor adjustments in the site lighting and the
provision for wrought iron fencing along Phase 2 and Phase 3, we can accomplish the desire
effect for the Outlet Mall.
pc: Mike Couri
Jon Sutherland
Mark Kasma
M:\Public Data\City Council\Council Agendas12005 Agendas\A 07-05-05.doc
135
I!l~
..ii
~;~
~~
~
a 1 ~
~....:l
~=
m::>
OE-4
~~
O~
~~
~....:l
1<
I~!IIII;~
ill~I~;!1
g'il !~~~."
"
l.i~;- .~
.
.
.
LMCIT
Risk Management Information
LMC
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122
Fax: (651) 281-1298 . TDD (651) 281-1290
www.lmcit.lmnc.org
League of Minnego/a ('i/ieg
Cities promoting exceUence
THE ISO FIRE PROTECTION RATING SYSTEM
The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) has for many years done evaluations and ratings of the
fire protection provided in communities. This system is called the ISO Public Protection
Classification program, or PPC. The PPC process grades a community's fire protection on a
scale of 1-10, based on ISO's Fire Suppression Rating Schedule.
Many insurance companies use ISO's PPC evaluations as a factor in setting the premiums they
charge for property insurance; the better the community's PPC grade, the lower the premiums
the insurance company would charge for property insurance in that community. ISO's data on
fire losses indicates that communities with better fire protection as evaluated by the PPC do in
fact tend to have lower losses from fire damage than other communities.
This memo gives an overview of the factors that affect a community's PPC rating, how these
ratings affect insurance premiums, how the city can have its rating reviewed, and where the city
can get more information on the ISO PPC process.
What factors are the ppe ratings based on?
ISO's PPC system has been in use since the early 1900's, and has been continuously modified
and refined over that time. The Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) looks at a great deal of
specific informatiol1 about the fire department, the water supply, and the types of property in the
community, and uses a fairly complex process to evaluate that information. In general though,
here are the factors the PPC system looks at.
. Water supply is the most important single
factor, and accounts for 40% of the total
rating. The FSRS compares the water supply
available at representative areas of the
community with the amount needed to fight a
fire in the types of buildings there are at that
location. In addition, there are some specific
minimum requirements for specific classes;
to be Class 8 or higher, for example, the city
must have the water supply and equipment to
deliver at least 250 gallons per minute for at
least two hours.
ISO Fire Rating Factors
Alarm and
dispatch
10%
/:-
.
.
.
. Fire equipment accounts for 26% of the rating. Again, there are both some specific
minimum equipment requirements, and additional equipment standards based on the numbers
and types of structures in the community. Regular testing of the equipment is also a' factor.
(Incidentally, the ISO rating system does not have a maximum age for fire trucks, but instead
focuses on the equipment's capabilities. If the 1949 pumper is tested regularly and meets
performance requirements, it's as good as a brand new truck as far as ISO is concerned.)
. Personnel accounts for 24% of the rating. 15% of that is based on the numbers of firefighters
available for the initial response and how quickly the firefighters can respond. The other 9%
reflects the initial and ongoing training the firefighters receive.
. The alarm and paging system accounts for the remaining lO% of the rating.
When ISO rates a community's fire protection, they will prepare a "Classification Detail Report"
which shows in detail how much credit the city received in the rating process for each item
reviewed, compared to the maximum credit possible for that item. ISO will also prepare an
"Improvement Statement" which identifies what changes a city would need to make in order to
move up to a particular grade. To get a copy of these reports, the fire chief needs to request them
from ISO in writing on official letterhead.
Re-rating the city's fire protection
ISO will periodically send the city a "Community Outreach Questionnaire", asking for
information about the city's fire protection system. If the city completes and returns the
questionnaire, ISO will check for significant changes in the city's fire protection system that
might merit a review of the city's current classification,
Changes in the area served, improvements in the city's water system improvements, additional
fire stations constructed, new equipment added, improvements in the city's alarm and paging
system, etc., are some of the items most likely to trigger a review. If the city has made
improvements in any of these areas, it may be worthwhile to contact ISO to request a survey.
The city can also download a copy of the Community Outreach Questionnaire from ISO's web
site, complete the survey, and return it to ISO to get the process started.
Fire protection ratings in Minnesota
Fire protection ratings in Minnesota
The chart to the right shows the current
distribution of ISO PPC ratings in Minnesota.
1000 940
800
600
400
200
14
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- _.__..._----~. -- ---~----
2
.
.
.
How do ISO PPC ratings affect insurance premiums?
The table to the right shows how the
premiums would vary for some typical
structures under a couple of insurance
companies' current rating schedules.
Keep in mind though that every
insurance company sets its own rates.
While these figures are reasonably
representative of how much difference
the fire rating can make in an insurance
buyer's premiums, the amounts and
percentages of the premium credits for
the various fire classes will vary among
insurance companies.
Rell resentative insurance oremiums
Fire $150,000 $1,000,000
Class residence office building
1 $670 $2,950
2 $670 $2,980
3 $670 $3,020
4 $670 $3,040
5 $670 $3,060
6 $670 $3,120
7 $670 $3,230
8 $777 $3,330
9 $972 $3,440
10 $1,072 $3,710
Here are some points to note:
. In this schedule, no additional credit is given on residential property for a fire class better
than 7. The reason has largely to do with the role that water supply plays in the ratings.
Having a better water supply helps in fighting fires in larger.commercial structures, and
therefor is reflected in a better rating. But for most residential fires a lesser water supply is
actually needed, and having more than that available really doesn't help the fire department
fight that particular residential fire any better. There's some variation among insurance
companies (e.g., some might allow additional credit for class 6, others might lump classes 7
and 8 together for rating purposes, etc.) but this general pattern is fairly typical for residential
premium structures.
. Not all insurance companies use the ISO PPC classifications. This is especially true for
residential coverage. Some companies have their own rating systems based on their own
historical loss data for the area rather than on an evaluation of the fire protection in the area.
Other insurance companies use their own systems for rating the fire protection for a
particular property; a company might classify properties based on the individual property's
distance from a fire station and water supply, for example.
LMClT also uses the ISO PPC ratings as a factor in determining premiums for coverage on the
city's own buildings.
Improving the city's ISO PPC rating will likely have the biggest impact on citizens' insurance
costs if your city is in one of two situations:
. The city is currently in one of the lowest ISO PPC classes; or
. The city has a significant amount of commercial or industrial property.
3
.
.
.
For additional information
ISO's website www.isomitigation.comlfirel.html offers a great deal of useful and well-organized
information on the Public Protection Classification system and the Fire Suppression Rating
Schedule. You can also download a copy of ISO's Community Outreach Questionnaire from this
site.
You can also contact the ISO office for Minnesota by phone or mail
Insurance Services Office
111 North Canal Street, Suite 950
Chicago, IL 60606-6214
312-923-0070
800-444-4554
4
.
.
.
111 NORTH CANAL STREET SUITE 950 CHiCAGO,lL 60606-1270
TEl: (312) 930-0070 (800) 444-4554 FAX: (312) 930-0017
PUBLIC PROTECTION CLASSIFICATIONS
IMPROVEMENT STATEMENTS
FOR
ALBERTVILLE
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Prepared by
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC.
III North Canal St., Ste 950, Chicago, II.. 60606
312-930-0070 FAX 800-711-6431
The following statements are based upon the criteria contained in our Fire Suppression Rating
Schedule and upon conditions in Albertville in May, 1996. They indicate the performance
needed to receive full credit for the specific item in the Schedule, and the quantity you have
provided. Partial improvement will result in recei ving a partial increase in the credit. These
statements relate only to the fire insurance classification of your town. They are not for property
loss prevention or life safety purposes and no life safety or property loss prevention
recommendations are made.
RECEIVING AND HANDLING FIRE ALARMS
Credit For Telephone Service (Item 414).
Actual = 1.80%; Maximum = 2.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, both the number to report a fire and the fire department
business number should be listed under "Fire Department" in the white pages directory. Your
fire number is not listed and your business number is not listed under "Fire Department".
For maximum credit in the Schedule, both the number to report a fire and the fire department
business number should be listed under the name of the town in the white pages directory. Your
fire number is not listed and your business number is not listed under the name of the town.
Credit For Operators (Item 422).
Actual = 1.59%; Maximum = 3.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, 5 operators are needed on duty at all times. You have an
average of 2.67 operators on duty.
Credit For Dispatch Circuits (Item 432).
Actual = 3.50%; Maximum = 5.00%
Improvement Statements
Page 2
.
For maximum credit in the Schedule, the radio alarm dispatch circuit should be supervised in
accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard, 1221.
Total credit for Receiving and Handling Fire Alarms (Item 440)
Actual = 6.89%; Maximum = 10.00%
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Credit For Engine Companies (Item 513).
Actual = 0.97%; Maximum = 10.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, 2 engine companies are needed in your town.
This is calculated as follows:
2 for the Basic Fire Flow of 2500 gpm.
You have 1 engine company in service. This is calculated as follows:
.
38.5 percent for Engine 5 because of insufficient equipment, 2.5" hose, pump tests and
hose tests.
For maximum credit in the Schedule, at least 2 engine companies should respond for all first
alarms for fires in building. The credit for engine companies has be reduced by 50 percent due to
the lack of adequate response to part of the town.
Credit For Reserve Pumpers (Item 523).
Actual = 0.16%; Maximum = 1.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, 1 fully-equipped reserve pumper is needed. You have 1
reserve pumper. This is calculated as follows:
32.7 percent for Engine 6 because of insufficient equipment, 2.5" hose, pump tests and
hose tests.
Credit For Pump Capacity (Item 532).
Actual = 3.50%; Maximum = 5.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, at least 2500 gpm in fire department pump capacity is
needed. You have 1750 gpm in creditable pump capacity.
.
.
.
.
Improvement Statements
Page 3
Credit For Ladder Service (Item 549).
Actual = 1.78%; Maximum = 5.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, 1 service company is needed in your town.
This is calculated as follows:
I service company due to method of operation.
You have 1 service company. This is calculated as follows:
35.5 percent for Engine-Service* 5 because of insufficient equipment.
Credit For Reserve Ladder Service (Item 553).
Actual = 0.00%; Maximum = 1.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, I fully-equipped reserve service truck is needed. You have
o reserve service trucks.
Credit For Distribution (Item 561).
Actual = 2.06%; Maximum = 4.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, all'sections of the town with hydrant protection should be
within I V2 miles of an adequately-equipped engine company and 2V2 miles of an adequately-
equipped ladder, service, engine-ladder or engine-service company. The distance to be measured
along all-weather roads.
Credit For Company Personnel (Item 571).
Actual = 5.56%; Maximum = 15.00%
An increase in the response of fire department members by one person will increase the fire
department credit by 0.55 points.
Credit For Training (Item 581).
Actual = 2.34%; Maximum = 9.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, the training program should be improved and complete
facilities provided. You received 26 percent credit for the current training program and the use
of facilities.
Improvement Statements
Page 4
.
For maximum credit in the Schedule, pre-fire planning inspections of each commercial, industrial
institutional and other similar-type building should be made twice a year by company members.
Records of the inspections should include complete and up-to-date notes and sketches.
Total credit for Fire Department (Item 590)
Actual = 16.37%; Maximum = 50.00%
WATER SUPPLY
Credit For the Water Supply (Item 616).
Actual = 33.88%; Maximum = 35.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, the needed fire flows should be available at each location
in the town. Needed fire flows of 2500 gpm and less should be available for 2 hours, 3000 and
3500 gpm for 3 hours and all others for 4 hours. See the attached table for an evaluation of fire
flow tests made at representative locations in your town.
.
All A WW A standard hydrants within 1000 feet of a building, measured as hose can be laid by
apparatus, are credited; 1000 gpm for hydrants within 300 feet; 670 gpm for 301 to 600 feet; and
250 gpm for 601 to 1000 feet. Credit is reduced when hydrants lack a pumper outlet, and is
further reduced when they only have only a single 2Y2-inch outlet.
Credit For Hydrants (Item 621).
Actual = 2.00%; Maximum = 2.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, all hydrants should have a pumper outlet, 6-inch or larger
branch connection, uniform size operating nut and should operate in a uniform direction.
Credit For Inspection and Condition of Hydrants (Item 631).
Actual = 1.99%; Maximum = 3.00%
For maximum credit in the Schedule, all hydrants should be inspected twice a year, the
inspection should include operation and a test at domestic pressure. Records should be kept of
the inspections. Hydrants should be conspicuous, well located for use by a pumper, and in good
condition.
Total credit for Water Supply (Item 640)
Actual = 37.87%; Maximum = 40.00%
.
.
Feature
Albertville, Minnesota
6 Surveyed: May 01, 1996
Credit Maximum
Assigned Credit
6.89% 10.00%
16.37% 50.00%
37.87% 40.00%
12.39%
Total Credit 48.74% 100.00%
Grading Sheet For:
Public Protection Class:
Receiving and Handling Frre Alarms
Frre Department'
Water Supply
*Divergence
The Public Protection Class is based on the total percentage credit as follows:
Class %
1 90.00 or more
. 2 80.00 to 89.99
3 70.00 to 79.99
4 60.00 to 69.99
5 50.00 to 59.99
6 40.00 to 49.99
7 30.00 to 39.99
8 20.00 to 29.99
9 10.00 to 19.99
10 o to 9.99
*Divergence is a reduction in credit ,to reflect a difference in the relative credits for Frre
Department and Water Supply.
*The above Classification has been developed for fire insurance rating pwposes only.
.
Page 5