PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET

Transcription

1 City of Litchfield PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET Monday, January 9 th, 2017

2 City of Litchfield Planning Commission AGENDA Monday, January 9, :30 P.M. Held in the Council Chambers of City Hall 126 N Marshall Avenue I. CALL TO ORDER A. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL ITEMS II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES: (Packet) 1. December 12, 2016 III. SCHEDULED ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Packet) 1. Variance Request By Brooks Holmgren at MN Hwy 22 Allow installation of a sign exceeding the maximum allowable square footage of a single sign 2. Change of Zoning & Conditional Use Requests By State of Minnesota at 525 N Gilman a. Change zoning from R-2 to B-1 b. Allow installation of anti-climb protection 3. Change of Zoning Request by Rod Lindquist at 1325 US Hwy 12 Change zoning from B-4 to R-3 to allow for multi-unit housing IV. NEW BUSINESS V. OLD BUSINESS VI. ADDITIONAL ITEMS VII. SET HEARING DATES AND TIMES VIII. REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS A. VARIANCE REQUEST GRANTED by Garmon Tipka at 428 S Yale Reduction in the rear yard setback for the purpose of building a single family home

3 B. VARIANCE REQUEST GRANTED by Shannon Asmus at 424 Golf Terrace 1. Reduction in the required side yard setback for an accessory structure 2. Reduction in the required minimum setback for an accessory structure from the principal structure IX. ADJOURNMENT

4 Minutes Monday, December 12 th, 2016

5 December 12, 2016 I. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 12, 2016, commencing at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Commissioner Cziok called the meeting to order. A. ROLL CALL: Chairperson Michael Cziok Present Commissioner Michael Flaata Present Commissioner Darlene Kotelnicki Present Commissioner Judy Hudson Present Commissioner Larry Dahl Present Commissioner Shannon Asmus Present Commissioner Mike Boyle Present Interim City Planner Hannah Rybak Present City Administrator Dave Cziok Present B. ANNOUCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL ITEMS - None II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the October 11, 2016, meeting were approved. III. SCHEDULED ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Variance Request By Garmon Tipka at 428 South Yale Reduction of 5 to the rear yard setback for the purpose of building a single family home This being the time, date and place set, with all mailed and published notices given as required by law, the hearing was opened at approximately 5:30 p.m., December 12, 2016, to consider a variance request from Garmon Tipka at 428 South Yale to allow a reduction in the rear yard setback of five (5 ) feet for the purpose of building a single family home. An attendance list is on file. No written comments were received. Comments were as follows: Interim City Planner, Hannah Rybak, reviewed the request. Applicant Garmon Tipka was present to answer any questions and explain his request. Commissioner Flaata asked about drainage. Interim City Planner clarified the setback dimensions.

6 December 12, 2016 Guy Anderson, resident at 618 W St Paul St, expressed concern about drainage. Discussion was held involving the front door and garage location versus the address location. Tipka requested that the garage and address come off of Yale Avenue and the front door come off of St. Paul Street. No further comments were heard and the hearing was closed. After review of the checklist of findings of facts, a copy of which is on file (5+ supportive of the application, 0- adverse to the application), Commissioner Dahl made a motion to grant the Variance Request by Garmon Tipka, for property located at 428 South Yale, to allow a five (5 ) foot variance to the rear yard setback for construction of a new single family home with the garage and address coming off of Yale Avenue and the front door coming off of St. Paul Street. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Asmus. Upon roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion Carried. 2. Variance Requests By Shannon Asmus at 424 Golf Terrace a. Reduction of 5 to the side yard setback for an accessory structure b. Reduction of 8 to the required minimum setback for an accessory structure from the principal structure This being the time, date and place set, with all mailed and published notices given as required by law, the hearing was opened at approximately 5:30 p.m., December 12, 2016, to consider variance requests from Shannon Asmus at 424 Golf Terrace to allow a reduction in the side yard setback for an accessory structure of five (5 ) feet and a reduction in the minimum required setback for an accessory structure from the principal structure of eight (8 ) feet. An attendance list is on file. No written comments were received. Comments were as follows: Interim City Planner, Hannah Rybak, provided an overview of the request. Applicant Shannon Asmus was present to answer any questions and explain his request. Asmus supplied the Commission with a detailed site plan. No further comments were heard and the hearing was closed. Being the applicant, Commissioner Asmus abstained from voting. After review of the checklist of findings of facts, a copy of which is on file (5+ supportive of the application, 0- adverse to the application), Commissioner Dahl made a motion to grant the Variance Requests by Shannon Asmus, for property located at 424 Golf Terrace, to allow a five (5 ) foot variance to the side yard setback for an accessory structure and an eight (8 ) foot variance to the required minimum setback for an accessory structure from the principal structure. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Flaata. Upon roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion Carried.

7 December 12, 2016 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. TAX PARCEL SPLIT REQUEST By John Haugo at 1101 South Sibley Avenue Interim City Planner, Hannah Rybak, reviewed the request with the commissioners. The Commission advised Mr. Haugo to review the need for utility easements. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Boyle to grant the Tax Parcel Split Request by John Haugo for property located at 1101 South Sibley Avenue. Commissioner Asmus seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion Carried. B. MULTI-UNIT HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSAL This was an informational presentation only. No formal action was needed. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. ADDITIONAL ITEMS VII. SET HEARING DATES AND TIMES The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 9 th, 2017, at 5:30 p.m. VIII. REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Cziok to adjourn the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Motion Carried. Dave Cziok, City Administrator

8 PUBLIC HEARINGS

9 A. 1. Variance Request By Brooks Holmgren at MN Hwy 22

10 Building a legacy your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN Tel: Fax: CITY OF LITCHFIELD MEMORANDUM To: From: Planning Commission Members David Cziok, City Administrator Hannah Rybak, Interim City Planner Date: January 3, 2017 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for January 9, 2017 Request: Request for Approval of a Variance to allow for additional square footage on one sign at the property located at Hwy. 22 South, PID: GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Location: Existing Land Use / Zoning: Brooks Holmgren (20 West 9 th Street, Litchfield, MN) Highway 22 South Commercial / zoned: C-1 Commercial Surrounding Land North: Commercial; zoned C-1 Commercial Use / Zoning: East: Commercial; zoned C-1 Commercial South: Commercial; zoned C-1 Commercial West: Highway 22 South & East Lake Ripley Deadline for Agency Application Date: Action: 60 Days: Extension Letter Mailed: N/A 120 Days: CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE REQUEST 1. Overview. The Applicant is proposing to install two signs for Elite Insulation onto the building at the property located at Highway 22 South. The property is located outside of Litchfield City Limits, but is within the extra-territorial regulatory area of the City. The sign proposed for the front of the building is thirty-six (36) inches by eighty-four (84) inches, totaling twenty-one (21) square feet. The sign proposed for the side of the building (facing Highway 22) is sixty (60) inches by twohundred-forty-seven (247) inches, totaling square feet. Both of the signs would be lighted signs, and conform to Meeker County Ordinance requirements with regards to lighting and colors. Meeker County Zoning Ordinance, Section 22.23, states that properties in the C-1 Commercial District may have up to three (3) signs, with a maximum square footage of seventy (70) square feet per sign. A variance of square feet is being requested to allow for the sign on the side of the Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com

11 building to exceed the maximum allowable square footage of seventy (70) square feet. 2. Ordinance Authority. Meeker County Zoning Ordinance, Section 22.23, provides requirements for signage. Litchfield City Code, Chapter 154, Section 27, 2, D. provides Variance approval requirements. Variances shall only be permitted: 1. When they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance 2. When the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 3. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowners; and iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality iv. The purpose is not solely financial 3. Consistency of the Request with the Standards for Granting a Variance a. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The request to allow for signage that provides good visibility for a local business on a main highway, within a Commercial District, is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Criteria met. b. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Litchfield Comprehensive Plan guides this property for continued commercial use, thus signage for a commercial business is consistent. Criteria met. c. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The property owner is proposing two (2) signs, with a total square footage of The Meeker County Zoning Ordinance allows up to three (3) signs, which at maximum, could be a total square footage of two-hundred-ten (210) square feet. The total square footage the Applicant is requesting is far below the maximum allowed, but the variance is required to allow for the sign proposed on the side of the building to be greater than seventy (70) square feet. Staff feels that this request is reasonable. Criteria met. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowners. Due to the configuration of the lot, and other surrounding buildings, only two portions of the building are visible from Highway 22 South. It would not make sense for the property owner to propose three (3) signs that meet Ordinance standards, in order to maximize their allowable signage, as only two of them would be visible. The property owner is proposing a slightly larger sign to be placed in the location that would allow for the greatest visibility, to promote the business on-site. These circumstances are unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Criteria met.

12 e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Allowing for a slightly larger sign than the Meeker County Ordinance allows will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed sign will have a positive impact on the aesthetics of the commercial area. Criteria met. f. The purpose of the request is not solely financial. The request for a variance is not solely financial. Criteria met. 4. Engineering Considerations. None. 5. Resident Concerns. None received to date. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings in this report, staff recommends approval of the requested variance. POTENTIAL ACTION 1. Request Additional Information and Continue the Meeting. 2. Recommend Approval of the Request. 3. Recommend Denial of the Request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Application

13 Attachment A Highway 22 South Location Map

14 Date CITY OF LITCHFIELD 126 NORTH MARSHALL AVENUE LITCHFIELD, MN VARIANCE APPLICA TION Address of Property _ 7V/SZ rnn i\c^jzz. idor) Legal Description _ Qupsn goo, p.ioot^\. SOry^rv\x>. Arid I novo OWNER: Name Rd-v-tkk jx^rryjfer) Address 7Q iav^v pv-re-^x- Phone 370 ' ISL^ " ^0^1 (o APPLICANT: Name Address. Phone RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BUSINESS DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ZONING R-l R-2 R.3 B-1 B-2 BA B A-1 A-2 R-1 R-2 /''ct^a C-2 I-l Single Resilience Miilri- Limited Retail Roadside General Limited General Agriculniral General Suhurhan Rural V^mmercial/Neighborhood General Family Family Shopping Preservation Agricultural Residential ' Commercial Industry Other: Purpose of Application (Please be specific) _ rn VW Q^xVprvn-T W\\V\Yg. Extent of Variance (Please be specific). ^ 3 /Q3 OA PlaaV 5'iAe Applicant should submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the request will be compatible with the neighborhood. Such information may include: 1. Site and Building Plans 2. Landscape Plan 3. Parking Plans 4. Sign Details Signature of Property Owner?D,/M.A.sVreV Street Address Date of Application: /6 ^ City and State Planning Commission Approved Disapproved Date City Council Approved Disapproved Date

15 84 36 Aluminum pan sign - routered area for illumination with translucent vinyl graphic logo 3-5 +/- deep with white LED s cleat mounting LED Power supplies on INSIDE of building for access WALL Side view Router Cut Aluminum face backed with white acrylic & Digital Printed Graphics Night View LED Power Supply Can White LED s LED Power Supply Lead to LED Power Supply Conduit through wall into building to LED Power Supply Can Elite Insulation Allison Stoner XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Michael Dick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Pan Sign Daily Jobs/Elite Insulation Elite Insulation - Exterior Sign - Front

16 247 (May have seam) 60 OPTION 1 Aluminum pan sign(s) 3-5 +/- deep - cleat mounting Face Lit Channel Letters & Logos (Price option for face lit & halo lit as well) LED Power supplies located on inside of building Side view Aluminum Pan Sign(s) (Non-Illuminated) LED Power Supply Can Face Lit Channel letters & Logos (Option for halo lit as well *halo lit will stand off backer) White LED s Halo Lit & Face Lit Example LED Power Supply Lead to LED Power Supply Conduit through wall into building to LED Power Supply Can Elite Insulation Allison Stoner XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Michael Dick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Pan Sign Daily Jobs/Elite Insulation Elite Insulation - Exterior Sign - Side

17 CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE APPLICATION WITHIN THE CITY S EXTRATERRITORIAL SUBDIVISION AUTHORITY Applicant: Brooks Holmgren Project: Installation of a sign square feet in size MN Hwy 22 Litchfield, MN Variance Checklist (County s) (1) The variance is/is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the County Zoning Ordinance. (2) The variance is/is not consistent with the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Official Map. (3) There is/is not practical difficulty or particular hardship in the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance. (4) Denying the variance will/will not prevent the subject properties being put to a reasonable use. (5) There are/are not underlying reasons for the requested variance which are unique to the property and are only created by the applicant. (6) There are/are not underlying reasons for the requested variance related to the property itself as opposed to a personal preference of the applicant. (7) There is/is not difficulty or hardship claimed by the applicant with regards to reasonable use of the property based solely upon economic considerations. (8) The variance requested will/will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the area adjacent to the property. (9) The variance requested will/will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area adjacent to the subject property (10) Granting the variance will/will not essentially alter the character of the locality. (11) Granting the variance will/will not adversely affect the environmental quality of the area. (12) The variance requested is/is not the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardships. (13) Granting the variance will/will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in similar situations. (14) The inability to use solar energy systems is/is not a claimed hardship. (15) The proposed variance is/is not for an earth shelter. Therefore, please be advised that in light of the evidence presented at the hearing and in conformity with requirements necessary to grant Variances within the City s Extraterritorial Zoning Administrative Authority and based upon the summation of the findings of fact, specifically, +, supportive of the application and -, adverse to the application to allow installation of a sign square feet in size, needing a variance square feet to the maximum sign size, it was recommended to grant/deny the request for a variance Brooks Holmgren at MN Hwy 22 and that it be referred to the City Council for final action. Dated: January 9, 2017 Chairperson, Planning Commission

18 A. 2. Change of Zoning & Conditional Use Requests By State of Minnesota at 525 N Gilman

19 Building a legacy your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN Tel: Fax: CITY OF LITCHFIELD MEMORANDUM To: From: Planning Commission Members David Cziok, City Administrator Hannah Rybak, Interim City Planner Date: January 3, 2017 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for January 9, 2017 Request: Request for Approval of a Change in Zoning and Conditional Use Permit at the property located at 525 North Gilman Avenue, PID: GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Location: Existing Land Use / Zoning: State of Minnesota 525 North Gilman Avenue Public; zoned R-2 Residential District Surrounding Land North: School; zoned R-1 Residential District Use / Zoning: East: Church; zoned B-4 General Business District South: Single-Family Residential; zoned R-2 Residential District West: Single-Family Residential; zoned R-2 Residential District Comprehensive Plan: The Litchfield Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Residential land use. Deadline for Agency Application Date: Action: 60 Days: Extension Letter Mailed: N/A 120 Days: CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE REQUEST 1. Overview. The Applicant is planning to update fencing and pavement at the Armory property. The current fencing is six (6) feet tall with an anti-climber on top of the fence. An anti-climber consists of barbed wire. City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the installation of barbed wire anywhere within the City. Because a CUP was not obtained for the original installation of the barbed wire, it is necessary to go through the process now even though the proposed plan it to simply replace it. The updated fence is proposed to be seven (7) feet tall. Because the property is currently zoned Residential, it would allow for a maximum fence height of six (6) feet. The change in zoning to B-1 Limited Business would allow for the seven (7) foot fence to be installed without the need for a variance. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com

20 Security requirements for the Armory are as follows: Several Department of Defense (DoD) documents have requirements that cover minimum standards, planning, preliminary design, and detailed design for security and antiterrorism. The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) , Security Fences and Gates dated 1 October 2013 covers the design, selection, and installation of security fences and gates. Section 2-8 FENCE FABRIC HEIGHT states "Unless otherwise directed all security and perimeter fencing must have a minimum fence fabric height of 7 feet (2.13m), excluding the top guard. Fence height including outriggers must be a minimum of 8 feet (2.44m). Modifications to existing fences are not required to meet this new UFC." 2. Ordinance Authority. Chapter 154, Section 36, provides the procedure for a Change in Zoning. Chapter 154, Section 80, provides the procedure for Conditional Use Permits. Chapter 154, Section 124, B, provides maximum allowable height restrictions for fences. Chapter 154, Section 124, E, provides guidance on barbed wire fences. 3. Change in Zoning Request Evaluation The Planning Commission shall consider the following when considering a request for a change in zoning: 1. There is a public need for additional land to be zoned as requested and is best served by rezoning in this area. Though this property is zoned residential, it is not used for residential purposes and likely will not be in the future. This area is not solely residential; it is adjacent to a school and a church, in addition to residential properties. Criteria met. 2. Would the granting of the rezoning request conform to the presently accepted future land use plans for the City as well as current land uses? Although this property is guided for residential land use, the property will continue to be used for the Armory into the foreseeable future. There is little distinction between the districts on the Future Land Use map; so many properties that are not actually used for residential purposes are guided for that purpose on the map. Staff believes that changing the zoning to a district that more accurately fits would better conform to the current use, as well as the actual future land use of the property. Criteria met. 3. Would the rezoning adversely affect property values of adjacent landowners to an unreasonable degree? The rezoning will have virtually no effect on property values of adjacent landowners, as the current use and operations of the property will remain the same. Criteria met. 4. Would the rezoning impose other undue hardships on the adjacent landowners such as noise, electrical display signs, odors or other nuisances? As in the previous question, the current use and operations on site will remain the same. There will be no increase in any nuisance. Considering future implications, it is not anticipated that this would be an issue either. The definition of the B-1 Limited Business District is as follows: These areas that are particularly exposed to existing and future residential neighborhoods and are thus suitable only to those businesses relatively compatible with residential use. The category of use that the Armory falls under is public or quasipublic which is a permitted use within the B-1 District. A commercial

21 (non-public) operation similar to the Armory would not be permitted in this district, under City Code. Therefore, if the property is ever sold, any private operation to come in would need to be a permitted use in the B-1 District, meaning it would be one that is a good fit in a residential area. Criteria met. 5. Would any additional public services and/or utilities be required? No additional public services or utilities will be required for this request. Criteria met. 6. Is there a reasonable alternative that would eliminate the necessity for rezoning? Initially, the applicant requested a variance to allow for the fence height to be greater than six (6) feet. Staff looked at all of the factors in the case and determined a rezoning would be more appropriate for the following reasons: The rezoning will eliminate the need for future variances, as the B-1 District requirements fit the actual use of the property much better than residential district requirements do. It would be inappropriate to allow barbed wire on a residentially zoned property. The Ordinance allows barbed wire in industrial and utility areas ; however it does not state any specific district that it is allowed in. Barbed wire is permitted by CUP only, so the rezoning is not technically what will allow the barbed wire in this, or any, instance. Criteria met. 7. Was there an error or oversight in preparing the original Zoning Map that indicates this zoning should have been included at that time? Generally speaking, the Zoning Map lacks specificity. Many properties that are used for other purposes are zoned Residential. That creates the need for excess variances and unusual circumstances on those properties that would be avoided if the zoning fit the land use. Approving this request will eliminate the need for future variances and allow the zoning requirements to better fit the use on the property. Criteria met. 8. Is this change really needed by the public or is it merely a convenience to the owner? The State of Minnesota has certain security requirements for all Armories that must be met. In this case, it is a seven (7) foot fence with barbed wire at the top. As stated previously, the Applicant initially requested a variance, but staff determined it would be more appropriate to rezone the property. Therefore, it is not merely a convenience to the owner. Criteria met. 4. Conditional Use Permit Request Evaluation The Planning Commission s recommendation shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following findings: 1. The conditional use permit would conform to the conditions as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically state which zoning districts barbed wire may be allowed in, but it states that barbed wire will be allowed by Conditional Use Permit only. Barbed wire must be at least five (5) feet from any public street, alley or sidewalk. In this case, the setback from all of those areas will exceed that requirement. Criteria met. 2. That the Conditional Use Permit would not have an adverse effect on the use, value or appearance and of the uses already permitted in the area. As the proposal is to simply replace the existing fencing and barbed wire, it will not have an adverse effect. Criteria met. 3. That the Conditional Use Permit would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Criteria met. 4. That the Conditional Use Permit would not be detrimental to the public welfare, safety, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare of the community.

22 Criteria met. 5. That the Conditional Use Permit would have adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, parking and other facilities. Not applicable. 6. That the Conditional Use Permit would not adversely affect the existing uses because of traffic generation, noise, glare, general unsightliness or other nuisance characteristics. The CUP will not increase traffic, noise, glare, general unsightliness or any other nuisance characteristics. Criteria met. 7. That denying the Conditional Use Permit would not create a hardship for the use of the property. Denial of the CUP would not allow the Armory to meet security requirements set by the State of Minnesota. This would be considered a hardship. Criteria met. 5. Engineering Considerations. None. 6. Resident Comments. None received to date. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings in this report, staff recommends approval of the requests. POTENTIAL ACTION 1. Request Additional Information and Continue the Meeting. 2. Recommend Approval of the Request. 3. Recommend Denial of the Request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Application

23 Attachment A 525 Gilman Avenue Location Map

24 15000 Hwy 115 Little Falls, MN 53645

25 15000 Hwy 115 Little Falls, MN 53645

26

27

28 LITCHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE STORAGE COMPOUND (MVSC) DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS STATE OF MINNESOTA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE HWY 115 LITTLE FALLS, MN FAX VACINITY MAP LOCATION MAP MINNESOTA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 525 GILMAN AVENUE NORTH LITCHFIELD, MN (PROJECT NO ) PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION OWNER STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS MINNESOTA ARMY NATIONAL GUARDS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE CAMP RIPLEY HIGHWAY 115 LITTLE FALLS, MN PHONE: PROJECT MANAGER LOIS ERICKSON FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE CAMP RIPLEY HIGHWAY 115 LITTLE FALLS, MN DIRECT PHONE: GENERAL NOTES THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, ASSOCIATED SUBCONTRACTORS, AND ALL OF THEIR SUBORDINATES (REGARDLESS OF THE TRADE INVOLVED) SHALL FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH ALL INFORMATION LOCATED WITHIN THE COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SET (ALL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROCURE ALL PERMITS, LICENSES AND BONDS, PAY ALL CHARGES AND FEES AND ARRANGE ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS INCIDENT TO THE PROPER AND LAWFUL EXECUTION OF THE WORK. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO MATERIAL MANUFACTURERS' STANDARDS AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF THEY ARE IN CONFLICT WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. 3. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR AND ASSOCIATED SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND EXISTING CONDITIONS. ANY DEVIATIONS, DISCREPANCIES, AND/OR CONFLICTS SHALL BE REPORTED IN WRITING. 4. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTIONS. 5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS. DRAWING INDEX SHEET # G-001 A-101 A-102 A-501 SHEET NAME TITLE SHEET SITE DEMOLITION PLAN SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN A-103 SITE GRADING PLAN A-104 HYDROSEEDING / TREE TRIMMING PLAN SITE DETAILS A-502 SITE DETAILS A-503 SITE DETAILS 6. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE AND DETERMINE FULL EXTENT OF DEMOLITION WORK REQUIRED. 7. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING WITH ALL TRADES FOR THE DEMOLITION WORK REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. 8. THE BUILDING WILL REMAIN IN USE THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS PROJECT. COORDINATE WITH ON SITE FACILITY SUPERVISOR FOR LIMITED DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW. 9. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE OF ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS, GRASS AND OTHER EXISTING SURFACES THAT ARE TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING / REPLACING ANY DAMAGE DONE. 10.IF NON-IDENTIFIED, POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IS ENCOUNTERED, DO NOT DISTURB. CONTACT OWNER IMMEDIATELY TO ARRANGE FOR REMOVAL BY OWNER (N.I.C.). 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE CARE TO PROTECT NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS. 12.PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OF, AND ACCEPTANCE OF, THIS PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE PROJECT AREA FREE FROM ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, SCRAPS, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND XXXX XX, XXXX DATE: THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. J.W.W. DWN BY: LITCHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE STORAGE COMPOUND (MVSC) 525 GILMAN AVE. NORTH, LITCHFIELD, MN A.J.B. CKD BY: ANDY BJUR DATE: XX/XX/XXXX LIC. # REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APR. PROJECT NO.: TITLE SHEET SHEET NUMBER G

29 X X X X X X EXISTING HOUSE LP CU x CU x CU x CU x CU x CU x CU x CU x CU x CU x CU x CUx 139'-11"± X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EXISTING LP EXISTING LP EXISTING LP SAW CUT JOINT REMOVE FENCE COMPLETE (FABRIC, POSTS / FOOTINGS & GATES) REMOVE FENCE COMPLETE (FABRIC, POSTS / FOOTINGS & GATES) X REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVING AND BASE / SUBGRADE AS NEEDED, (APPROXIMATELY 2'-0") CU x 132'-7"± TP X REMOVE SIDEWALK, CURB, AND ROAD AS NEEDED TO INSTALL NEW APPRON REMOVE BOLLARDS REMOVE CONCRETE SLABS REMOVE TREE STUMP SAW CUT JOINT X X X X X X PROPANE TANKS TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN REMOVE IF NOT NEEDED (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH TELEPHONE COMPANY) EXISTING GARAGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X G x Gx G x G x G x G x G x G x EXISTING CONCRETE TO REMAIN EXISTING CONCRETE TO REMAIN REMOVE FENCE COMPLETE (FABRIC, POSTS / FOOTINGS & GATES) Gx REMOVE ROCK LANDSCAPING AS NEEDED X NORTH SIXTH STREET EXISTING BUILDING 525 GILMAN AVENUE NORTH REMOVE ROCK LANDSCAPING AS NEEDED W x W x CU x CU x CU x SIGN CU x NORTH GILMAN AVENUE GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE LOCATION OF EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING THESE. ANY REPAIRS NECESSARY DUE TO CONTRACTORS OPERATIONS SHALL BE MADE AT CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. BEFORE DIGGING CALL GOPHER ONE CALL (651) A PRIVATE UTILITY LOCATOR WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED. 2. THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND / OR RECORDS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ALL ABANDONED UTILITIES AND SITE OBJECTS IN CONFLICT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. 4. ALL EXCESS OR WASTE MATERIAL GENERATED AS PART OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO OWNER PER SECTION N CU x G x W x TP LEGEND X X FENCE LP PROPERTY LINE UNDERGROUND ELECT. UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE GAS LINE SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATER LINE CURB STOP STREET SIGN BOLLARD FLAG TREE TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL LIGHT POLE EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED Feet PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS STATE OF MINNESOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND XXXX XX, XXXX DATE: DWN BY: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE HWY 115 LITTLE FALLS, MN FAX THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. J.W.W. LITCHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE STORAGE COMPOUND (MVSC) 525 GILMAN AVE. NORTH, LITCHFIELD, MN X.X.X. CKD BY: ANDY BJUR DATE: XX/XX/XXXX LIC. # REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APR. PROJECT NO.: SITE DEMOLITION PLAN SHEET NUMBER A

30 18'-2"± 18'-10"± 156'-6"± 18'-0" X 11'-8"± CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH THE CITY OF LITCHFIELD FOR REPAVING REQUIREMENTS NORTH SIXTH STREET GENERAL NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL EXPANSION MATERIALS AND CAULK WHERE NEW CONCRETE JOINS EXISTING CONCRETE, PAVEMENT, OR BUILDINGS. SEE DETAIL 6/A CONTRACTOR TO CAULK ALL CONTROL JOINTS. LEGEND PROPERTY LINE DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS STATE OF MINNESOTA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE HWY 115 LITTLE FALLS, MN FAX X X FENCE EXISTING HOUSE LP 20'-0" 3'-0" X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EXISTING LP 1.00' TYP. EXISTING LP EXISTING LP X X 53'-0" 5'-0" MIN. X 15.00' TYP. 6'-0" NEW FENCE SEE SHEET A-501 5'-0" MIN. 45 TYP. 22'-0" 22'-0" X X X NEW DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE 6'-0" NEW SLIDING GATE SEE DETAILS 1 & 2/A-502 NEW BOLLARD NEW BOLLARDS SEE DETAIL 7/A-502 CONTROL JOINTS SEE DETAIL 5/A-502 8" THICK REINFORCED CONCRETE, CLASS 5, GRANULAR FILL, & GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SEE DETAIL 4/A-502 NEW FENCE SEE SHEET A '-0"± X X X X X X GAS METER EXISTING GARAGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 165'-6"± 12'-0" NEW FENCE SEE SHEET A-501 1'-4" EXISTING BUILDING 525 GILMAN AVENUE NORTH SIGN NORTH GILMAN AVENUE N TP LP STREET SIGN BOLLARD FLAG TREE TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL LIGHT POLE NEW CONCRETE NEW BITUMINOUS PAVING Feet PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND XXXX XX, XXXX DATE: THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. J.W.W. DWN BY: LITCHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE STORAGE COMPOUND (MVSC) 525 GILMAN AVE. NORTH, LITCHFIELD, MN A.J.B. CKD BY: ANDY BJUR DATE: XX/XX/XXXX LIC. # REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APR. PROJECT NO.: SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SHEET NUMBER A

31 POST CAP CORNER, END, OR PULL POST TOP RAIL BRACE RAILS 3/8"Ø TRUSS ROD LINE POST CHAIN LINK FENCE 7'-0" MINIMUM 3/8"Ø TRUSS ROD TOP RAIL BRACE RAILS LINE POST CHAIN LINK FENCE 7'-0" MINIMUM DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS STATE OF MINNESOTA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE HWY 115 LITTLE FALLS, MN FAX FINISH GRADE 3 A-501 PLAN ELEVATION 3'-0" BRACE RAIL TYP. U.N.O. 6" 1 2" MAX. A-501 BRACE BAND RAIL END W/ OFFSET LUG BRACE OR BOTTOM RAIL TENSION OR FABRIC BAND TENSION BAR TRUSS ROD TURNBUCKLE CORNER OR END OR GATE POST 10'-0" MAX. SPACING TIE WIRES 15" O.C. MAX. (TYP.) ALONG TOP RAILS AND POSTS PROVIDE CONCRETE FOOTING * DIAMETER OF FOOTING SHALL BE 4X POST DIAMETER (TYP. U.N.O.) TENSION WIRE TYPICAL FENCE AND CORNER PANEL ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE BARBED WIRE STRAND (TYP.) TYPICAL 3 STRAND BARBED WIRE AND SINGLE EXTENSION ARM CONFIGURATION NOT TO SCALE PLAN - ROUND POST ELEVATION - ROUND POST 5/16"Ø BOLT W/ HEX NUT BRACE OR BOTTOM RAIL RAIL END W/ OFFSET LUG BRACE BAND ROUND LINE POST 5 A-501 PLAN - ROUND POST ELEVATION - ROUND POST POST DETAILS NOT TO SCALE T & B SELVAGE TWIST 9 GAUGE STEEL TIE WIRE (15" O.C. MAX. AND WITHIN 4" FROM TOP AND BOTTOM OF FABRIC) FENCE FABRIC ELEVATION TOP OR BRACE RAIL ATTACHMENT 1'-0" 45 1/4" LARGE FLANGE STRUCTURAL BLIND RIVET (TYP.) 9 GAUGE STEEL TIE WIRE (15" O.C. MAX.) 6" 3'-0" 1'-6" TYP. U.N.O. 2 6" A-501 2" MAX. 10'-0" MAX. SPACING BARBED WIRE STRAND (TYP.) LOCK PIN OR Z CUT IN BARBWIRE ARM (TYP.) 7 1/2" 1'-10" TIE WIRES 15" O.C. MAX. (TYP.) ALONG TOP RAILS AND POSTS PROVIDE CONCRETE FOOTING * DIAMETER OF FOOTING SHALL BE 4X POST DIAMETER (TYP. U.N.O.) LOCK PIN OR Z CUT IN BARBWIRE ARM (TYP.) BARBED WIRE STRAND (TYP.) 1'-0" TENSION WIRE TYPICAL FENCE AND BRACED PANEL ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE 1/4" LARGE FLANGE STRUCTURAL 1/4" LARGE FLANGE BLIND RIVET (TYP.) STRUCTURAL BLIND RIVET (TYP.) LINE POST CORNER POST LINE POST 4 A-501 ATTACH TO METAL FENCE POST WITH GROUND CLAMP EXTENSION ARM DETAILS NOT TO SCALE 3/4"Ø COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD 6 A-501 FENCE POST 1'-0" 10'-0" #6 AWG SOLIC COPPER WIRE MOLDED EXOTHERMIC WELDED GROUNDING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 45 6" 1'-6" LOCK PIN OR Z CUT IN BARBWIRE ARM (TYP.) PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT XXXX XX, XXXX DATE: J.W.W. DWN BY: UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LITCHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE STORAGE COMPOUND (MVSC) 525 GILMAN AVE. NORTH, LITCHFIELD, MN A.J.B. CKD BY: ANDY BJUR DATE: XX/XX/XXXX LIC. # REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APR. PROJECT NO.: SITE DETAILS SHEET NUMBER A

32 1 A-502 TO OPEN 2 C-103 OPENING (F/F) F/F = INTERIOR FACE TO INTERIOR FACE 5/8" LOWER INTERIOR UPRIGHTS ONLY G OUTSIDE FACE TO OUTSIDE FACE TYPICAL SINGLE CANTILEVERED SLIDING GATE PLAN - (4) BAYS SHOWN NOT TO SCALE FENCE LINE DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS STATE OF MINNESOTA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE HWY 115 LITTLE FALLS, MN FAX SAMPLING OF SIZES: 4" MIN. Ø POST (*) (TYP) EXOTHERMIC WELD 2" CLEAR 4 A-502 KEEPER 6" 1'-1" [330MM] 30" H OPENING (F/F) 37'-0" NOMINAL HEIGHT (H) 8'-0" 30'-0" 8'-0" 42'-3" 12'-0" 4 (FABRIC) / 2 (W/O) 24'-0" (3) STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE, EACH CONSISTING OF 2 STAND LINE WIRE W/ 4 POINT BARBS 3/4" X 10'-0" GROUND PROVIDE CONCRETE FOOTING (*) 8'-0" FABRIC AREA 2" X 4" BOTTOM RAIL 2" SQ. UPRIGHT (TYP.) LENGTH (L) 53'-3" 36'-3" L (NOT TO SCALE) POST TOP GATE POSTS (G) (*) POST SIZE AND ASSOCIATED FOOTING DIAMETER TO BE DETERMINED BY MANUFACTURER, BASED ON LEAF WEIGHT & DIMENSION. MINIMUM FOOTING DIAMETERS (TO BE FILLED W/ 4000 PSI CONCRETE): 40"Ø FOR 8" POST; 36"Ø FOR 6" POST; 24"Ø FOR 4" POST; OTHER SIZES TO BE DESIGNED BY MFR OR KTR. NO FOOTING WIDTH SHALL BE LESS THAN 4(X) THE POST WIDTH. 2 A C-103 8" CONCRETE SLAB 1/0 BARE COPPER #5 REBAR 16" O.C. IN EACH WAY 8" AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 8" GRANULAR FILL GEOTEXTILE SEPARATOR FABRIC COMPACTED SUBGRADE SOILS TRUSS ROD 16'-0" 12'-0" BAYS / OVERHANG 5 (FABRIC) / 2 (W/O) 3 (FABRIC) / 2 (W/O) TENSION ROD FRAME HEIGHT OVERHANG (OMIT FABRIC) 50' GROUND REEL, ERICO, B2618B GUIDE ROLLER ASSEMBLY CHAIN LINK FABRIC 3/4" X 10'-0" GROUND 1/0 BARE COPPER 1/8" MAX. SAWCUT SAWCUT JOINT HALF OF CLEAR COVER NOTES: 1. SEE PLANS FOR CONTROL JOINT LOCATIONS. 2. MAKE SAWCUTS AS SOON AS CUTTING CAN BE DONE WITHOUT RAVELING THE CONCRETE. 3. FILL JOINTS WITH JOINT SEALER EXOTHERMIC WELD NOTE: BARBED WIRE NOT SHOWN ON FENCE PORTION FOR CLARITY. TYPICAL SINGLE CANTILEVERED SLIDING GATE ELEVATION - (4) BAYS SHOWN NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL PARKING LOT SECTION NOT TO SCALE 5 A-502 CLEAR COVER TYPICAL CONTROL JOINT SECTION NOT TO SCALE 6 A-502 TRACK TRUCK ASSEMBLY 4" MIN. Ø POST (*) (TYP) EXOTHERMIC WELD 2" [76MM] NOMINAL POST TOPS DOMED PREFORMED JOINT FILLER MATERIAL, BACKER ROD AND SEALANT NEW CONCRETE; SEE DETAIL 4/A-502 FOR REINFORCING TRACK / RAIL 3 A /2" EMBED WELDED JOINT 2" SQ. STIFFNER 2" SQ. UPRIGHT SECTION (TYP.) NOT TO SCALE WELDED JOINT NEW CONCRETE #5 DOWEL 3'-6" 9" O.C., EPOXY COATED EXISTING CONCRETE TYPICAL EXPANSION JOINT SECTION NOT TO SCALE 7 A-502 6" 4'-0" 4'-6" 1'-4" BOLLARD DETAIL NOT TO SCALE BOLLARD SLEEVE 8"Ø SCHEDULE 80 GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE BOLLARD FILLED SOLID W/ CONCRETE NEW CONCRETE EXPANSION JOINT SEE DETAIL 6/A-502 EXISTING CONCRETE 1/2" EXP JT. FILLER, SEAL (TYP) 22" DIA. CONCRETE (VERIFY WITH PRODUCT MANUFACTURER) NOTE: OFFSET SONOTUBE TO MISS EXISTING SLAB PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT XXXX XX, XXXX DATE: J.W.W. DWN BY: UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LITCHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE STORAGE COMPOUND (MVSC) 525 GILMAN AVE. NORTH, LITCHFIELD, MN A.J.B. CKD BY: ANDY BJUR DATE: XX/XX/XXXX LIC. # REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APR. PROJECT NO.: SITE DETAILS SHEET NUMBER A

33 Applicant: State of Minnesota Property Address: 525 N Gilman Project: To change zoning from R 2 to B 1, for conforming uses of B 1 Date: 1/9/17 Grant + / Deny ZONING CHECKLIST (1) There (is) (is not) a public need for additional land to be zoned as requested and is best served by rezoning in this area (as opposed to selecting some other area). (Adverse to/supportive of application) (2) Granting of the rezoning request (would) (would not) conform to the presently accepted future land use plans for the City as well as present land uses. (Adverse to/supportive of application) (3) If the request was granted, the rezoning (would) (would not) adversely affect property values of adjacent landowners to an unreasonable degree. (Adverse to/supportive of application) (4) If the request was granted, the rezone (would) (would not) impose other undue hardships on the adjacent landowners such as noise, electrical display signs, odors or other nuisances. (Adverse to/supportive of application) (5) If the request was granted, the necessary utilities (would) (would not) be available to serve the purpose intended. (Adverse to/supportive of application) (6) Could the Planning Commission suggest an alternate area for use that would eliminate the necessity for rezoning? (Yes) (No) (Adverse to/supportive of application) (7) Was there an error or oversight in preparing the original zoning map which indicates that this zoning should have been included at that time? (Yes) (No) (Adverse to/supportive of application) (8) Is this change really needed by the public? (Yes) (No) Is it merely a convenience to the owner? (Yes) (No) (Adverse to/supportive of application) Based upon the summation of the eight findings of fact, specifically, supportive of the application and adverse to the application, and in light of the evidence presented at the hearing on this case and in conformity with requirements necessary to grant a zoning change request to rezone property from R 2 to B 1, addressed as 525 N Gilman Ave, owned by the State of Minnesota, the Planning Commission recommends that the zoning application be granted and referred to the City Council for final action. Date: 1/9/17 Chairperson, Planning Commission

34 Applicant: State of Minnesota Property Address: 525 N Gilman Ave Litchfield, MN Project: Install Anti Climb Protection Date: 1/9/2017 Grant + / Deny CONDITIONAL USE CHECKLIST (1) The Conditional Use Permit (would) (would not) conform to the conditions as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. (2) The Conditional Use Permit (would) (would not) have an adverse affect on the use, value or appearance, and of the uses already permitted in the area. (3) The Conditional Use Permit (would) (would not) impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. (4) The Conditional Use Permit (would) (would not) be detrimental to the public welfare, safety, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare of the community. (5) The Conditional Use Permit (would) (would not) have adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, parking and other facilities. (6) The Conditional Use Permit (would) (would not) adversely affect the existing uses because of traffic generation, noise, glare, general unsightliness or other nuisance characteristics. (7) Denying this Conditional Use Permit (would) (would not) create a hardship for the use of the property. Therefore, please be advised that in light of the evidence presented at the hearing on this case and in conformity with requirements necessary to grant a Conditional Use Permit to allow installation of anti climb protection, the following action will be taken. Based upon the summation of the seven findings of fact, specifically, + supportive of the application and adverse to the application, it was recommended that the request for a Conditional Use Permit by the State of Minnesota at 525 N Gilman, be granted referred to the City Council for final action. Dated: 1/6/2017 By: Chairperson, Planning Commission

35 A. 3. Change of Zoning Request By Rod Lindquist at 1325 US Hwy 12

36 Building a legacy your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN Tel: Fax: CITY OF LITCHFIELD MEMORANDUM To: From: Planning Commission Members David Cziok, City Administrator Hannah Rybak, Interim City Planner Date: January 3, 2017 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for January 9, 2017 Request: Request for Approval of a Change of Zoning at the property located at 1325 US Highway 12, PID: GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Rod Lindquist Location: 1325 US Highway 12 Existing Land Use / Zoning: Vacant; zoned B-4 General Business District Surrounding Land North: Vacant; zoned B-4 General Business District Use / Zoning: East: Vacant; zoned B-4 General Business District South: Commercial; zoned B-4 General Business District West: Commercial; zoned B-4 General Business District Comprehensive Plan: The Litchfield Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Commercial land use. Deadline for Agency Application Date: Action: 60 Days: Extension Letter Mailed: N/A 120 Days: CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE REQUEST 1. Overview. The Applicant is proposing a Change in Zoning to allow for a multi-unit, market rate, residential development. Currently, the property is zoned B-4 General Business. The applicant is proposing the zoning be changed to R-3, Residential District. The property is surrounded by vacant land and commercial properties, but there is a residential development to the north of the property. 2. Ordinance Authority. Chapter 154, Section 36, provides the procedure for a Change in Zoning. 3. Change in Zoning Request Evaluation Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com

37 The Planning Commission shall consider the following when considering a request for a change in zoning: 1. There is a public need for additional land to be zoned as requested and is best served by rezoning in this area. The City of Litchfield Housing Study, August 2016, found that there is a need within the city for multi-unit housing. Criteria met. 2. Would the granting of the rezoning request conform to the presently accepted future land use plans for the City as well as current land uses? The future land use map designates this area for Commercial land use, however staff feels that multi-unit housing would be a positive addition to this area. Shopping, dining, schools and churches are located in close proximity to the proposed development. Criteria met. 3. Would the rezoning adversely affect property values of adjacent landowners to an unreasonable degree? The rezoning is not anticipated to adversely affect property values in this commercial area. Criteria met. 4. Would the rezoning impose other undue hardships on the adjacent landowners such as noise, electrical display signs, odors or other nuisances? Because the immediate area is commercial, it is not anticipated that a residential development would impose any hardships on adjacent property owners. Criteria met. 5. Would any additional public services and/or utilities be required? No additional public services or utilities will be required for this request. Criteria met. 6. Is there a reasonable alternative that would eliminate the necessity for rezoning? Changing the zoning of the property is the most appropriate way to allow for the new development to occur. Criteria met. 7. Was there an error or oversight in preparing the original Zoning Map that indicates this zoning should have been included at that time? In this case, there was no oversight. The development in the area is commercial, thus so is this vacant property. However, multi-unit housing fits well in a commercial area, because it allows residents easy access to jobs, retail and dining. Criteria met. 8. Is this change really needed by the public or is it merely a convenience to the owner? This request has been made out of public need, not merely convenience to the property owner. Criteria met. 4. Engineering Considerations. None. 5. Resident Concerns. None to date. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings in this report, staff recommends approval of the request.

38 POTENTIAL ACTION 1. Request Additional Information and Continue the Meeting. 2. Recommend Approval of the Request. 3. Recommend Denial of the Request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Application

39 Attachment A 1325 US Highway 12 Location Map