CITY OF ALBERT LEA PLANNING COMMISSION

ADVISORY BOARD

10/2/2018, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers

AGENDA

A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES1. PC Minutes from June 26th 20182. PC Minutes from August 7th 2018

D. PUBLIC HEARING1. Preliminary Plat Westwood Hills

E. NEW BUSINESS1. Final Plat Westwood Hills

F. OLD BUSINESS

G. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS

H. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS1. November Planning Commission meeting change of date discussion

I. ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF ALBERT LEA

PLANNING COMMISSION

ADVISORY BOARD

MEETING MINUTESJune 26, 2018- 5: 30 pm

City Center— Council Chambers

Members Present

Colby CunninghamRick Mummert

Thayne Nordland

Jason Willner

Members absent

Pam Schmidt

Tim Samuelson

Larry Baker, Ex- Officio

Staff in Attendance

Wayne Sorensen, Building/ Zoning AdministratorMolly Patterson- Lundgren WSB Planner

Interested Parties

Don Hedlund

Steve Tufte

George Marin

Peter Louters

Planning Commission Chair, Rick Mummert, called the meeting to order at 5: 32 p. m.

Approval of the Agenda

Nordland made a motion to approve the agenda and Cunningham seconded the motion.

The agenda was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

Approval of Minutes

Willner made a motion to approve the minutes from May 1 , 2018. Cunningham seconded

the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously on a voice vote.

Public Hearings

1 . Request for a CUP to allow for the construction of a structure containing a " dryingsilo" with a footprint of 80' x56' x 90' tall. The property is in a " PD" Planned

Development Zone and would require a CUP for this approval.

Staff report prepared by Molly Patterson- Lundgren, Planner WSB & Associates, Inc. and an

audio recording of this meeting become part of these minutes by reference.

Mummert opened the public hearing at 5: 50 p. m.

Molly Patterson- Lundgren, Planner WSB & Associates, Inc. presented a power pointpresentation on the proposal.

Jon Hedlund, Manager of AmTech, explained the design detail on the dryer. It is considereda " 0- particulate emission" dryer because it has a wet filter system. The fan noise outside thebuilding should only be a " hum" due to the fan being located within the building and not onthe roof. There would be some varying odors depending on which product they are drying.Odors should be minimal as they are being released over 90 feet in the air.

Steve Tufte, Manager of Lou Rich located directly across Front Street, expressed concern overpast problems with Merrick, an adjoining company to AmTech, that conducted similarprocesses. There was a common problem with white dust coating the ground and vehicles atdifferent times. He asked about the AmTech filters.

Hedlund stated that the Merrick filters were dry filters and were common problems in theindustry. Wet filters are the best.

George Marin spoke in favor of the proposal. He said they had been good neighbors andwas excited they were estimating adding 20 jobs to the Albert Lea workforce. His onlyconcern is the white powder problems of the past.

Pete Louters spoke. He lives in an apartment in the area and had a problem with the dust inhis air conditioner. He doesn' t want dust to return.

Nordland stated problems were Merrick not Amtech.

Mummert has heard generally favorable comments on AmTech' s operation.

Mummert closed the public hearing at 6: 15 p. m.

Commission had a general discussion and proposing adding conditions on particulate andnoise management, in addition the conditions on the staff proposal.

Nordland made a motion, seconded by Cunningham, to recommend to City Council theadoption of a resolution approving the CUP concerning the expansion with the addedconditions of particulate and noise management.

The recommendation for approval of the proposed CUP is based on the following findings offact and conditions:

Findings of Fact:

1 . The proposed drying facility will allow for growth of the business resulting in minimaladditional truck traffic to the facility which will occur over the next several years.Anticipated additional traffic amounts to one more truck per day to the site.

2. As a commercial facility, population and density will not be effected by the approval ofthis CUP. An addition of 20 more employees is anticipated from the approval of thisCUP.

3. There is some noise produced at the site currently, and the new drying facility will alsoproduce a low humming sound. Effect of this on nearby properties will be mitigated bythe enclosure facility and its location on the interior of the site.

4. The area has long been a mix of residential and industrial uses. It is anticipated thatthe approval of this CUP for a dryer facility will not have an effect on adjoining landvalues.

5. The business is regulated by state and federal laws for workplace safety. There is norecord of public health, safety and welfare issues affecting the community and it isanticipated that the addition of the drying facility will not cause any such concerns.

6. The aesthetics of the site and neighborhood consists of the existing mix of oldindustrial uses, the railroad and its associated facilities along with nearby housing. TheAmTech site is well screened from adjacent residential uses with the landscaped bufferon the east (the City property) and to the north.

7. The proposed facility meets the general requirements for the PD zoning district with theexception of the minimum 20% landscaped area which is a legal non- conformity.

Conditions of Approval:1 . All existing landscaped open space will remain undeveloped and unpaved with

continuing maintenance and replacement of trees and other vegetation to maintain a

buffer around the facility at its current level.2. There shall be zero particulate emissions from the facility,3. Noise shall comply with all local, state and federal requirements.

The motion was passed unanimously on a voice vote.

New Business

None

Old Business

None

Commissioner CommunicationsNone

Staff CommunicationsNone

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6: 34 p. m. The motion to adjourn was made by Cunninghamand seconded by Willner. The motion to adjourn was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Sorensen

Building Official/ Zoning Administrator

ummert

Chair, Planning ommission

CITY OF ALBERT LEA

PLANNING COMMISSION

ADVISORY BOARD

MEETING MINUTES

August 7, 2018 - 5:30 pm

City Center – Council Chambers

Members Present

Larry Baker, Ex-Officio

Rick Mummert

Thayne Nordland

Tim Samuelson

Jason Willner

Members Absent

Colby Cunningham

Pam Schmidt

Staff in Attendance

Wayne Sorensen, Building/Zoning Administrator

Cierra Maras, Fire & Inspection Administrative Assistant

Molly Patterson-Lundgren WSB Planner

Interested Parties

Curt Walter

Sharon Dilling

Planning Commission Chair, Rick Mummert, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Approval of the Agenda

Nordland made a motion to approve the agenda and Cunningham seconded the motion.

The agenda was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

Approval of Minutes

The June 26, 2018 minutes were not previously sent out with the agenda and packet. The

meeting minutes will be sent at a later date for approval.

Public Hearings

1. CUP – Communications Tower at 1029 Bridge Ave, Freeborn County Fair Grounds

Staff report prepared by Molly Patterson-Lundgren, Planner WSB & Associates, Inc. and an

audio recording of this meeting become part of these minutes by reference.

Patterson-Lundgren reviewed the staff report and gave background on the proposal. She

noted that there have been several different efforts to co-locate an existing tower

Mummert opened the public hearing at 5:44 p.m.

Curt Walter, Verizon Wireless Site Acquisition Consultant, explained the equipment and its

use. He noted that this particular site is not a coverage facility but strictly a capacity site. He

explained that the other sites within the city are becoming full and how smartphones take up

more bandwidth than calls and texts do. He said that Verizon has been filling the coverage

with several antennas at different locations and this site will strictly be for capacity.

Mummert questioned what refrained children from climbing on the equipment. Walter said

that the compound itself is fenced off.

Samuelson questioned if the amount of water that would flow off the structure has been taken

into consideration. Walter said that the facility will not cause any additional water flow or stir

any ground flow. Samuelson asked if the proposed pavement would affect it as it is

impervious.

Sharron Dilling, a resident living near the proposed facility, expressed concern about

additional water flow. She explained the water problems her and her neighbors have

experienced since a trench was built. She questioned why Verizon only looked at a couple

places. She was also concerned about the amount of airplanes that fly over the area.

Sorensen commented that the amount of impervious surface being added will not be enough

to affect additional water flow.

Walter explained that their (Verizon) engineers looked at the city as a whole and that certain

places where they would like to place their equipment is not available. He noted that this

location fixes the immediate problem and this site is one of very few places that it is allowed

to be placed by City Ordinance. He said that the proposed tower will not be a hazard to any

air traffic.

Baker said it is a vision pollution in his opinion. He questioned why there isn’t anything

outside of city limits that would work.

Walter explained the different sites where current facilities are. He said that the downtown

facilities are filling up and reaching the capacity limits. He explained that the facility needs to

be where people are using it and the closer it is to the buildings using it, the better it covers.

He said the outside of town is covered and it is the coverage inside town that needs to be

fixed.

Baker asked staff if they received any complaints or concerns from those not present at the

meeting. Sorensen said he received 4-5 phone calls, most were questioning the location.

One concern was that a person who had a T.V. antenna in the attic and questioned if it

would be affected. Patterson-Lundgren said she received 2 calls, one was a duplicate of

Sorensen’s and another was asking why they had received the notice of public hearing.

Mummert said he felt it seems like a supply and demand issue. He expressed that as far as

aesthetics, it is a piece of the time.

Mummert closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.

Samuelson made a motion, seconded by Nordland, to recommend to City Council the

adoption of a resolution approving the CUP to allow for the construction of a new

communications tower along with additional mechanical equipment, fencing and driveways

as proposed.

The recommendation for approval of the proposed CUP is based on the following findings of

fact and conditions:

Findings of Fact:

1. The proposed tower will not attract or promote any additional traffic after its

construction is completed except for limited inspections and maintenance needs which

will not impact adjacent properties.

2. As a utility, population and density will not be effected by the approval of this CUP.

3. No additional noise is anticipated from the after the construction is completed.

4. It is anticipated that the approval of this CUP for a communication tower will not have

an effect on adjoining land values.

5. There is little evidence that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower

such as that proposed increase the risk of cancer of other health problems. Proximity

to the nearest residential property line (the boundary line of the fairgrounds property)

is over 350 feet from the tower site. The proposed tower height and location has been

reviewed by the FAA and they have determined it will not cause a hazard to air

navigation.

6. The aesthetics of the site include a mix of agricultural buildings and open space and

the tower will have little impact on the existing aesthetics of the site or neighborhood.

7. The proposed facility meets the general requirements for the PD zoning district as long

as the conditions of providing paved access drive and designing the tower for at least

three providers is met.

8. With the conditions, all standards of the code will be met.

Conditions of Approval:

1. An as-built survey to verify final height of the proposed tower will be provided to the

City by the applicant.

2. The proposed access driveway will be paved to provide support to 90,000 lbs. and

connect to existing pavement no later than July 1st

2019.

3. The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will accommodate the co-

location of not less than three providers.

The motion was passed unanimously on a voice vote.

2. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance – Allowing for outdoor string lights

City staff reviewed the staff report on the zoning ordinance amendment. They noted that

although this was based on a specific property, it applies to all zoning districts and all types of

uses.

Sorensen reviewed watts and lumens and explained the amount that string lights display.

Baker questioned if string lights downtown on top of the buildings would be acceptable.

Patterson-Lundgren said they would have to meet the standards that are being proposed.

Mummert asked what other municipalities are doing. Patterson-Lundgren said that most have

much more complicated ordinances. She noted that city staff wanted to avoid requiring

anyone, especially growing businesses, to hire a professional light designer like many other

cities require.

Mummert opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.

No one was present to speak.

Mummert closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.

Willner made a motion, seconded by Nordland, to recommend to City Council the proposed

changes to the Zoning Ordinance to allow outdoor string lights as provided in the staff

report.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

New Business

None

Old Business

None

Commissioner Communications

None

Staff Communications

None

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. The motion to adjourn was made by Nordland and

seconded by Mummert. The motion to adjourn was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________________

Cierra Maras

Planning Commission Secretary

__________________________________________

Rick Mummert

Chair, Planning Commission

23 Second Street Southwest | Suite 200 | Rochester, MN 55902 | (507) 218-3745

Building a legacy – your legacy.

Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com

Memorandum To: Albert Lea Planning Commission Cc: Wayne Sorensen, Zoning Administrator/Building Official From: Molly Patterson-Lundgren, AICP City Planner Date: October 2nd 2018 Re: Westwood Hills Replat Preliminary and Final Plats

Background & Application Glenn Sherburne has applied to replat lots 4, 5 & 6 of Westwood Hills Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District. In 2006, Mr. Sherburne platted Westwood Hills, a subdivision that created 6 Lots South of Westwood Drive and platted an extension of Southwood Drive as well as Brentwood Court. Lots 1-3 are on the northern edge of the plat and have direct access from Westwood Drive. Lots 4-6 were platted as large lots although the approved preliminary plat from 2006 shows the eventual division of these into smaller lots. Lots 4, 5 &6 all have access from Brentwood Court. The Sherburne’s built their residence on Lot 5 and continue to own all of the platted lots from the original subdivision. While Southwood Drive and Brentwood Court were platted in 2006, these streets were not yet constructed for public use. The right of way is the location of the Sherburne’s driveway providing access to their home from Westwood Drive. Water and sewer was installed in the right of way which provides services to the Sherburne’s home and is planned to eventually provide service to additional homes in the subdivision. (Attachment A)

Aerial Photo showing the 6 platted lots of Westwood Hills

The Development Agreement from 2006 details the requirements for the developer to “construct the site grading, drainage, sanitary sewer, watermain, fire hydrants, street grading, and grade the street to within 6” of final grade (the “Site Work”) in accordance with the specifications and plans”. It further requires that the remainder of the of the subdivision shall be built by the Developer at the Developers cost, including curb and gutter, bituminous street, and storm sewer system once homes are planned to be built on Lots 4 or 6 (identified in utility plans and the Development Agreement as Outlots A & B). While the Sherburne’s do not plan to immediately sell or construct homes on these lots, they are requesting to replat them into smaller lots to prepare for eventual sale.

Westwood Hills Replat October 2nd 2018 Page 2

Preliminary Plat Requirements Procedures for plat review under the City Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 54, require both preliminary and final plat review and approval; Minnesota statute allows for Cities to review both concurrently. While the final plat is limited to property boundaries, drainage & utility easements and road dedication, the Preliminary Plat shows other details to indicate the development will meet zoning requirements and other development standards for the City. The Preliminary Plat now under consideration (See Attachment B) is very like the Preliminary Plat approved in 2006. Lots 1, 2 & 3 of the original Westwood Hills is shown, however these are not included within the proposed replat and will remain as originally platted. Lot 4 is proposed to be replatted into four new lots (Lots, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Lot 5, the location of the Sherburne’s home, will be replatted as Lot 8 with no changes. Lot 6, will be split into three lots (replatted as Lots 9, 10 & 11). Lot & Block Layout: Chapter 54 requires that lot dimensions conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The following table provides those requirements for the R-1 district.

Lot area requirements

Minimum required total lot area 7,200 s.f.

Minimum required lot area per dwelling unit 5,000 s.f.

Minimum lot width at building line (minimum frontage) 60 ft.

Lot depth (minimum) 120 ft.

Maximum allowable percentage of lot coverage (all structures) 40

The following table shows required setbacks for principal structures within the R-1 district.

Yard setback (minimum requirements)

Minimum front, building line to property line 25 ft.

Minimum side, building line to property line Each side 10% of lot frontage

up to maximum of 8 ft.

Minimum rear, building line to property line or alley

centerline

25 ft.

Minimum corner, building line to street line 12.5 ft.

All of the proposed lots in this replat meet the lot area requirements and provide ample room to allow for the setbacks and lot coverage as required above. Streets, Sidewalks & Connectivity: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that new plats provide for the continuation of existing roads into and through the newly developed property. The rights of way platted previously under Westwood Hills are proposed to remain with no changes to them. Section 54-129 (t) of the Subdivision code requires that “All subdivisions shall be designed with complete streets.” There is no separated pedestrian infrastructure in the plat or in the neighborhood to the north and the Comprehensive Plan does not identify any trails coming through this subdivision. A future trail alignment is shown in the Comprehensive Plan along the east side of Lake Chapeau which is less than 1,000 feet from this subdivision. Eventually, sidewalks or trail might be appropriate along Southwood Drive to provide a connection to that future trail. However, staff is suggesting that none be required at this time as development of that area does not appear eminent. Land Dedication: “In subdividing land or re-subdividing an existing plat, due consideration shall be given by the subdivider and by the planning commission upon review to the dedication or reservation of suitable sites for schools, conservation areas or other public or semipublic recreational areas or open spaces and parks.” (Sec. 54-128(b)(1))0. There are no specific sites identified in the comprehensive plan for such uses in this area. The 2006 development agreement identifies that a fee in lieu of land was already required for the lots as identified in the preliminary plat in 2006 and this replat has not created any additional lots or triggered the need for further payments. Easements & Utilities: A utility easement was platted for an underground pipeline in the 2006 plat. This will continue to remain in place in the replatted lots of 8, 9 & 10. Additional utility easements are being provided in this replat for future stormwater management facilities. The approved preliminary plat in 2006

Westwood Hills Replat October 2nd 2018 Page 3

provided a concept for stormwater management but the development agreement did not require construction until after additional homes were approved and the street was paved. No easement had previously been provided for this future infrastructure. Stormwater management standards have since become more stringent (described in the following paragraph). Staff suggested the applicant provided an easement to reserve necessary space for eventual development of this infrastructure (pond and access) located on Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10. Grading/Drainage: The Subdivision Ordinance requires proper drainage for the development of property. Article X of the Zoning Code provides standards for stormwater management at a higher standard that what was required in 2006. While no additional land disturbance is proposed at this time, the developer is required to provide a Stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for projects that will disturb more than an acre of land even if it is done under separate phases of development. Staff is suggesting that this pond still need not be constructed until additional development occurs in the subdivision and the street is paved. The applicant and his agents have responded to requests from the City Engineer and have provided the necessary plans and documentation to meet these requirements. The Preliminary and Final plats provided to the Planning Commission for review have addressed these adequately to the satisfaction of City staff. Deed Restrictions: The Subdivision Ordinances requires that “Copies of proposed deed restrictions, if any, shall be attached to the preliminary plat. None have been supplied and it is understanding of staff that no such restrictions are proposed. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that no plat shall be approved unless it conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan calls for this area to be residential. As indicated above, no trails, parks or other public facilities are identified for this area. Preliminary Plat Analysis The submitted Preliminary Plat materials indicate that all standards and requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance will be met with this replat. Staff proposes that the Development Agreement between the applicant/developer and the City from 2006 be updated which will allow for the continued use of the platted lots for the one existing residence and require the paving of the street and the development of the stormwater management system upon such time as additional development is proposed in the subdivision. Final Plat Review & Analysis State statute allows for a City to consider preliminary and final plats concurrently and the applicant has requested this. If the planning Commission is prepared to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, the commission may also consider making a recommendation to the Council on the final plat. There is no public hearing required for a final plat. Per the Subdivision Ordinance, the planning commission shall recommend approval or disapproval of the final plat, if a plat disapproval is recommended, the grounds for disapproval shall be stated in the records of the planning commission. A plat shall not be recommended for approval unless it:

(1) Conforms to the preliminary plat. (2) Conforms to the design standards set forth in this chapter. (3) Conforms to the adopted comprehensive plan. (4) Is in accordance with all requirements and laws of the state.

Planning Commission Action – Preliminary Plat The Planning Commission should first consider the Preliminary Plat including comments provided at the public hearing. After reviewing the report and considering testimony of those present, the Planning Commission should close the public hearing and determine recommendation to the City Council for approval, disapproval, or approval subject to modifications. If a plat is recommended for disapproval, reasons for such disapproval must be provided to the City Council. If approval subject to modifications is recommended, the nature of the required modifications shall be indicated. The planning commission shall

Westwood Hills Replat October 2nd 2018 Page 4

then forward the preliminary plat with its recommendations to the council for final action. Staff provides the following motion for approval: Motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat for the replat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 1 of Westwood Hills along with an updated development agreement detailing site work completed previously and site work required to be completed in the future. The following Findings of Fact support this recommended approval: 1. The proposed lot and block layout meets the minimum standards per City Code Chapters 54 and 74

for properties in the R-1 Zoning District. 2. There are no sidewalks currently near the property being platted and the area is not a priority for the

addition of sidewalks or trails at this time. In the opinion of the Planning Commission, sidewalks are not necessary on this property to protect the safety of pedestrians.

3. Park land dedication was submitted previously to the City as a fee in lieu of land when this property was platted in 2006.

4. Southwood Drive and Brentwood Court as previously platted provide adequate access to the existing and new lots.

5. The Preliminary and Final plats provide both immediate and long term stormwater management meeting current requirements of the City.

6. An updated Development Agreement between the City and the Developer will address in more detail public infrastructure previously constructed and that which needs to be provided by the developer in the future.

Planning Commission Action – Final Plat If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat and is comfortable without additional review of any conditions made for that approval, they may recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat. Motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat for the replat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 1 Westwood Hills. based on the following findings of fact:

(1) The Final plat conforms to the preliminary plat. (2) The plat conforms to the design standards set forth in chapter 54 of City Code. (3) The plat conforms to the adopted comprehensive plan. (4) The plat is in accordance with all requirements and laws of the state.

Westwood Hills Replat October 2nd 2018 Page 5

ATTACHMENT A FINAL PLAT 2006 (Current Lot & Block Arrangement)

Westwood Hills Replat October 2nd 2018 Page 6

ATTACHMENT B PRELIMINARY PLAT

Westwood Hills Replat October 2nd 2018 Page 7

ATTACHMENT C FINAL PLAT