Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 20, 2001 Work SessionCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Our Website at: www. ci.columbia-heights, rnn.us ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF COUNCIL tVORKSESSION Notice is hereby given that a work session is to be held in the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS as follows: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Councilmembers Marlaine Szurek dulienne Wyckoff' Bruce Sawrocki Robert A. Williams C_ ity Manaoer Walt Fehst Meeting of: Date of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Location of Meeting: Purpose of Meeting: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 2001 7:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM 1 WORK SESSION AGENDA 3. 4. 5. Consent Items Transfer of Police Department Overtime Funds from General Fund to Police Department Budget Overtime Line Set Dates for Council Meetings in Conflict with Holidays Reallocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds RFP for Sale of Monroe Property Authorization for Condemnation Resolution for Central Avenue Discussion Items Accessory Structure Issues Preliminary Discussions with Council on the Budget The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only) THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Does NOt DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Work Session August 20, 2001 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of August 27,2001 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER NO. POLICE APPROVAL: ITEM: Transfer of Funds from General Fund to Police BY: Thomas M. JohnsonA~/7~, BY: NO Dept. Budget to Reimburse Overtime Fund DATE: August 9, 2001 (5/)5- {.,,/ DATE: BACKGROUND During May and June of 2001 the Police Department has been involved in offduty employment details that are handled through the department. These details were for security at Unique Thrift Store, activities at Columbia Heights High School, and the Columbia Heights High School All Night Party. Since this type of off duty employment is handled through the department, officers have signed up and worked these details since the first of the year. We have received a check from the following entities: Unique Thrift Store in the amount of $1,786.65, Columbia Heights High School All Night Party 2001 Committee in the amount of $156, and two events at Columbia Heights High School in the mount of $340. According to the City Finance Director, this money is considered revenue and must be placed in the City General Fund. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION The Police Department is requesting that the City Council pass a motion requiring the $2,282.65 received from Unique Thrift Store, Columbia Heights High School All Night Party 2001 Committee and Columbia Heights High School to cover the cost ofoffduty officers working security at these locations be returned to the 2001 Police Department budget, line #1020. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to transfer $2,282.65, the total amount received from Unique Thrift Store, the Columbia Heights High School All Night Party Committee, and Columbia Heights High School for off duty security worked, from the General Fund to the Police Department 2001 budget under line #1020, Police Overtime. TMJ:mld 01-140 COUNCIL ACTION: City of Columbia Heights Police Department MEMO To: Chief Thomas Johnson r,f~ From: Captain William J. Roddy--T-A/ Subject: Overtime Transfer Date: July 09, 2001 Attached is a list of the overtime received from June 05 to July 09, 2001 from outside sources, that has been paid to CHPD for services of our personnel and has not yet been transferred to our overtime account. Columbia Heights Highschooi INVOICE # DATE AMOUNT 012 05-10-01 $200.00 013 05-15-01 140.00 $ 340.00 Unique Thrffi INVOICE # DATE AMOUNT 015 05-29-01 1786.65 1786.65 CHHS All Night Par ,ty 2001 Committee INVOICE # DATE AMOUNT 016 06-19-01 156.00 156.00 Total Amount $2282.65 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ACTIVITY FUND 1400 49TH AVE. NE COLUMBIA HEIGHTSt MN 55421 [ bank:. 12438 'AY: Three Hundred Forty Dollars & 00/100 ....................................... DATE June 11, 2001 AMOUNT $340.00 Pay to: eck#: ;count 32-Jr Class :kicultural Club City of Columbia Hts Police Dept 559 Mill St NE Columbia Hts, MN 55421 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL - STUDENTACTIVITY FUND 12438 Columbia Heights High Sch Date: June 11,2001 Account fi: Description Amount invoice # 41 0 Officer for prom 200.00 30 0 Officer for 5/11 dance 140.00 12438 P.O.# To: Cityof Columbia Hts Police Dept Total: 559 Mill St NE 340.00 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ACTIVITY FUND 1400 49TH A'~E. NE COLUMBIA H[IGHTS, MN 55421 I ]bank. 12438 PAY: Three Hundred Forty Dollars & 00/100 ....................................... Pay to: City of Columbia Hts Police Dept 559 Mill St NE Columbia Hts, MN 55421 DATE June 11,2001 AMOUNT $340.00 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL - STUDENTACTIVITY FUND Check#: 12438 Columbia Heights High Sch Date: June 11,2001 Account Account # Description Amount Invoice # 2002-Jr Class 41 0 Officer for prom 200.00 Multicultural Club 30 0 Officer for 5/11 dance 140.00 12438 P.O.# Pay To: City of Columbia Hts Total: 340.00 Police Dept 0 0 0 ru .o 0 .0 © :-] °E BEAt'IN R. SPRA'FT ':-':,~:3 1 0 5 1 CLASS OF 2001 ~.~ a737 C-~AT:;AM ROAD NE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: August20, 2001 AGENDA SECTION: WORKSESSION ORIGiNATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGERS NO: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL ITEM: Establish Council Meeting Dates BY: Walt Fehst BY: ~.~ ~- NO: DATE: August 9, 2001 DATE: Background: Veteran's Day will be observed on Monday, November 12, 2001. This is a regularly scheduled Council meeting date and will need to be addressed. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day will be observed as holidays. Christmas Eve is a regularly scheduled Council meeting date and will need to be addressed. Possible Options: · The Monday, November 12th meeting could be mscheduled for Tuesday, November 13th. · Council could choose to cancel the meeting scheduled for Christmas Eve. · Council could change the December 24 meeting date to December 26, 2001. · Council could choose to only meet once in December - on December 10w' or move the December 10t~ meeting to December 17a', 2001. (We have done this on a few occasions in the past few years.) COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting off August 20, 2001 AGENDA SECTION: Item for consideration ORIGINATiNG DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Reuse of CDBG funds BY: Tim Johnson BY:~,J/~//.~..,/~/'~/' ,/'~/---- NO: DATE: August 15, 2001 .Issue Statement: A request for reallocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds that were formerly used to acquire and raze property at 4656 Monroe Street NE in August 1995. Background: The City of Columbia Heights acquired and demolished a substandard home at 4656 Monroe Street NE in August 1995 using CDBG Funds totaling $38,527.75. This property has been vacant since 1995, and was proposed to be used to benefit a low to moderate income household. The City Council rejected a private bid in December 2000 for the purchase of this property for $16,000, at which time staff was directed to put the property up for bids. Since this time, it was discovered that the property was purchased with CDBG Funds. Anoka County has indicated that the City of Columbia Heights after consultation with affected citizens with reasonable notice and comment period, may retain or dispose of this property for the changed use if the County is reimbursed in the amount of the fair market value of the property, less any portion of the value attributable to the expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, and improvements to, the property. Analysis: In order to sell this property on the open market, the City of Columbia Heights will pay back Anoka County the fair market value of the property, after which the City wiI1 be able to reprogram this money into commercial revitalization, housing rehabilitation, or any other CDBG eligible activity that benefits low to moderate income households. Recommendation: Staff recommends to reuse the CDBG monies from the Monroe property for either commercial revitalization or housing rehabilitation activities that the City Council is supportive of. Recommended Motion: Move to approve the reallocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds that were used to acquire and raze property at 4656 Monroe Street NE, to be used for either commercial revitalization or housing rehabilitation activities. Attachments.'; Email frorn Anoka Couni?; Council letter,from 1995; and Notice of Public Hearing COUNCIL ACTION: Randy Schumacher - Monroe Lot Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Jennifer Bergman" <Jennifer. Bergman@co.anoka.mn.us> <Randy. Schumacher@ci.columbia-heights.mn.us> 5131101 1:55PM Monroe Lot This e-mail is in response to your question regarding the lot on Monroe which was purchased with CDBG funds. According to the CDBG regulations you have two choices for the re-use of the lot: (1) The city of Columbia Heights, after consulation with affected citizens with reasonable notice and comment period, may retain or dispose of this property for the changed use if the CDBG program is reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property, less any portion of the value attributable to the expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, and improvements to, the property; or, (2) The city of Columbia Heights could, after consulation with affected citizens with reasonable notice and comment period, reuse the property for a CDBG eligible activity. The reuse of the property must meet a National Objective by benefitting Iow- to moderate-income people. If the city of Columbia Heights is planning on reusing the lot to construct a single-family, owner-occupied unit, the unit must be occupied by a Iow to moderate income family. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me. Jennifer Bergman Community Development Manager (763) 323-5709 Jennifer. Bergman@co.anoka.mn.us CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Meeting of.' Segtember 11, 1995 AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO.: COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~,_N~ APPROVAL ITEM: AWARD DEMOLITION CONTRACT ON BY: E~ELYN NYGAARD BY 4501 MADISON N.E.~4656 MONROE N.E. DATE: Sept. 7, 1995 NO: Five quotes for the removal of the structures at 4501 Madison Street and 4656 Monroe Street were obtained in August, 1995. Both properties are dilapidated and deemed hazardous. 4501 Madison Street was condemned and the order to raze was granted by the Courts in August of 1995. 4656 Monroe Street was acquired through the CDBG Neighborhood Revitalization Program. K.A. Stark submitted the lowest responsible bid of $9,250 for the total demolition cost of both structures ($4,500 for 4501 Madison and $4,750 for 4656 Monroe). Following is a summary of bids received: K.A. Stark R-P Excavating Thomas Contracting Drobnik's Demo. Disposal Systems 4501 4656 Madison Monroe Total 4,500 4,750 9,250 5,600 5,600 11,200 5,128 6,349 11,477 6,150 5,350 11,500 6,850 6,850 13,700 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the contract for demolition of 4501 Madison Street and 4656 Monroe Street to K.A. stark Contracting based upon their low, qualified responsible quote in the amount of $9,250 with funds to be appropriated from Fund 415-59408-3050 for 4501 Madison Street N.E. and from Fund 202-36240.3050 for 4656 Monroe Street N.E., and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the ~ 3oo.0o / 3.3, o0~3. COUNCIL ACTION: council.for E CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: August 20, 2001 AGENDA SECTION: Item for consideration ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Sale of property at 4656 Monroe Street BY: Tim Johnson ~ BY: ?~-5~f~ NO: DATE: August 15, 2001 Issue Statement: A request to seek bidding proposals for the sale of City owned property at 4656 Monroe Street NE. Background: The City of Columbia Heights acquired and demolished a substandard home at 4656 Monroe Street NE in August 1995. This property has been vacant since 1995, and was proposed to be used to benefit a low to moderate income household. The City Council rejected a private bid in December 2000 for the purchase of this property for $16,000, at which time staff was directed to put the property up for bids. Since this time, it was discovered that the property was purchased with CDBG Funds. With the City Council's reallocation of these former CDBG funds, the property can now be sold on the open market without CDBG requirements. Analysis: Staffhas put together some preliminary bidding information on this property so that the City Council can decide what criteria they would like to see as part of the bidding process. The EDA had recommended that the City publicly advertise this property for 45 days and send out bid proposals to those parties who have expressed interest in developing a single- family lot and reputable builders. Staff would recommend that the property be put up for bids for a period of 30 days and published in the Focus and the Star Tribune, as well as advertised on local cable television. Bids should be considered on the basis of purchase price and also on the estimated value of the property when fully developed. Recommendation: Staff recommends to seek responsible bids and to advertise "as is" sale of City-owned property at 4656 Monroe Street NE Recommended Motion: Move to authorize staff to take all steps necessary to complete the "as is" sale of City-owned property at 4656 Monroe Street NE, with a minimum bid price of Attachments: Preliminary bidding in, formation; EDA minutes; Comparative Land Market Analysis; Map COUNCIL ACTION: Advertisement for Bid NOTICE TO BIDDERS The City of Columbia Heights will be accepting bids on the sale of one vacant single- family residential zoned property at 4656 Monroe Street NE. This property is offered in "as is" condition. Sealed bids will be received by the City of Columbia Heights, Conununity Development Department, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN, 55421 until 11:30 a.m. C.D.S.T. on October 5, 2001, at which time they will be publicly opened and read out loud in the City Council Chambers. Each bid shall be accompanied by a bidder's bond naming the City of Columbia Heights as obligee, or a certified check payable to the City of Columbia Height, or an irrevocable letter of credit or a non-interest beating cash deposit equal to at least five percent (5%) of the amount of the bid. If bidder is selected by the City and fails to enter into a contract, then the bidder shall forfeit said 5% deposit. The City Council reserves the right to retain the deposit of the three most competitive bidders for a period not to exceed 30 days after the date and time set for the opening of bids. The City Council reserves the fight to reject any and all bids, or a portion thereof, to waive irregularities and informalities therein, further negotiate terms of the proposals, and reserves the right to award the contract in the best interest of the City. The successful bidder(s) must comply with the following sales conditions: All house plans must meet the minimum requirements of City and state codes. The construction of the house must begin within one year from the date of sale. Intended Scope of Use: The City requires quality construction of a single-family residential home on the property. The City will give consideration to varied construction designs for the development of this property. Bids will be considered on the basis of purchase price and also on the value of the property when fully developed. Bid packets for this property can be obtained at the City of Columbia Heights, Conununity Development Department 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:45 P.M. Monday through Friday. Questions should be directed to Tim Johnson, at (763) 706-3673. General Information 4656 Monroe Street NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Legal Description: Lot 9, Except West 70 feet, Sheffield Acres, subject to easement over North 15 feet and East 15 feet. (Parcel # 26-30-24-43-0097) Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R- 1); Lot cannot be split or used as two-family residential Lot Size: 134.05 X 82.85 (11,106 square feet) Former Status: City of Columbia Heights purchased property and razed former house in 1995 Current Status: Vacant lot Floor Area Requirements for new construction: · One-story dwellings shall have a minimum floor area of 1,020 square feet, plus 120 square feet for each additional bedroom over three. · One and one-half and two-story dwellings shall have a minimum floor area of 960 square feet on the main floor, plus 120 square feet for each additional bedroom over two. · Split level and Split entry dwellings shall have a minimum floor area of 1,020 square feet, plus 120 square feet for each additional bedroom over three. · Minimum garage size shall be 20 X 20 Valuations: Land $31,300 estimated market value for taxes payable 2001' * Value numbers obtained from Anoka County Note: Bids will be considered on the basis of purchase price and also on the value of the property when fully developed. BID PROPOSAL FOR The purchase of vacant property zoned single-family residential located at 4656 Monroe Street NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Bids must be typed or prepared in ink. Bids must be signed in ink. All erasures or changes must be initialed. Bids must be received no later than stated in the advertisement of bids. PRE BID SHOWING TIMES The property is open for viewing Bidder: Name Address Telephone Bid Price: My bid for the property located at 4656 Monroe Street N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421, in accordance with the advertisement for bids, is in the sum of Dollars ($ ). Intended use of the property: All bidding requirements as outlined in the bid documents are understood and have been complied with, to include all necessary financial securities. Signature of bidder Date Development Proposal for: 4656 Monroe Street NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Description of the home you would like to build on this lot: Style of Home (two-story, rambler walk-out, etc): How many square feet of finished living space or "rough in" improvements would there be? What rooms would there be (# of bedrooms, formal dining room?).. Would the garage be attached or detached? Indicate size. What exterior materials would be used: (brick, vinyl siding, window type, Roofing material, foundation, etc.) What special features/upgrades would the home have? (gas fireplace, 3 season Porch, built-ins, deck, etc) What price would you pay for the lot? What would the final estimated market value of the home be? When would you be able to start construction? When would the home be completed? Please attach the following: Scaled site plan, showing how the home would sit on the lot; Dimension elevations of how home would look from all sides; Scaled floor plans for all levels of the home Land Property Comparative Market Analysis Prepared for City of Columbia Heights Sold Properties ML# Closed Address Acres Map Coord Map Page List Price Sale Price DOM 1265661 1/01/1900 OOXX 38TH AVE NE 0.00 3C 51 $14,888 $25,000 0 1379839 1/01/1900 3856 QUINCY ST NE 0.00 E2 92 $15,000 $15,000 0 1328322 1/01/1900 4343 WASHINGTON ST NE 0.00 B3 51 $16,900 $15,000 0 1207103 1/01/1900 956 42 1/2 AVE NE 0.00 E2 92 $18,888 $19,000 0 1057278 1/01/1900 4631 JOHNSON STREET N.E. 0.00 E2 92 $19,900 $18,000 12 1188207 1/01/1900 4305 UNIVERSITY AVE 0.00 3B 51 $21,900 $67,834 19 1288803 1/01/1900 46XX 4TH ST NE 0.00 3A 51 $26,900 $26,000 0 1157275 1/01/1900 569 38TH AVENUE NE 0.00 D3 92 $29,900 $28,000 0 1525914 1/01/1900 4045 MAIN ST NE 0,00 D2 92 $34,900 $28,000 0 Average 0.00 $22,130 $26,626 16 The Comments above lots are closest in size to 4656 Monroe. Prepared by STEPHENJOHNSON 612-275-2162 DEALERS REAL ESTATE &LAND OFF STEVE@DEALERSREALESTATEoCOM information is believed to be accurate but is not guaranteed. http ://www.northstarmls.com/S earchDetaiI/Scripts/Cma/CornmorffCma, asp 8/16/01 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes July 17, 2001 Page 3 of 5 Ruettimann requested Karis provide colored copies of the plans, detailed drawings for the homes, dimensions, etc. to staff Staff will then pass this information on to the Board for review before the August EDA meeting, where the Board will approve a design. PUBLIC ltEARING FOR PI:IA PLA_N REVIEW Schumacher indicated staff was preparing a draft copy of the Columbia Heights Agency (PHA) Annual Plan to be submitted to HUD after the forty-five day review period, for Public comment. To meet the requirements, the EDA shouM conduct a Public Hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on September 18, 2001, make ftnal modifications to the plan, and authorize staff to submit the final document to HUD. The Resident Advisory Board and Anoka County will receive copies for review and comment prior to the Public Hearing. The document is generated by electronic transmission and downloaded through the HUD Web page REAC system. A copy of the draf with attachments and supporting documents, will be available for review in the Community Development office next week. MOTION by Nawrocki, second by Wyckoff, to set a Public Hearing date of Tuesday, September 18, 200I, at 7:00 p.m. at Parkview Villa for the purpose of receiving public input on the Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS MONROE PROPERTY UPDATE Schumacher stated the memo from Jennifer Bergman, Anoka County Community Development Manager states the Monroe property was purchased with CDBG Funds and gave the following two options for re- use of the lot: After consultation with affected citizens and comment period, the City may retain or dispose of the propertyfor the changed use if the CDBG program is reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property, less any portion of the value attributable to the expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, and improvements to the property. After consultation with affected citizens and comment period, the City could reuse the property for a CDBG eligible activity. The reuse of the property must meet a National Objective by benefiting low-to moderate-income people. Schumacher indicated if the City is planning on reusing the lot to construct a single-family, owner- occupied unit, the unit must be occupied by a low to moderate-income family. The property is 134 x 82 with a land value of $31,300. Fehst felt bid proposals should be sent to the 4-5 interested parties that contacted staff regarding purchasing the property for development. The minimum bid should be what the City paid for the property, with staff revlew of the bids, and propose the sale to the City Council. Nawrocki asked if the City could reallocate the CDBG dollars and used them for Community Fix- Up Funds. Schumacher indicated the funds could be reallocated by written request to Anoka County. MOTION by Nawrocki, second by Ruettimann, to authorize staffto seek proposals for the sale of 4656 Monroe Street NE. with bids on the Open Market, no income limitations, utilities and assessment costs, specify construction must begin within one year of sale, and advertise the sale immediately for a period of 45 days. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. L_ o 4806 ~ i.J_ ts 4807 L.J L 4801 4800 ~37 64t 649 65-~ 4-7 1/2 4807 4806 4801 4800 660 666ff72 678 661 667 ! 684 690~1 375 679 685 6~i1 AVE C TY OF- 4559 4556 4539 4550 4537 4544' 4535 4534 4533 4528 4529 4522 4517 4516 4511 4510 ¢501 4500 4557 4528 4524 4545 4522 4535 4520 4551 4527 45t8 4521 4516 45t3 4514 4512 4504 -©p A ~ TL~ A VF CITY COO-NCIL LETTER Meeting of: August 27, 2001 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ITEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATIONS BY: WALT FEHST ~Y:~~ FOR CENTRAL AVENUE DATE: 8-16-01~w-'7x I ,~-~ ~l~.[~' NO: Attorney Joan Quade from the city attorney's office requested that the attached resolution regarding "Authorizing the Continuing of Condemnation by Quick Take and Approval of the Appraisals Related to Land Acquisition for City project 1999-12, as Required by Mn/DOT for City Project 1999-12, Central Avenue Street, Utility and Streetscaping Improvements" be placed on the next council meeting agenda. In order to proceed with the process in an expeditious manner, she requested my approval of recent appraisals prior to filing the petition for condemnation. Attached is the letter that was sent to her indicating my approval of the appraised values. The total estimate of value by the appraiser is consistent with the original staff estimates. The resolution would authorize the continuation of condemnations by quick take and approval of the appraisals related to land acquisitions, as well as ratify my approval of the appraisals of each parcel. It is essential that this process move forward so the Cooperative Agreement with Mn/DOT can be executed which allows the bidding process to proceed in the timeframe previously discussed with the council, in December 2001 or January 2002. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution NO. 2001-__ being a resolution authorizing the continuation of condemnation by quick take and approval of the appraisals related to land acquisition for City Project 1999-12 as required by Mn/DOT for City Project 1999-12, Central Avenue Street, Utility, and Streetscaping Improvements. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Our Website at: www. ci.colurnbia-heights.rnn, us ADMINISTRATION Muyor Gary L. Peterson Coun¢llmmbers Bruce Nawrocki Marlaine Szurek Bobby Williams Julienne Wyckoff City Manager WaFter R. Fehst August 16, 2001 Joan M. Quade Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55433 Dear Joan: I have reviewed the information you faxed to me on August 15,2001, regarding the condemnation resolution that you've asked to be placed on the next city council agenda. I have also reviewed the appraisals that were completed by Malcolm Watson regarding the Central Avenue reconstruction project. I know Malcolm to be a competent appraiser, and I believe these appraised values to be accurate and complete. Therefore, I have no problem in recommending that the condemnation proceed, based on the appraised values that were arrived at by Mr. Watson. I will place this item on the next city council agenda for their consideration and approval so that we may proceed to complete the acquisition of property necessary for the Central Avenue reconstruction project in 2002. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Walter R. Fehst City Manager Cb THE CitY Of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE on THE BA ;IS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUr iTY EMPLOYER RU$SELL H, CROWDER iON R ERICKSON Barna, Ouzy & Sreffen, Ltd. A~ORNEYS AT LAW 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 2~ C~n Rapids ~ule~md Minneapolb, MN 55433-5~94 (763) 700-8500 FAX (763) 780-1777 1-800-422-3486 Writer's Direct Line: (763) 783-5138 lntemet E-Mail Address: )quade~bgslaw. com August 15, 2001 Walt Fehst City of Columbia Heights 590 40m Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 City of Columbia Heights project No. 99-12 Our File No. 46000-104 Dear Mr. Fehst: Enclosed herewith, please find a proposed Resolution regacding the Columbia Heights condemnation martex. We do feel like we need a more specific Resolution signed and approved by the City Council. Please place this on the agenda for their next scheduled meeting. In the meantime, we are filing the Petition for Condemnation tomorrow. I need a memo from you approving the appraised value. There is sonm case law out there that says the condemning authority must approve the appraised value prior to filing the Petition. Therefore, we want to take the safest route and have your approval on record prior to filing the Petition tomorrow. As you will note, the ResolUtaon provides that the City Council will ratify your action in paragraph 4. appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. Joan M. Quade JMQ:tpl Enclosure '¢[/~ 'd t~H,'oN ~d!O:~ !O0~ '~/'~r'V RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION AUTHORITING THE CONTINUATION OF CONDEMNATION BY QUICK TAKE AND APPROVAL OF THE APPRAISALS RELATED TO LAND ACQUISITION FOR CITY PROJECT 1999-12 AS REQUII~D BY Mn]DOT FOR CITY PROJECT 1999~12, CENTRAL AVENUE STREET, UTILITY AND STREETSCAPINO IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 1999-12 WHEREAS, a cooperative project with the Minnesota D~partment of Transportation is planned for Central Avenue from 37m to ,13~ Avenues in 2001; and WHEREAS, a po~on of thc roadway will be constructed outside the existing right-of-way; and WHEREAS, segments of the sidewalks will be constructed where easements do not exist; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to acquire easement title and possession in the parcels of land quickly to meet the scheduling issues for the roadway construction to accommodate site preparation and construction; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained individual appraisals on each property to be taken in these proceedings. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA that: 1. That/he stated acquisitions are in the public interest and for a public purpose. The City attorneys are directed to continue with the previous resolution for condemnation and where legally appropriate to acquire these easements by direct purchase, if feasible and practical. The time required for bidding and construction make it necessary for the C. ity to acquire possession of the properties at the earliest possible date. The City has received individual appraisals on each property to be taken in these proceedings and hereby ratifies the City Administrator's approval of the appraised value for each of the parcels as stated on the attached list. Dated this _ day of ,2001. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: CITY OF COLLrMBIA HEIGHTS BY Mayor Patricia Muscovit% Deputy City Clerk August9,2001 lban Quadc,Attomey at Law Bama, Guzy, & Ste. ffen Ltd. 400 Non.blown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Pmpids Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433-5894 Re: City of Columbia Heights Ptoj ecl No. 99-12 Your File No. 46000-104 Parcel A at 3919 Central Ave. Rue N~ PIN 36 30 24 33 0148 Marly-Foss Par~ership Enclosed heresvith is my appraisal oftbe property adjoining Highway 65 (Central Avenue lifE) ove~ which eascxnen~s are to be acqnir~d by th~ City of Columbia Heights for public purposes. I have utilized the standmd appraisal procedures on ~proecbes m value which are applicable on similar properties. These are: 1. Coat Approach (used only when improvements exist on the properly). This procedure is reconstructing the buildings on today's market and l~dhu:ing that "new" value for deprecialmn from ail causes. Nol applicable to subject_ I have separated the buildings value from thc sales and evaluated the land only. Thee is no sevexance to tim remainder. 2. Market Comparison Approach is a m~thc~ of estimaung value by comparing the subject propesty with similar properties that have recently sold. These properfes are adjusted to subject for diffexences that may exist since no two properties arc identical. In each cas~ thc eas~snant being acquired is already being uhlized for public purposes. 3. hicome Apl~roacb is osed co properties which are boughl and sotd on the basis o f their income producing potential. The propeay value is determined by a capitalization of"net" income divided by a reasonable percent return on investment in the current mm-keL Not applicable to subject. Where more than one of the foregoing approaches is applicable, the final delerrmnation of value is made by correlation of all data derived and the appraisers expe, riance in evaluating ~irailar proper ties. lhave designated this as Parcel A for convenience. The values for the casemen~ oR the p~cel is as follows: (A) 3919 Con.al Avenue 0vlady-Foss) - $I,650 My esumate of vahie for this property is $1,650 based on my investigations, inspection, and the other factors bea~mg on value as outlined more specifically herein. .._. Respectfully subm tt£d, Malcolm O. Watson Apprai~er/Con~ulriut MY(t. Li~. I#$4000369 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The proposed easements to be acquired and my evaluation o f them noting that the "Takings" a~c more a clarification of thc usage already in existencx of curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping for the use of the public. Generally ! would give an easement value of 10% of the total fee simple value. In th~ c~aae of these parcels I fe~l that this should bc 50% greater or 15% o£total value. Hero is fl~ parcel involved: (A) 3919 Central Avenue NE PIN 36 30 24 33 0148 Mady-Foas Partnership. This laad is on the edge o£a former land fill The easement is 50 fcct deep by 40 fe~t wide. It is most similar to comparable gl0 (3951 Central) with a land valu~ of5.41/sq, ft. ~ 15% = .81/sq. ft. x 2000 sq. ft. = $1,625 rounded up to $1,650. I have not differentiated between the small Right of Way easements and the sidewalk/landscape ense:meats as they are essentially the same type of public easements. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm O. Watson Appr~s~r/Conanltant MOW/ah August % 200~ Joan Quadc,Attomcy at Law Balna, Ouzy, & Steff'en Ltd. 400 Northtown Fmanciifi Plaz~ 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids. ~ 55433-5894 Re: City of Columbia Heights Project No. 99-12 Your File No. 46000-104 Parcel B at 3939 Central Avenue NE PIN 36 30 24 33 0252 Torchwood Property Co,. Ltd. Partnership 2,000 sq. fl. easement Enclosed herewith is my appraisal of the property adjoining Highway 65 (Central Avenue NE) over which easements ~c to bo acquLred by the City of Columbia Hcight~ for public put-poses. I have utilized the stand~rd appraisal procedures un approaches to value which are ~pllcable on similm' 1. Cost Approach (used only when improvements exist on tile properly). This p~oc~lure is reeonsWacting the buildings on today's market and reduethg that '~ew" value for depreciation fi'om ifil causes. Not applicable to subject. I have s~p~ated the buildings value fi.om the sales and ~vatuated thc land only. There is no severance to the remainder. 2. Market Comparison Approach is a method of estimating value by comparing the subject prop~r'ty with similar properties that have recently sold. These properties are adjusted to subject for the differcnceg lhat may exist since no two properties are identical. In each ease the easement being acquired ia already being utilized for public pu~oses. 3. Income Approach is used on properties which axe bought and sold on the heals of their income producing pot~mlial. The property value is determined by a capitalization of "net" income divided by a reasonable pewee, ut remm on inves~nent in the current market. Not applicable to subject. Wher~ more than one of the foregoing approaches is applicable, the final detemfinatlon of value is m~e by correlation o f all data derived and the app~:a~sers experience in evaluatlng similar properties. Ihave designated thin as Pare~l B for convenience. The values for the easements on the parcel is ~ follows: (B~ 3939 Central Avenue (Torchwood) $1,650 My esllmate of value for this property is $1,650 based on my investigations, inspection, and the other factors bearing on value ~ outlined more specifically herein. spect fully submitted, ' Malcolm O. Watson Appraiser/Consultant M]q. Lic. ~4000369 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Thc proposed ce~c~uents W b~ acquired and my evaluation of them not/rig that thc '~fakings" are more a clj~rifica~ion of thc usage already in existence of curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping for the use of thc public. Gcnemally I would give an easemeot value of 10% of th~ total fee simple value. I~ the ca~e of thee parcel{ 1 feel that this should be 50% greater or 15% of total value. Har~ is th~ parcel involved: 3939 Central Avenue NE PIN 36 30 24 33 0252 Torchwood Property Co. Ltd Partnership. This land is on the edge ora former land fill The easement is 50 feel; deep by 40 feet wide. It is most similar to comparable #10 (3951 Central) with a land value of 5.41/sq. fl. ~ 15% = .81/sq. fl. x 2000 sq. ft. -- $1,625 rounded up to $1.650. I have not diffcrcntiat~-d between the small Right of Way easements and thc sidewalk/landscape e~semcnts as they are essentially the same type of public easements. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm 0 Watson Appraiser/Consultant MOW/sh August 9, 2001 Joan QuMe,Attorney at Law Barns, Guzy, & Stcffan Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433-5894 Re: City of Columbia Heights Project No. 99- Your File No. 46000-1 Parcel C at 3989 Central Avenue NE PIN 36 30 24 32 0110 Lake State Properties Ira:. EncloseA herewith is my appraisal of the property adjoining Highway 65 (Central Avenue NE) over which easements are to be ecqulred by the City of Columbia Heights for public purposes. I have utilized the standard appraisal procedures on approaches to value which are applicable on similar 1. Cost Approash (used only when improve.ments exist on the property). This procedure is reconstructing the buildings on today's market and reducing that "new" value for depreciation from all causes. Not applicable to subject. I have separated the buiIdings value flora the sales and evaluated the land only. There is no severance to the reanalnder. 2, Ma~ketComparisonAppwachisamethodofestimatingvaluebycomparingthesubjectproperty with similar properties that have recently sold. These properties are adjusted to subject for the differences that may exist since no two properlies are identical. In each ease the casement being acaluired ia already being utilized for public purposes, 3. Income Approash is used on prope~ies which are bought and sold on the basis of their income producing potential, The property value is detennlned by a capitalization of "net" income divided by a reasonable percent return on investment in the current market. Not applicable to subject. Where more than one of the foregoing appro~hes is applicable, the final determination of value is made by corrolatioo of all data derived and the appraisers experience in evaluating similar propurties. Ihave designated this as Parcel C for convenience. Thc values fey the easements on the parcel ia as follows: (C) 3989 Cena'al Avenue (Lake State) $5,000 My estimate of value for this property is $5,000 based on my investigations, inspection, and the other factors bearing on value as outlined more specifically herein. Appraiser/Consullant MN. L*c. #~000369 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The proposed eascmants to be acquired and my evaluation of them noting that the "Takings" ~re more a clarification ofth~ usage alrem~y in existence of curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping for the u~ of the p~blic. Ganerally I would give an easement value of 10% of the total fe~ simpl~ value. In thc ca~e of tl~e parcels I fool that this should be 30% g~eater or 1.5% of total value. H~re is the pardi involved: (c) $989 Central Avenue NE PIN 36 3024 32 0Il0 Lake State Properties Inc. This is the NE State Bank Building site, with the casement being taken to put in new sidewalks and landscaping. Part ora large site. Most similar to 4111 Central (Ruvelson Bide) with a land value of $7.71/sq. ft. R1 ~% = $1.1565/sq. ft. x 4,293 sq. ft. = $4,965 rottnded t~ $5,000. I have not differentiated between the small Right of Way casements and the sidcwali~landscape e.a$~m~mta as they ar~ e~scntially thc same type of public easements. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm O. Watson AppraiSe/Consultant MOW/sh August 9, 2001 Joan Quade,Attomey at Law Bama, Guzy, & St¢ffen Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids. MN 55433-5894 Re: City of Cotumbia Heights Project No. 99-12 Your File No. 46000-104 Parcel D at 4000 Canu'al Avanu¢ NE PIN35 30 24 41 0163 Columbia Park Properties De~ Ms. QuMe: Enclosed herewith is my appraisal of the property adjoining Highway 65 (Central Avenue NE) ov~r which casemants are to b~ acquired by the City of Columbis Heights for public purposes, I have utilized thc standard appraisal procedures on approaches to value wludi are applicable on similar proponie& These arc: 1. Cost Approach (used only when impmveanents exist on the property). This procedure is recons~n~ting the buildings on today's market and reducing that "new" value for depreciation from all causes. Not applicable to subject. I have separated thc buildings value from the sales and evaluated lhe land only. There is no severance to the remainder, 2. MarketCompanacnApproachisamethodofealimatingvaluebycomparingthesubjectproperty with similar properties that have rccentlyecld These properties are adjusted to subject for tho differences that may exist since no two properties are identical. In each case thc easeanent buqng acquired is already being utilized for public purposes. 3. Income Approach is u~d on properties which arc bought and sold on the basis of thcir income producing potential. The properly value is determined by a capitalization of "net" income divided by a reasonable percent return on investment-in tho current market. Not applicable to subject. Where more than one of the foregoing approaches is applicable, the final daterminalion of value is made by correlation of all dala deriv~ and the appraisers expetience in evaluating similar properiies. I have~ designated this as Parcel D for convenience, Thc values for the easements on the parcel is as follows: (D) 4000 Central Avenue (Columbia Park) = $1,250 My estimate of value for this property is $1,250 based on my investigations, inspection, and the other factors beanng on value as outlined more specifically herein. /"? Raspectfully submitted, "' Malcolm O. Wa~on Appraiser/Consultant MN. Lie. ~4~t4000369 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The proposed e, asementz to be acquired and my cwluation of th~n noting that the "Takings" are more a clarification of the ilsagc already in existence of curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping for the usc of the public. Generally I would give an easement value of 10% of the total fe,~ simple value, hi the case of th~se parcels I f~l that this should be 50% greater or 15% of total value, Here is the pmcel involved: 4000 Central Avenue NE PIN 35 30 24 41 0163 Columbia Park Properties This is the triangular comer parcel by the Columbia Park Clinic Building, Thn easemant is to improve the existing sidewalk and landscape by the entrance (see photos). This parcel is similar to comer site 4952 Central at $8,05/sq. ft. ~ 15% -- $1,2075/sq. ft. x 1,015 sq, ft, = $1,225.61 rounded to $1,250. I have not differentiated between the small Right of Way easements and thn sidewalk/landscape casements as they aro essentially the same type of public easements. MOW/sh Respectfully submitS:d, Malcolm O. Watson Appraiser/Consultant ,.% August 9, 2001 Joan Quede,Attomey at Law Bama, Guzy, & Steffen Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433.5894 R~: City of Columbia Heights Project No. 99-12 Your File No. 46000-104 Parcel E at 4001 Central Avenue NE PIN 36 30 24 32 0248 Columbia Heights Center LLC Dear Ms. Quade: Enclosed herewith is my appraisal of the property adjoining Highway 65 (Central Avenue NE) ov~t. which easement~ are to be acquired by the City of Coinmbia Heights for public ptuposes. I have utilized the standard appraisal procedures on approaches to value which ara applicable on similar propexties. These are: 1. Cost Approach (used only when improvements exist on d~e property). This procedure ia reconstructing the buildings on today's market and reducing that "now" value for depreciatinn from all causes. Not applicable to subject. I have separated thc buildings value from the sales and evaluated the land only. There is no severance to the remainder. ~ Markm Comparison Approach is a method of estimating value by eomparlng the subject property with similar properties that have rtx:cntlyaold, These properties are adjusted to subject for the differences that may exist since no two properties are identical In each case the easement being acquired is atreedy being utilized for public purposes. : 3. Income Approach is vaed on propeflies wll/ch are bought and sold on the basis of their income producing potential. The property value is determined by a capitalization of "net" income divided by a r~asonable percent return on investment_!n thc current market, Not applicable m $~bject. Wh~re more than one of the foregoing approaches is applicable, the final determination of value is made by~m:~ati~n~fa~dataderivedandtheappra~rsexpe~¢ncein¢valnating~imi~arpropert~- Ih,ave designated this ,as Parcel E for convenience. The valu~ for the esaemanta on the parcel ia as follows: (E) 4001 Central Avenue (Columbia Hts. Mall) - $11,600 My estimate of value for this property is $11,600 based on my investigations, inspection, and the other factors beating on value as outlined more specifically herein. ' ~J~.espact fully submitted, .:, Malcolm O. Watson Appraiser/Consultant MN. Lie. g#4000369 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The proposed easements to be acquired and my evaluation of them noting that tho "Takings" are more clarification of the usage akcady in existence of curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping for ti~ u~e of the public. Generally I would give an easement value of 10% of the total fee simple value. In the case of tt3ese parcels I feel that this should bc 50% greater or la% of total value. Here is the parcel involved: 4001 C~ntral Avenue NE PIN 36 30 24 32 0248 Columbia H~ights Center LLC A landscape/sidewalk easement from 40~' lo ~,1'~ Avenue including the comer triangles and the existing pedestrian benches and decorative smrtework (all public installations). This land is most similar 1o its own sale which is comparable No. 11 which sold for $2.1 O/sq. fi. and No. 9 4 ! 11 which sold for $7.71. Say $4.90/sq. ft. x .15 ~ $.735/sq. ft. x 15,813 sq. fl. = $11,622 rounded to $11,600, I have not differentiated between the small Right of Way easements and the sidewallcqandscape MOW/sh Respect fully submlt~ed, Malcolm O. Watson Appraiser/Consultant %.. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meetin$ of: August 20, 2001 AGENDA SECTION: Items for consideration ORIGINATiNG DEPT.: CITY MANAGER Community Development APPRO,)kAL~,. ITEM: Accessory structure amendment BY: Tim Johnson BY: NO: DATE: August 15, 2001 Issue Statement: The City Council has been requested to consider an accessory structure amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Background: The City Council, after adopting the new Zoning and Development Ordinance, directed staff and the Planning comrmssion to revisit the provisions from the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to size of accessory structures. The Planning Comm/ssion then reviewed the provisions and made the decision to leave the ordinance "as is" Recently, The City Council has expressed some interest in allowing for some additional flexibility for accessory structures in large lot situations. Analysis: Section 9.603(1 )(e) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that no accessory structures, including attached garages, or any combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet in area. Staff has prepared an amendment (Option 3) that would allow for some additional flexibility as it pertains to Mr. Abraham or any other large lot owner. Staff would 1/ke the City Council to review the comparison list of cities and make a determination as to whether or not the existing provisions should be changed to provide more flexibility for residential accessory structures. Recommendation: Staffrecommends that the City Council consider amending the accessory stmnture ordinance provisions as written in Option 3 in your packets. Recommended Motion: Move to direct staff to amend the accessory structure ordinance provisions as indicated by Option 3 in your packets. ttachments: Garage Structure Comparison List; Proposed Zoning Text Amendments; Garage Structure Comparison Memo COUNCIL ACTION: PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS Chapter 9; Section 6; Page 6-4 9.603 Accessory Uses and Structures. Now reads: 9.603 1) e) An accessory structure, or any combination of accessory structures, storage sheds and attached garages, shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet in area. Proposed: Option 1: 9.603 1) e) For single and two-family residential dwellings, no detached garage or accessory structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet or the footprint of the principal structure (excluding attached garage area), whichever is less. In addition, no attached garage shall exceed 1,000 square feet. When an attached garage is present, no detached garage or detached structure shall exceed 600 square feet. Option 2: 9.603 1) e) For single and two-family residential dwellings, no detached garage or accessory structure shali exceed 1,000 square feet. In addition, no attached garage shall exceed 1,000 square feet. When an attached garage is present, no detached garage or detached structure shall exceed 600 square feet. Option 3: 9.603 1) e) Recommended staff amendment For single and two-family residential dwellings, no detached garage or accessory structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet or the footprint of the principal structure (excluding attached garage area), whichever is less. In addition, no attached garage shall exceed 1,000 square feet. When an attached garage is present, no detached garage of detached structure shall exceed 600 square feet, with an additional allowance of a maximum of 150 square feet for a storage shed. Com~nunity Develol~nent To: City Council From: Tim Johnson Date: 8/13/200I Re: Accessory Structure Issue The Planrfing Commission at their meeting on August 7, 2001, discussed some amendment options, but voted to keep the accessory structure ordinance as it is now. The situation as it pertains to Mr. Abraham's request for an amendment is such: Mr. Abraham currently has approximately 560 square feet of attached garage space. According to the 1,000 square foot ordinance limitation, he would be able to build a 20 X 22 (440 square foot) detached garage without any special exception. Option 3 would allow for Mr. Abraham or any other property owner with an attached garage to build a detached garage not to exceed 600 square feet (24 X 24), with an allowance for an additional 10 X 15 storage shed. From: Date: Re: Commun~ Development 'Planning Commission Tim Johnson 8/3/2001 Garage Structure Comparisons I have assembled an updated list of fifteen cities (first and second ring suburbs) and their allo~vances for attached and detached garages, as requested by the Commission. From the information presented, most cities don't count attached garages as part of their maximum allowance for accessory structures. However, the maximum size allowance for accessory structures of most of these cities cannot exceed the building footprint of the phncipal structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. This seems to be common language. There are also a fe~v cities who base their square footage allowance for accessory structures on the lot area and lot width (Crystal, Robbinsdale, St. Anthony). Please note that Golden Valley and Columbia Heights have identical language for accessory attached and detached structures even though Golden Valley lots are typically twice the size of most of Columbia Heights lots. In my observation, the communities of Saint Louis Park, West Saint Paul, and South Saint Paul seem to be comparable with Columbia Heights in their physical features. Note that New Brighton also has a unique way of treating accessory garages, as they have a limitation on size of detached garages if an attached garage exists. Staff would like the Planning Commission to review this summary in light of the three variance requests from size requirements for garages since 1998. These variance requests were the only ones that staff found in researching back to the 1980's. Staff is not advocating a change, but would like the Commission to consider a few options if they so choose to consider an amendment. Here are a few options to consider: · Do nothing. You can leave the ordinance the way it is if you feel the current provisions are reasonable and benefit the majority of Columbia Heights residents. · Amend the current provisions by placing a maximum square footage on detached structures; not to exceed the building footprint. You could also set limitations on size of attached garages; but allow for additional square footage for detached structures when an attached garage exists. o COMP.~RISON OF OTHER CITIES ALLOWAiNCES FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Citw of Richfield · 1,000 sq. ff. maximum for detached structures · detached structure cannot exceed principal structure sq. ft. · allow an additional 200 sq. ft. above 1,000 sq. ft. for attached garage space CRv of St. Anthony · Lots 7,000 sq. ft. or less allow a maximurn of 35% lot coverage for house and acc structures · Lots 9,000 sq. fr. or more allow a maximum of 40% lot coverage for house and acc stru. ctures City of Robbinsdale Lot Width Max. size for a single building Total coverage of all ACC bldg. Incl. Attach. Struct. 0-49 ft. 800 1000 50-59 ft. 860 1060 60-79 ft. 920 1120 80-99 ft. 1000 1200 100+ ft. 1200 1400 In no case shall the floor area of an ACC building exceed 100% of the main floor area of the principal structure. City of Crystal · No ACC. Structure can exceed 30% of the rear yard area · Attached garages are not considered ACC. Structures. St. Louis Park · No ACC. Structure can exceed 25% of the rear lot area or 800 sq. ft; whatever is less. · Don't treat attached garages as ACC. Structures · Detached structure footprint cannot exceed the footprint of the principal structure. CRv of Edina · 1,000 sq. ft. maximum for detached garages · Attached garages are not treated as ACC. Structures · Detached structure footprint cannot exceed the footprint of the principal structure. Brooklyn Park · 1,000 sq. ff. maximum for detached garages · ACC. Structure cannot exceed the sq. ft. of principal structure. · Adlo~v for up to 1,500 sq. ft. offACC. Structure, but only iflot is one acre or more. New Brighton · If a property has attached garage space; detached garages cannot exceed 600 sq. ft. · If no attached garage, detached structure cannot exceed 1,000 sq. ft. City of Lauderdale · No accessory structure can exceed 30% of lot coverage 10. West St. Paul · 800 sq. fr. allowed for lots 75 feet in width or ~eater for detached garages · 624 sq. ft. allowed for lots 60 feet in wide or less · Attached garages are not treated as ACC. Structures 11. Golden Valley · Allows for a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure including attached or detached · Detached structure cannot exceed the pr/ncipal structure in size 12. South St. Paul · 1,000 sq. fr. maximum for detached structures · Detached garage footprint cannot exceed the footprint of the principal structure 13. City of Fridlev · Total floor area of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. · Any second accessory structure in excess of 240 square feet shall require a special use permit. · A private garage shall not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. 14. No~h Saint Paul · The total square feet of an accessory structure shall not exceed 10% of the lot area, and in no case shall it exceed 1,008 square feet of gross floor area. · Attached garages are not treated as ACC. Structures 15. Falcon Heights · The total area of ail accessory buildings cannot exceed 1,000 square feet or 40% of 30 X lot width; whichever is less. H:\Tim2001\Garag¢ Structure Comparisons 9.603 Height Limitations. The building and structure height limitations established for each zoning district shall apply to all buildings and structures, except that such height limitations may be increased by fifty (50) percent when applied to the following: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Church spires, steeples or belfries. Chimneys or flues. Cupolas and domes which do not contain usable space Towers, poles or other structures for essential services. Flag poles. Mechanical or electrical equipment, provided said equipment does not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the roof area. Television and ham radio antennas. Monuments. Telecommunication towers constructed in accordance with the provisions of Columbia Heights Tower Siting Ordinance # 1424. Accessory Uses and Structures. Accessory Structures, Residential Uses. The following standards shall regulate the construction and maintenance of residential accessory structures: Each residentially zoned parcel shall be allowed two (2) detached accessory structures. b) No accessory structure shall be constmcted or located within any front yard. c) Accessory structures for one and two family dwellings shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the side lot line, and a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear lot line, a minimum of five (5) feet from any other building or structure on the same lot, and behind the principal structure building line in the front yard. d) An accessory structure shall be considered an integral part of the principal structure if it is connected to the principal building by a covered passageway. e) An accessory structure, or any combination of accessory structures, storage sheds and attached garages, shall not exceed one thousand (I,000) square feet in area. f) The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the pr/ncipal structure or eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured to the highest point, whichever is less. City of Columbia Heights Zoning and Development Ordinance - Section 6 Page 6-4 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DATE: TO: FROM: AUGUST 17, 2001 L1NDA MAGEE ACTING CITY MANAtG~ WILLIAM ELRITE/~l~t~' FINANCE DIRECTOR WORK SESSION ITEM FOR AUGUST 20TH This is a follow-up to our previous conversation. The City Manager and I have done significant review of the proposed 2002 budget. In the original department submitted budgets, expenses exceeded revenue by more than $900,000. During the last two weeks the City Manager and I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing budgets, meeting with Division Heads, and reviewing proposed cuts. At this time I am in the final stages of summarizing the information from these meetings and will have several handouts for the work session of August 20th. These handouts will summarize the tax-supported funds on a department-by-department basis along with comparisons to previous years and the 2001 budget. In addition to this, I will have a summary of the City Manager's proposed modifications to reduce the budgets. I will also be available at the meeting to present a brief summary regarding the ramifications of the legislation and property tax law changes. It should be noted that with the significant legislative changes, information that is normally available to the City by August 1, such as levy limits, aids, and other items, has been delayed and will not be available to the City until September 1. This has created an additional burden in trying to make projections for the 2002 budget. If there is any additional information you would like prior to the work session, please let me know. WE:sms 0108173CM