Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 4, 2000CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 -3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 MEMBERS Tom Ramsdell, Chair Kevin Hanson ted Yehle Stephen Johnson Daniel Shattuck PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 N.E. 40T" AVENUE 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Minutes from the meeting of March 14, 2000, as presented in writing. 4. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing Variance Case #2000-0407 Public Hearing P.U.D., Rezoning, Variance Case #2000-0408 Public Hearing Appeal Case #2000-0409 Mike Wilder Re: 4451 5th Street NE Columbia Heights, MN Real Estate Equities Dev. Co. Re: 825 41st Ave., 4150 Central Ave., and 4156 Central Ave. Columbia Heights, MN Genuine Pads Co. Re: 4043 Central Ave. NE Columbia Heights, MN. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. Staff Reports. 7. Adjourn. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Case: 2000-0407 Page: 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APRIL 4, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING Case #: 2000-0407 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner: Address: Phone: Brad & Ivy Scholl 4451 5th Street NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Applicant: Mike Wilder 9300 40 ½ Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55427 (612) 546-7525 Parcel Address: 4451 5th Street NE Zoning: R-2, One and Two Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: LDR, Low Density Residential Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: R-2 Land Use North: Residential South: R-2 South: Residential East: R-2 East: Residential West: R-2 West: Residential BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: This is a request for a two foot side yard setback variance to allow the separation of Lot 27 from 4451 5th Street NE which currently consists of Lots 27, 28 and the south 4 feet of Lot 29, Block 18, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis. The existing house is located three feet from the property line dividing Lot 27 and Lot 28. The minimum required setback from a side lot line is five feet, so a two foot side yard setback variance is needed to separate the two lots. Please note that the applicant has a purchase agreement to buy both properties with the intent to construct a new home on Lot 27. Case Histo~_ : There are no pertinent zoning cases on the lot or in the surrounding area. Case: 2000-0407 Page: 2 ANALYSIS Surrounding Property: The surrounding property in all four directions is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential and is used residentially. Technical Review: The subject property is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential. Minimum Yard and Density Requirements for the principal structure are as follows. · *Lot Width shall be at least 60 feet - 4451 5th Street is currently 84 feet wide, but the property consists of two previously platted lots which are both 40 feet wide. Please note that the property also contains the south 4 feet of Lot 29. If separated, Lot 27 will be 40 feet wide and 4451 5th Street will be 44 feet wide. · *Lot Area shall be at least 6,500 square feet - 4451 5th Street is currently 10,886 square feet. If separated, Lot 27 will be 5,184 square feet and 4451 5th Street will be 5,702 square feet. · Front Yard Setback shall be 25 feet - The existing house is 25 feet from the front property line. · Side Yard Setback shall be 5 feet - Currently, the house is 8.1 feet from the northerly side lot line and 43 feet from the southerly side lot line. If Lot 27 is separated, the house will be 3 feet from the southerly lot line of Lot 28 which is the reason the variance is being requested. · Rear Yard Setback shall be 30 feet - The existing house is roughly 77 feet from the rear lot line. · Any lot at or under 6,500 square feet may have a lot coverage of up to 35% - Currently the property has a lot coverage of roughly 9%. If Lot 27 is separated the lot coverage of 4451 5~' Street will be roughly 17%. *Section 9.104(4) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that a lot of record shall be deemed a buildable lot provided it has frontage on a public right-of-way and pertinent space requirements for the zoning district are adjusted to conform as follows: · A lot of record in an "R" District which does not meet the requirements of this Ordinance as to area or width, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes provided the measurements of such area meet 100% of the fi'ont yard, side yard, and rear yard setback requirements, and 60% of the minimum lot area or lot width requirements. With the exception of the side yard setback requirement, the proposal is in compliance with these requirements. However, because the side yard setback requirement will not be met, a variance is necessary to proceed with the lot separation. Section 9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "In recommending a variance, it shall be found that by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of lot or where by reason of exceptional topography, soil conditions, tree number or location or water conditions the owner of such lot would have an undue hardship in using his lot in a manner customary and legally Case: 2000-0407 Page: 3 permissible within the rules of the zoning district." hardship needs to be established. In order for a variance to be granted, Having viewed the property and upon evaluating the hardship criteria, it is staff's opinion that there is not a legitimate hardship on which to base a variance approval. This is a situation where an existing condition will be made nonconforming if the proposal is approved, and the Zoning Ordinance does not address existing developed conditions as a hardship. Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential Development. The first goal of the land use and redevelopment plan is to protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods of the community, and one of the policies states that the infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing development land will be in accordance with uses specified in the Land Use Plan. Please note that most of the parcels in the surrounding area are 40 feet wide. The proposal would result in a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area, and it would provide an infill development on a vacant lot. The draft Comprehensive Plan states that the City will remain dedicated to single-family residential development and provide targeted redevelopment opportunities for private residents. Also, redevelopment of scattered vacant parcels into low density residential development will continue where appropriate. Summa~_ : The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal would create a vacant lot in the City for the development of a single family home. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. There does not appear to be legitimate hardship on which to base a variance approval. 2. The existing house will become nonconforming if the proposal is approved. CONCLUSION Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance because it does not appear that a legitimate hardship exists on which to base a variance approval. Recommended Motion: Move to recommend City Council denial of the variance request due to the lack of a hardship on the property. Attachments: · Completed application form; Survey; Letter fi.om concemed neighbor; and Public Notice Application For: RezoninE Variance Privacy Fence Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Site Plan Approval Other CITY OF COL~HBIA HEIGHTS Application Date Case No** -EO00 - Applicant: Nam.: 'La / Address: Phone: 01iTle r: Name: Address: Phone: Description of Request: Zonin~: Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning. Present Use Proposed Zoning Proposed Use Reason for Request: 8. Exhibits Submitted (maps, diagrams, etc.) Ae~owled~ment and Si~ature: ~e ~dersi~ed hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the pu~ose of induc~s the City of Col~bia Heishts to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are t~e and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordnances of the City o£ Columbia Heishts ~d the laws °f the State °ffiT~~ ~~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY JAME8 L. KURTH LAND 8URVEYOR 4002 JEFFERSON ST, N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 55421 788.9769 I HIRI,IY Cl;RTII~* THAT THII IURVI,Y, II'LAN, OR RI:I"kOR.T WAll PREPAR.I,D IY MI OR' UNDIES' AND THAT I AM A I~II.Y R'[~,III'IRIO I,.~I~D I~II~VIYORI UNDIR' ?HI, I.~Wt O1~ TI.II, ITATI; OI~' MINNIEIOTA. i DATE SCAL£ ~'= ~ = IRON MONUMI 6-0 Lots 27, 28 and. the south 4.00 feet of Lot Z9, Block .Columbia Hetght~ Annex to Minneapolis, Anoka Cq~nty, Htnnesota 18, 03/30/2000 15:4-3 6129296105 P~VE~ MUSEi- PAG~ ~_~ March 30, 2000.. Steve Raymer 4452 6th Street NE Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421 RECEIVED 3 0 2000 . OMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN; Joe Hollman City Planner fax612.706.3671 Dear Mr. Hollman: I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed separation of lot 27 from 4451 Sth Street IN-E. One of the rea~ms I cho~e to live in Columbia Heights i~ the large double lots throughout the area. I don't want to live in an overcrowded neighborhood. Putting another house and garage into that space would increase traffic flow in an alley that is already too busy. .. Whoever bull& on that lot will have to knock down at least two large, beautiful old trees. I'm concerned that adding another small home and garage on the block will lower our property value~. It certainly will not improve the n~ighborhood. Thank you for taking the time to inform residents of these developments, ! only wish I could attend the meeting on TueMay, April 4th. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 952.926.8198 OAr) or 763.586.0360 (H). Thank you, Steve Raymer CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 Members Tom Ramsdeil, Chair Kevin Ha~son Ted Yehle Daniel Shattucl Stephen John$or.. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 40th Avenue NE, at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, April 4, 2000. The order of business is as follows: A request for a two foot side yard setback variance to allow the separation of Lot 27 from 4451 5th Street NE which currently consists of Lots 27 and 28. The existing house is located three feet from the property line dividing Lot 27 and Lot 28. The minimum required setback from a side lot line is five feet, so a two foot side yard setback variance is needed to separate the two lots. For questions you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 612-706-3673. Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt Fehst City Manager jh 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 Case: 2000-0408 Page: 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APRIL 4, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING Case #: 2000-0408 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner: Address: Owner: Address: NEI College of Technology 825 41st Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Larry & Patricia Truehart 4156 Central Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Applicant: Real Estate Equities 325 Cedar St., Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 227-6925 Owner: Address: Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (590 40th Avenue NE) 4150 Central Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Parcel Addresses: 825 41st Avenue NE, 4156 Central Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE Zoning: 825 41st Avenue NE is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential 4156 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District 4150 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District Comprehensive Plan: C - Commercial, MDR - Medium Density Residential Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: R-2 and RB South: CBD and R-3 East: CBD West: R-2 Land Use North: Residential and Commercial South: Comm., Res., Institutional East: Commercial West: Residential BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the construction of a 50 unit senior assisted living building and 22 units of affordable rental townhomes. The rental townhomes will consist of four buildings (see attached site plans). Case: 2000-0408 Page: 2 Buildings A and B will contain six units each, and Buildings C and D will both contain five units. In addition to the Planned Unit Development the property is being replatted. Please note that the request before the Commission for the April meeting is for a preliminary review of the PUD and Plat. The affordable rental units will be developed at 13.33 units per acre. The development will be a combination of 19 Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units and 3 Hollman units Multiple Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP). The following provides an approximate summary of rents. MHOP Units · One 2-bedroom unit · One 3-bedroom unit · One 4-bedroom unit $260 per month $260 per month $260 per month LIHTC Units · Seven 2-bedroom units $635 per month · Five 3-bedroom units $730 per month · Four 3-bedroom deluxe units $730 per month · Three 4-bedroom units $810 per month The assisted living senior building will consist of 50 units (beds). There will be a total of 41 assisted living units and 9 memory units (alzheimer care). You will note that the floor plan indicates that there will be a coffee caf6. Staff has been informed by the applicant that this will be utilized by residents and staff, but will not be open to the public as a commercial operation. This is also a request to rezone the property located at 825 41~t Avenue NE from R-2, One and Two Family Residential, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential. A rezoning of the property located at 4150 Central Avenue NE and 4156 Central Avenue NE fi.om CBD, Central Business District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential is also requested. A five foot height variance is being requested to allow the senior building to be 40 feet in height as opposed to 35 feet in height which is the current maximum height allowed in the R-4 District. Case History: During the spring of 1998, the Minnesota Design Team visited Columbia Heights for a weekend and held two town meetings to facilitate community discussion and make recommendations for improvements. One of their recommendations was the creation of a transition block on the subject property which would consist of a variety of life cycle housing opportunities. In response to this recommendation, the City applied for $771,000 of Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds fi.om the Metropolitan Council to help finance the project. At the time of the application, the project consisted of 18 affordable rental units, 70 affordable independent living senior units, and 26 owner-occupied townhomes. In December, 1998, the City was informed that we were awarded a grant in the amount of $575,000 for the project, $30,000 of which was budgeted for the completion of a Master Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Columbia Heights. Case: 2000-0408 Page: 3 Please note that the grant application was prepared in cooperation with Real Estate Equities Development Company (the applicant) and Crest View Corporation which is partnering with Real Estate Equities on the assisted living senior building. 825 415t Avenue NE contains NEI College of Technology which has occupied the property since 1982. The original building was constructed in 1926 and was added to in 1951. It was first used as the High School for Independent School District 13 and was later turned into the Junior High School. 4150 Central Avenue NE is currently a vacant lot owned by the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA). 4156 Central Avenue NE is currently occupied by Citywide Locksmith. Please note that the applicant has unsuccessfully attempted to enter into a purchase agreement with the property owner of 4156 Central Avenue NE. As a result, the applicant has requested that the EDA use the power of eminent domain to acquire the property. The EDA will formally consider this request at their special meeting on April 11, 2000. ANALYSIS Surrounding ProperS_: The surrounding property on the east is zoned CBD, Central Business District and is used commercially. The property to the north is zoned both RB, Retail Business, and R-2, One and Two Family Residential. The property zoned RB is currently vacant, but is the site of a planned office building. Most of the property to the north is used residentially. The property to the south is also a combination of commercial, residential, and institutional. The area to the west of the subject property is zoned R-2 and is used residentially. Technical Review: Rezoning As mentioned above, 825 41st Avenue NE is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential; 4156 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District; and 4150 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District. This request is to rezone all three properties to R-4, Multiple Family Residential. Applicable permitted uses in the R-4 District include multiple family dwelling structures, nursing homes, and public and private schools. Multiple family dwelling structures and nursing homes are not permitted in the R-2 or CBD Districts, so the rezoning is necessary to accommodate the proposed uses. The City Comprehensive Plan designates 825 41~t Avenue NE for future medium density residential development and the two properties on Central Avenue for future commercial development. Medium density residential development should consist of four, six, and eight- family townhouse buildings. The Plan states that appropriate zoning for medium density residential is R-3, Multiple Family Residential. The commercial designation is designed to accommodate uses allowed in the Limited Business, Retail Business, and Central Business Districts. Please note that the LB District allows multiple family buildings as a permitted use Case: 2000-0408 Page: 4 and nursing homes as a Conditional Use. The request is generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. However, please note that Plan includes a designation for high density residential which would accommodate apartments. Appropriate zoning for the high density residential designation is R-4, Multiple Family Residential. Because the owner-occupied townhouse units have been removed from the development, the proposal is less consistent with the intent of the Plan than when the grant application was submitted. However, because the subject property is designated for both commercial and medium density residential, and because the development is being processed as a Planned Unit Development, rezoning the property to R-4 is more appropriate than the R-3 designation. It is staff's opinion that the project is still generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft 2000 Comprehensive Plan designates the area for furore transit-oriented development and it is also identified as a potential redevelopment area. The Plan states that areas designated for transit-oriented development will include service-oriented commercial/retail development with high-density residential development providing the balance of the development. The proposal is consistent with this recommendation. Please note that because the project is subject to the use of eminent domain on the property at 4156 Central Avenue NE, staff will recommend that action taken on the rezoning request be subject to the successful completion of the eminent domain process. Planned Unit Development The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to encourage flexibility in the design and development of land in order to promote its appropriate use. The following requirements apply to the Planned Unit Development. 1. The tract of land shall be served with city sewer and water and have not less than 75 feet of public right-of-way frontage. The subject property is served by city sewer and water, and the property greatly exceeds 75 feet of frontage. 2. No principal building shall be nearer than its height to the rear or side lot line when such line abuts an R-1 or R-2 District. Provided that the rezoning is approved, the proposed lots will not abut an R-1 or R-2 District. No building within the development shall be nearer to another building than ½ the sum of the height of the two buildings. The project as proposed meets this requirement. Private accessways shall be 24 feet or more in width. Having scaled the accessways on the plan it appears that it is 22 feet in width at its most narrow point (driveways onto 41 st and 42nd Avenue NE), so the accessway will need to be widened to 24 feet in these areas. 5. No building shall be located less than 15 feet from the back of the curb on roadways and accessways, and 3 feet on service roads. The proposed senior building will be roughly 20 feet from the back of the curb along Central Avenue and 37 feet from the back of the curb along 42nd Avenue NE. The proposed Building B of the rental units will be roughly 30 feet from the back of the curb along 41st Avenue NE, and the proposed Building D is 26 o Case: 2000-0408 Page: 5 feet from the existing alley. 6. Guest parking ratio shall be one space for each four units with no unit having a distance greater than 200 feet to such space. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 spaces for each dwelling unit in the R-4 District, one of which shall be a garage, so 33 spaces are required for the rental units (17 garage spaces). Also, 6 additional spaces are required for the guest parking ratio. The proposal includes 44 spaces (22 garage) for the rental units which meets minimum parking requirements as 39 total spaces are required. 7. An open space system shall be designed showing recreational areas equal to at least 10% of the site area and served by a pedestrian oriented path system. It is intended that natural areas be included as part of the open space system. The proposal includes a sidewalk system which will serve the rental units, connecting that portion of the development to 41st Avenue NE. Also included in the proposal is an open area between building D and C on Lot 1 which is approximately 6,800 square feet in size. This area will contain playground equipment. Please note that the subject property does not currently contain any "natural" areas, but it is staff's opinion that the proposed storm water pond can be landscaped in a manner that will make it a passive amenity for the project. The pond area is roughly 9,539 square feet in size. This along with the open playground area combines for approximately 17% of the area subject to redevelopment. Provided that the storm water pond is landscaped in an attractive manner, the proposed open space system meets the intent of the Ordinance. 8. A sewer-water public utility system to serve the project shall be submitted, said system shall indicate a fire hydrant distribution to the approval of the Fire Chief and in total to the City Council. This information is subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 9. A street light system shall be submitted for approval and all wires shall be below ground. At this point, staff has not seen a lighting plan, but will recommend that one be provided as a condition of approval for the final plan review. Plat Before a final plat is submitted to the City, the developer is required to submit a tentative or preliminary plat. The proposed plat indicates that the site will be divided into the following lots: 1. Lot 1 will be approximately 1.6 acres in size and will contain the 22 rental units. 2. Lot 2 will be roughly .65 acres and will contain the assisted living building. 3. Lot 3 will be roughly 5.2 acres and will contain NEI College of Technology and related on-site parking. Please note that the proposed map does not label the property as Lot 3, so this will need to be amended prior to approval of a final plat. A number of new easements are being proposed, and some existing easements will need to be vacated. 1. Outlot A - drainage and utility easement for the relocated storm water pond. Please note that the storm water pond is currently located where the assisted living building is proposed. The size and location of the proposed pond is subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. Case: 2000-0408 Page: 6 2. The existing drainage and utility easement for the storm water pond and related piping needs to be vacated. 3. A proposed drainage and utility easement is proposed around the rental units for a proposed sanitary sewer line and water main to serve the four buildings. 4. There is a portion of a drainage and utility easement that encroaches into the proposed Lot 1 that will need to be vacated. Having reviewed the proposed plat, staff has a number of concerns that should be addressed prior to approval of a final plat. 1. Alley - Currently, there is a north-south alley that is located west of the existing commercial properties along Central Avenue which connects 41st and 42na Avenues. The proposed senior building is located over the existing alley, so that portion of the right-of- way will need to be vacated. Also, the proposed plat does not indicate that the right-of- way will be redirected around the senior building out to 42nd Avenue. Staff is recommending that the plat be amended to show the alley right-of-way being redirected to 42nd Avenue. Please note that staffhas safety concerns about the proposed alley which will contain two 90 degree tums, so staff will recommend as part of any final approvals that the directional changes be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier be provided at the point where the alley roms away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building. 2. On-street parking - The plat will need to be amended to illustrate relocated property boundaries for NEI to accommodate the property to be acquired by the City for on-street parking along 41st Avenue NE and Jackson St. NE. Lot 3 - As mentioned above, the Plat will need to be amended to label the property occupied by NEI College of Technology as Lot 3. Accessway - The accessway, as proposed, is intended to be shared by NEI, the rental units, and the assisted living building. Currently, the plat shows certain property lines as being located in the middle of the accessway. Staff will recommend that the accessway be labeled and described as an outlot for the purpose of shared access. Parking and Traffic Circulation As mentioned above, guest parking ratio shall be one space for each four units with no unit having a distance greater than 200 feet to such space. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 spaces for each dwelling unit in the R-4 District, one of which shall be a garage, so 33 spaces are required for the rental units (17 garage spaces). Also, 6 additional spaces are required for the guest parking ratio. The proposal includes 44 spaces (22 garage) for the rental units which meets minimum parking requirements, as 39 total spaces are required. The amount of parking proposed for the rental units meets requirements. For the purposes of parking and zoning requirements, the assisted living senior building is being considered a nursing home. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify assisted living senior facilities as a use, so the most closely related use needs to be used which is either a nursing home or a multiple family building. It is staff's opinion that the proposed Case: 2000-0408 Page: 7 facility is more closely related to a nursing home than it is a multiple family building. A nursing home requires at least one parking space for each two beds for which accommodations are offered. The proposed assisted living building will have 50 units (beds), so a total of 25 parking spaces are required for the building. The proposed plan indicates that 15 spaces will be provided for use by the assisted living building, all of which are designed to back directly into the public alley. As a result a parking variance will need to be granted for the assisted living component of the project or an additional 10 spaces will need to be created. Please note that staff has inquired about the possibility of a shared parking agreement with NEI College of Technology. It was explained that this has not been discussed and is an unlikely possibility. The proposal indicates that 422 spaces will remain on-site for use by NEI College of Technology. The Zoning Ordinance requires vocational schools to have one parking space for every 2 1/8 students based upon actual enrollment which is the greatest number of students enrolled and are in attendance at one time. According to information provided to staff, NEI currently has 350 full-time students and 250 part-time students (600 total). Based on the minimum parking regulations, they are required to have 282 on-site spaces. As mentioned above, 422 spaces will remain on-site which meets minimum parking requirements for NEI. Of these 422 spaces, 366 will be standard size, 46 will be compact, and 10 will be handicapped- accessible. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance allows schools with over 300 parking spaces to utilize compact parking provided that not more than 40% of the spaces are compact and the spaces are not less than 8 feet wide by 18 feet in length. The proposed compact spaces are 8.5 feet wide by 18.5 feet in length and roughly 11% of the total spaces will be compact, so this is in compliance with the Ordinance. The standard spaces are described as 9 feet wide by 18.5 feet in length with a 27 foot drive aisle. The required length of a parking space is 20 feet, so the plans will need to be amended to accommodate 20 foot spaces. This will shorten the width of the drive aisles to 24 feet which is a satisfactory distance for safe traffic circulation. NEI College of Technology is maintaining the position that they will need 500 parking spaces to meet projected parking demands. As a result, the development proposal is including an additional 84 parking spaces which will be constructed on-street. 55 are proposed to be located along 41st Avenue NE and 29 are proposed along Jackson Street NE. As mentioned earlier, additional right-of-way will need to be acquired to accommodate this on-street parking. The proposed development will utilize an existing access from 42nd Avenue and a new access will be created off41st Avenue. Please note that the Traffic Commission is reviewing the proposed accesses. The proposed on-street parking spaces generate safety concerns as well as maintenance concerns, but on-street parking can also have a traffic calming effect which can benefit traffic cimulation in the area. The proposed development will accommodate internal traffic circulation though the addition of residential units on the site will generate some additional traffic on the surrounding system that is not currently there. One point of concern pertains to the configuration of Jackson St. in the project. Currently, Case: 2000-0408 Page: 8 Jackson St. is a one-way road south from 42na Avenue where the public right-of-way ends roughly 200 feet south of 42nd. Traffic can still travel through the site either in the parking lot west of NEI or through the parking lot north of NEI. Please note that this is an existing condition, but staff will recommend that the one-way system and private drives be clearly marked and signed. Life Cycle Housing Study The Life Cycle Housing Study which was completed for the City in May, 1998, recommended that 99 ownership town_houses be constructed in the City by 2010, and it also recommended the construction of additional housing for seniors. Thc Study stated that 131 rent assistance certificates be added for affordable rental units in thc City, but new affordable rental should not be constructed in thc City unless it is subsidized. The proposed rental units will receive subsidies through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Metropolitan Council, and other sources, so it is consistent with the recommendation in the Study. However, construction of affordable rental units was not identified as a priority for the City. Height Variance As mentioned earlier, the proposed assisted living senior building will be a maximum height of 40 feet. The maximum height allowed in the R-4 District is 35 feet so a variance is necessary. Section 9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "In recommending a variance, it shall be found that by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of lot or where by reason of exceptional topography, soil conditions, tree number or location or water conditions the owner of such lot would have an undue hardship in using his lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the rules of the zoning district." In order for a variance to be granted, hardship needs to be established. The height of the building at Central Avenue was measured to be 26 feet which meets the maximum height requirement, but the grade elevation drops west of Central, so in order to maintain a level roof line, the maximum height of the building is 40 feet from grade where the grade drops. It is staff's opinion that topography of the property creates a legitimate hardship on which to base an approval of the variance. Miscellaneous The Police Department has stated that they are supportive of the assisted living senior building component of the project, but they suggest that secure parking and adequate lighting be provided to deter theft and vandalism. They also stated that they have some major concerns with the affordable rental component. They are concerned that the City currently has several areas of high density residential that take a great deal of City resources. The Police Department is also concemed about the proposed diagonal parking in front of NEI, particularly regarding safety issues. Please refer to the attached Memo dated March 27, 2000, from the Police Chief for more detailed information regarding these concerns. One possible alternative to the on-street parking along 41st Avenue is the construction of another Case: 2000-0408 Page: 9 on-site parking lot between the building occupied by NEI and 41st Avenue NE. This would alleviate concerns about on-street parking but it would also create more impervious surface in the area and would remove some of the existing green/open space in the area. If the Planning and Zoning Commission feels it important to remove the on-street parking along 41st Avenue, the developer could be requested to design a parking lot in this area prior to plan approval. The plans do not indicate proposed locations for waste material storage. The Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that waste material storage be located and fenced as to be removed from public view. Staff will recommend that the plans be amended to accommodate waste material storage. The assisted living senior building is required to have at least one loading berth that is no less than 12 feet in width, 25 feet in length, and 14 feet in height. The location of this loading berth shall not be located less than 50 feet from the lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District and it shall not occupy front yards or side streets. Also, the loading berth shall be located with appropriate means of vehicular access to a public street or alley so as not to interfere with traffic. You will note that the plans accommodate an arced driveway off 42na Avenue NE which is large enough to accommodate a loading berth. This berth is more than 50 feet from an abutting residential lot and does not occupy a side street, so it is in compliance with the Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires that screening be provided between commercial and residential uses. Staff will recommend that the plans be amended to provide screening between the proposed development and the existing commercial development east of the subject property. The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the City Comprehensive Plan and Life Cycle Housing Study. 2. The development will provide needed housing opportunities for seniors. 3. The proposal will provide new residential development near the downtown area which creates the possibility of increased activity to support area businesses. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal maximizes the amount of space available to accommodate parking demands. 2. Removing the owner-occupied townhouse units which was part of the original application eliminates one of the most needed life-cycle housing options in the community from the project. 3. The proposed on-street parking generates concerns about safety and increased maintenance. CONCLUSION Staff Recommendations: Case: 2000-0408 Page: 10 Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 1411 (attached) which is an Ordinance rezoning the subject property to R-4, Multiple Family Residential, as the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the City Comprehensive Plan. This recommendation will be subject to the successful acquisition of 4156 Central Avenue NE through the eminent domain process. Staff recommends approval of the five foot height variance for the proposed assisted living senior building as topography of the property creates a hardship. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan for the Planned Unit Development subject to the conditions listed in the recommended motion. Please note that the Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plan, and the City Council can approve, disapprove, or approve with modifications. If approved, the proposal will be back before the Planning and Zoning Commission as a final plan. At that time, the Commission will recommend City Council action on the final plan which will take the form of a resolution approving, approving with conditions, or denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow the planned trait development. At this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission is being requested to recommend City Council action on the preliminary plan. In addition to the recommendations identified above, staff will recommend that a revised preliminary plat be submitted for Planning and Zoning Commission review at their next meeting. At that time the Commission can recommend City Council action on the preliminary and final plat provided that the necessary information is provided. Recommended Motions: Move to recommend City Council adoption of Ordinance 1411 which is an Ordinance rezoning 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, as the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the City Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following condition. 1. Successful acquisition of4156 Central Avenue NE through eminent domain by the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. Move to recommend City Council approval of the five foot height variance for the proposed assisted living senior building as topography of the property creates a hardship. Move to recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plan for the planned unit development at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions. 1. City Council adoption of Ordinance 1411, rezoning the subject property to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District. 2. City Council approval of the five foot height variance for the proposed assisted living senior building. 3. Successful negotiation of a purchase agreement between the applicant and NEI College of Technology Case: 2000-0408 Page: 11 4. Successful negotiation of a development agreement(s) between the applicant and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. 5. City Council approval of the preliminary and final plat for the project. 6. The plat shall be modified to include the following: a. The plat shall be amended to illustrate the alley right-of-way through the property; b. The plat shall be amended to illustrate relocated property boundaries for NEI to accommodate property to be acquired by the City for on-street parking; c. The property occupied by NEI will need to be labeled as a Lot; d. The private accessway will need to be labeled and described as an outlot for the purpose of shared access. 5. The creation and vacation of pertinent easements shall be approved by the City. 6. The private accessway will need to be no less than 24 feet in width. 7. The landscaping plan shall be amended to accommodate landscaping in and around the stormwater pond to create an open space amenity in the area. 8. The proposed public utility system will need to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 9. Drainage and Grading plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Plans will need to be approved by the Columbia Heights Fire Department for emergency vehicle access and hydrant distribution. 11. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval as part of the final plan review. 12. Directional changes in the public alley shall be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier shall be provided at the point where the alley tums away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building. 13. A parking variance for the assisted living senior building will need to be applied for and approved, or additional parking spaces will need to be provided to meet minimum requirements. 14. The plan shall be amended to illustrate the standard parking spaces as 20 feet in length. 15. The traffic circulation system shall be clearly signed and marked on the site, including identification of any one-way systems and private accessways. 16. The plans shall be amended to accommodate waste material storage. 17. The plans shall be amended to provide screening between the proposed development and the existing commercial development east of the subject property. Attachments: · Completed application form; Ordinance 1411; Police Department Comments; Project Milestones; Public Works Dept. comments; and, Public Notice Also please fred the following plans attached: Preliminary plat; preliminary grading plan; preliminary utility plan; existing conditions; site parking; site plan; senior building elevations; senior building floor plans; rental unit elevations and floor plans; and, a landscaping plan. 3-16-200 8:55AM F~2~ CON~JNITY DEV.- CH ~127822857 P. 2 MAR 17 '00 08:39AM Variance Privacy Fence $ubdivisLon A~p~ Si~e PI~ Appr~aL CT,TY OF COLUh'BIA 8EIb':B?S RECEIVED 1 7 2000 ~OMMIJNII'Y DEVELOPMEN1 Eeceipt , Da~e Paid Phone: Description of ~equest: Zonin~: Applicable City Ordinance Number ~/~ Section Proposed Zonin$ m · eason £or Request: 8. Exhibits Submitted (maps, d~a5rams, Acknowledgment ~a~d Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of lay. for r. he purpose of inducin$ :he City of Columbia Helshts to take ~he action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all ~ork herein men~£oned will be done in accordance rich the Ordinances of the City of Columbia Heights and che lave of ORDINANCE NO. 1411 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853, CITY CODE OF 1977, PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY Section 1: That certain property legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Northwestern Addition. Section 2: To authorize and direct staffto amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from R-2, One and Two Family Residential District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. Section 3: That certain property legally described as Lot 2 and the south 11 feet of Lot 1, Block 38, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis. Section 4: To authorize and direct staff to amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from CBD, Central Business District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. Section 5: That certain property legally described as Lot 2, except the south 11 feet, Block 38, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis. Section 6: To authorize and direct staff to amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from CBD, Central Business District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. Section 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Gary L. Peterson COLUMBIA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Joe Hollman, City Planner Thomas M. Johnson, Chief of Police Case #2000-20407 and 2000-0408, Rezoning of NEI Property March 27, 2000 The Police Department has no issues with case #2000-0407. Reference case #2000-0408, the Police Department is supportive of the 50 unit assisted living senior building designated for the southwest comer of this property. We would suggest the addition-if it is not already in the plan---of underground secure parking for both residents and employees. As you know from past experience, vehicle theft, vehicle break in, and vehicle damage can be a maj or problem in areas such as these. We are also concerned with the outside parking setup in the area being next to the rental town homes and our past experience with thefts and damage to autos in the NEI parking lot. We would recommend some high intensity lighting in this area to deter theft and vandalism. We do not feel that the location of the rental units will give the seniors a sense of security within their homes. We have some major concerns with the "affordable rental town home" concept. Our concerns are that our city now has several areas of high density rental that take a great deal of city resources. We feet the proximity of the rental units to the senior units and the business area predestines this area to be a high crime area. We would suggest minimally that at least every other town home be owner occupied. Ownership brings with it accountability and responsibility. We would suggest a possible program such as "sweat equity" or Habitat for Humanity for assisting with getting home owners into these properties-not just renters. The Police Department also has a problem with the diagonal parking proposed for in front of NEI. With the traffic volumes in this area and the natural increase that will take place if the project goes forward, we foresee many more accidents in this area caused by people backing out and into oncoming traffic. At this time this area requires a relatively low amount of police and city resources. Every driving school we are aware of suggests pulling out into traffic rather than backing into traffic. This will also have a dramatic effect during our winter months when no parking is allowed on the streets from November to April. We feel it would be in the best interest of the people using these facilities to have limited on street parking and directing them to parking lots and ramps in the area. The Police Department understands the need for the housing listed. We requested your utmost attention to the issues we may be creating if the plan goes as proposed. TMJ:mld 00-93 PROJECT NHLESTONES CLOSE ON TAX CREDITS CLOSE ON CONSTRUCTION LOAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION MARKETING BEGINS I]V/TIAL OCCUPANCY COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION FINAL OCCUPANCY CLOSE ON PERMANENT MORTGAGE JUNE 2000 JUNE 2000 JUNE 2000 NOVEMBER 2000 JANUARY 2001 APRHJ 2001 MAY 2001 JULY 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Public Works Department JOE HOLLMAN CITY PLANNER KEVIN HANSEN IN~' PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENG MARCH 30, 2000 DATE: CASE 2000-0408: P & Z COMMISSION REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 825 41sT AVENUE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Public Works Department staff has 'no comment on the request to rezone the property at 825 41st Avenue or the Conditional Use Permit and related variance. Staff has not had the opportunity to conduct a complete site plan review for the proposed development. General observations include the following: Proposed ingress and egress is acceptable, pending approval of the Traffic Commission. Proposed on street diagonal parking, which is not supported by staff, requires extensive reconstruction on one side of 41s' Avenue and on Jackson Street at 42"d Avenue, including potential utility relocations. Further review could evaluate ninety degree parking adjacent to the existing building with retaining walls as compared to what is gained with diagonal on-street additional parking. Since it apparently does not exist, would it be appropriate to require a perimeter easement of 5 or 10 feet, which is typical of new plats? Additional ROW or an easement would need to be provided for the proposed parallel parking and sidewalk. The existing alley at the north end of the development would need to be relocated. The existing sanitary sewer at the south end of the development would need to be relocated. Calculations and a catchment area map for on-site storm water detention need to be provided. cc: Ken Anderson, Community Development Director CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TN AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-;3878 (6 ! 2) 782-2800 TOD 782-2806 Members Tom Ramsdell, Chair Kevin Hanso~ , Ted Yeht~ Daniel Shattuck Stephen Johnson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 40th Avenue NE, at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, April 4, 2000. The order of business is as follows: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development on the property located at 825 41't Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE for the construction of a 50 unit assisted living building and 22 units of rental townhomes. This is also a request to rezone the property located at 825 41st Avenue NE from R-2, One and Two Family Residential, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential. A rezoning of the property located at 4150 Central Avenue NE and 4156 Central Avenue NE from CBD, Central Business District, to R-4,Multiple Family Residential is also requested. In addition, a five foot height variance is being requested to allow the senior building to be 40 feet in height as opposed to 35 feet in height which is the current maximum height allowed in the R-4 District. For questions you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 612-706-3673. Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt Fehst City Manager jh 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 DtSCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS Of' DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNItY EMPLOYER I. OL~ YJ I. ':t, I I _l_""_.J NY'Id 3NIaI I I &lnp o u~o I :lOq3 pul) ~,lePaedne I I L I I L I,LIIIIIIIII ~llllllllllJ'J I-TIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII1117/ [ I I I I I ibm X , --~c~Icsor~ St~'~et-- X [3 2~ X 24'-~ 22' ~~" r. II I illl!i~h:h ~i: I'i III I , ,,11! a:. iljl lll!ili q-\~'-~l' q' '.'ii ~-¥!' I~-, j di ii li"t Iil il II B '"""' i i i, i i' i ii ,l'l'~' ~. I I,~ _~ i !iI II Case: 2000-0409 Page: 1 Case #: Owner: Address: 2000-0409 STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE APRIL 4, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL INFORMATION Grootwassink Real Estate Applicant: 6440 Flying Cloud Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55341 Phone: Parcel Address: 4043 Central Avenue NE Zoning: CBD, Central Business District Comprehensive Plan: C - Commercial Genuine Parts Co. (NAPA) 4043 Central Ave. NE Columbia Heights, MN (763) 788-9041 Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: CBD South: CBD East: R-4 West: CBD Land Use North: Commercial South: Commercial East: Residential West: Commercial BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: The applicant requests to appeal a determination made by the Columbia Heights Building Official stating that the portion of the Columbia Heights Mall occupied by NAPA Auto Parts at 4043 Central Avenue NE can not be painted blue. Case Histo~_ : The original site plan for the mall was approved in 1981. During the regular meeting of March 2, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan to allow the build-out of the Columbia Heights Mall. Also, in April, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan to allow the construction of the Columbia Heights Transit Hub in the northwest comer of the property. Case: 2000-0409 Page: 2 ANALYSIS Surrounding ProperS_: The surrounding property on the north, south, and west is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and is used commercially. The property to the east is zoned R-4, Multiple Family Residential, and is occupied by Parkview Villa and Labelle Condominiums. Technical Review: The determination of the Building Official was based on the following: · The original site plan for the Mall was approved in September, 1981. At that time, the site plan for the Mall and the office building at 3989 Central Avenue NE were reviewed as part of the same development proposal. The staff report for that review (attached) stated that the Mall will have a similar motif as the office building. The lower half of the Mall will be a brick fascia and the upper half of the building will have aluminized metal panels. Based on this information, it is staff's understanding that the intent was to maintain a similar appearance for the two structures. As a result it has been determined that painting that portion of the building occupied by NAPA blue will create an inconsistent appearance between the buildings and is not allowed. According to the applicant, the appeal is based on the following factors: · They need to paint the building blue for their national image and retail exposure. Please note that staffhas evaluated Section 9.117A of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance which regulates signage in the City to determine if painting the building blue is considered signage. The Ordinance defines sign as follows: "A structure, device, advertisement, advertising device or visual representation intended to advertise, identify or communicate information to attract the attention of the public for any purpose and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing. A sign includes symbols, letters, figures, graphics, or forms painted or otherwise affixed to a building or structure intended to attract the attention of the public for any purpose. This definition includes a structural or non-structural device which borders, illuminates, animates or projects the visual representation." Based on this definition, it is staff's opinion that painting the building blue does not constitute signage. Even though the intent of the request is to create additional retail exposure, painting the building does not meet the definition of a sign. Ci~_ Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates the area for future commercial use. The proposal does not impact the goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan. Summa~. : The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The appeal, if granted, would allow additional retail exposure for NAPA. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. Should the appeal be approved, and that portion of the building occupied by NAPA is Case: 2000-0409 Page: 3 painted blue, the aesthetics of the Mall would be different fi.om the office building which is inconsistent with the intent of the original approval. CONCLUSION Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the appeal, because it would create a different appearance between the Columbia Heights Mall and the office building which is inconsistent with the intent of the original approval. Recommended Motion: Move to deny the appeal of the determination made by the Columbia Heights Building Official stating that the portion of the Columbia Heights Mall occupied by NAPA Auto Parts at 4043 Central Avenue NE can not be painted blue. Attachments: · Completed application form; Copy of 1981 Staff Report; and, Public Notice 2-23-208 ] 2: BSPF4 FROKI COMhlUNI T~ DEV. - CH 5] 27822857 P. 23 CITY .OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ~--~_pplication For: Rezon£n$ Variance Privacy Fence Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Site Plan Approval Other Application Dates ~ - ! ~ -OW.. Receipt Not 2. LeGal Description of Subject Property: ' ~ / ,, _ O~ner: Address: ~_~f) '~/~/'~/'~"' ~--Z~,~ ~,A~ Phone: Description of Request: ZoninK: Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning, Present Use Sec=ton Proposed ZoninG, Proposed Use Reason for Request: 8. Z~hibi~s Submitted (maps, diaGra~s, etc.) Acknovlediuent and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia He&~h~s to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordanc~e Ordinances of the City of Columbia Heights and the laws of r. he S~ate of Hinnes~ta. Taken By: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 1, 1981 Page 7 will naturally fill in over time, thus necessitating regrading. Regrading would be difficult'if a fence were in the way. Lastly, I would like to note the decision regarding fences in the easement will be setting a precedent for the Cheery Heights Subdivision as this is the first fence case. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the special purpose fence contingent upon the neighbor's signature of consent and that the fence be built a minimum of five (5) feet from the rear property line. Public Hearing Special Purpose Fence Case #8109-39 Mpls. Electric Steel Castings 3901 University Ave. N.E. Columbia Height, Mn. 55421 Minneapolis Electric Steel Castings is requesting permission to construct a 124 foot long, six (6) foot high, board on board, special purpose privacy fence along the north property line of their parking lot immediately south of 500 N.E. Mill Street. The fence is a special purpose fence because it would extend within twenty (20) feet of the back of the curb from 5th Street. A diagram is enclosed in your agend~ to more accurately depict the location of the fence. There is presently an eight'~(8) foot high chain link fence along the property. Minneapolis Electric Steel Castings wishes to replace the chain link fence to provide a more aesthetically pleasant and more permanent barrier between its parking lot and the adjacent residential lot. The present fence, although covered with vines, does not provide visual protection for the residence from the parking lot during the winter. The fence proposal is identical to the situation where the H.R.A. constructed a privacy fence along the Voss parking lot on Van Buren Street. The only problem I see with the fence would be one of maintenance, however, I think the beneficial effects for the adjacent residence outweighes the negative effects. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the fence as it provides a better buffer between the parking lot and residence at 500 N.E. Mill Street. Go Public Hearing Variance/Site Plan Approval Case #8109-40 Terry Evanson Properties 3550 Lexington Ave. N. Suite 104 ST. Paul, Mn. 55112 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Terry Evanson Properties Architect: David Todd Runyon and Associates 2412 Valentine Avenue St. Paul, Mn. 55108 Purpose: To permit construction of a 91,680 square foot retail center and a 97,000 square foot office building. Location: 1. 1.04 acre site between Gould Avenue and 40th Avenue for office building. 2. 6.87 acre site between 40th and 41st Avenue along Central Avenue for the retail center. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 1, 1981 Page 8 Request: Zoning: 1. A five (5) foot variance on the length of 40 parking stalls pursuant to Secti.on 9.116(2)(h). 2. A thirty (30) foot variance on the setback of loading zones from residential porperty pursuant to Section 9.116(5)(a). 3. A variance waiving the twenty (20) foot wide green buffer zone pursuant to Section 6.404(2)(b). 4. A variance permitting two (2) free-standing signs on the retail site pursuant to Section 9.117A(b) (i i). Central Business District. SPECIAL INFORMATION Lot Area Gross- Building Area Ground Cover Number of Stories Build~ng Height Number Parking Stalls Required Parking Parking/Driveway Coverage S i dewa I k/Concrete Coverage Landscaping: Retail Site Office Site 299,257 s.f. 45,303 s.f. 91,680 s.f. 97,000 s.f. 91,680 s.f. '16,400 s.'f. 30.6% 36.2.% 1 6 24 ft. 75 ft. 400 390 399 324 177,250 s.f. 12,400 s.f. 59.2% 27.4% 10,300 s.f. 7,403 s.f. 3.4% 16.3% 20,000 s.f. 9,100 s.f. 6.6% 20% STAFF ANALYSIS Buildin~ Fascia: The office building will be surfaced with a'metalic aluminized paneling. The retail center will have a similar motif. The lower half of the retail center will be a brick fascia and the upper half of the building will have the aluminized metal panels. David Runyon will have samples of the fascia. An important decision to m~ke on the fascia of the retail center will be on the back- side of the building. The architects are proposing a fluted concrete surface colored by a stain which is permeated throughout the concrete. The alternative fascia would be to continue the brickwork from the front of the building. The .brick finish would definitely be a superior finish. It is important what the PLANNING AND ZONING COHHISSION September l, 1981 Page 9 rear of the building will look like bacause it will have high visibility from 40th Avenue and the condominium site. Drainage and Grading: The Public Works Director and City Engineer have reviewed the plans thoroughly and found them to be generally acceptable. Grading was acceptable in whole. The only concern is some alterations which have to be made between the retail center and the 60-unit condominiums. There is a thirteen {13) foot elevation difference. A series of retaining walls are proposed. Drainage alterations required by the City Engineer is to permit no sheet drainage across LaBelle Park. Water drainage from the north parking lot will flow into the storm drain in 41st Avenue, whereas the rest of the retail center's and office building's water drainage will flow into the storm drain in 40th Avenue. Catch basins are strategically located in the parking lots and acceptable to the City Engineer. The developer proposed eight (8) inch storm drains, however, the City Engineer is requiring twelve (12) inch piping. Landscaping: I have no problems'regarding landscaping on the office buildimg site. Retail Center site is much larger and will be 93.4% covered by hard surfaces. As evident by the site plans veYy little space is available for landscaping, therefore, I feel it is impontant the most be made of what is available. I have required the developer to provide 200 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping for each 20 parking spaces. The present landscaping plan shows only one tree per landscape island. I have discussed the landscaped islands with Tom Rejzer, the City Forestor, and we came to the mutual agreement that there should be two trees per island. The developer agreed. Such a large parking area needs all the land- scaping possible to soften its visual effects. Perimeter landscaping is restricted to very narrow strips. The developer has proposed tree plantings at intervals of one tree per 55 feet. In keeping with City policy on boulevard plantings, the City Forestor and myself are requiring the developer to plant trees at 40 foot intervals. Aside from tree plantings, the developer shows only grass. Because the landscaping strips are narrow and there is head-in parking, I feel there should be a better buffer. Therefore, where possible the perimeter areas will be bermed and shrubbery will be planted rather than grass. In the long run, shrubbery will be more easily maintained than grass. No landscaping was planned between the retail center and the condominium site because P.J.Gaughan wants to landscape the area to his satisfaction. Accordingly, no landscaping is proposed along Central Avenue because the H.R.A. landscape architects will be designing this area. The area behind the retail center will be heavily planted with eight (8) foot high evergreens to provide a workable buffer between the commercial building and the senior citizen highrise. I would like to conclude the landscaping plan is coming along nicely, but it may be better to postpone approval until the Central Avenue landscaping strip and the area between the condominium and retail center have been completed. This would allow some flexibility to make alterations. In regards to the variance of the twenty foot wide buffer zone, I feel it should be granted because the area behind the retail center will be heavily landscaped and the adjacent multiple family dwellings are sufficiently far from the retail center. I think the spirit of the ordinance will have been fulfilled. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 1, 198~ Page 10 Traffic Circulation-Access Points: The Traffic Commission has reviewed the plans and given its approval. As observed from the plans, there are three access points to the retail center. The intersections of 41st Avenue and Central Avenue and 40th Avenue and Central Avenue are being redesigned to permit right turn lanes. would like to note the service drive behind the retail center is a one-way drive going from 41st Avenue to 40th Avenue. The most serious traffic problem which may occur would be the entrance/exit points on 40th Avenue for the retail center and drive-thru banking facility. Parking and Loading: The retail center is required to have 399 parking stalls. In order to accommodate this many parking spaces on the limited space, the architect was forced to incorporate 40 fifteen foot long parking stalls along Central Avenue. The spaces could actually accomodate 17 foot long cars because cars hang over the curb by two feet. These spaces which would only be used during high business volume times such as Christmas should be designated for compact cars only. These spaces may seem short, but a majority of automobiles on the roads today could easily fit into the spaces without protruding onto the driveway isles. All loading facilities for both the retail center and office building will be adequately screened of enclosed.. The loading facilities are adequate and I.do not perceive any serious problems with them. The major loading faci'lity will-be for the grocery store. The grocery stores loading docks will be incorporated inside the building. Because the retail site is extremely limited in space and the loading areas are enclosed, I recommend, approval of the variance regarding the distance of the loading docks from residential properties. Signage: The office building will not have any signage on the building itself. There will be one free-standing sign on the office site indicating the banking facility. This sign is needed because most of the bank is actually underground. The developer is proposing two free-standing signs for the retail center. The sign code only permits one. One sign will identify the retail center. The other free-standing sign will identify the grocery store on the north side of the center. Because of the unique shape of the center, the grocery store will only have twenty (20) feet of frontage on Central Avenue. The free-standing sign is needed to improve the visibility of the grocery store. I think the variance for the extra free-standing sign is justified by the unique shape of the lot. I would like to note the maximum permissible square footage of signage permissible for the retail center would be 1,110 square feet. Signage of the retail center building will be uniform and be mounted on the upper facade area of the building. In summary, the site plans are well thought out given the limitations of the site. I feel the design has been generally superior. It is difficult to express the many aspects of the plan. The architects of the project will be at the meeting to explain the various components of the plan in detail. They will also be bringing samples of the products used and stated they will have a model of the proposed development. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the variances requested because of the unusual shape and conditions of the parcels being developed. Given the size of the projects, the variances requested are relatively minor. I also recommend approval of the site plans, however, I think approval of the landscaping plan should be postponed until the Central Avenue landscaping plan has been finalized. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Member; Tom Rarnsdell, Chat, Kevin Hanso/~ Ted Yehle Daniel Shattuck Stephen Jonn$on Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 40th Avenue NE, at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, April 4, 2000. The order of business is as follows: A request to Appeal a determination made by the Columbia Heights Building Official stating that the portion of the Columbia Heights Mall occupied by NAPA at 4043 Central Avenue NE can not be painted blue. For questions you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 612-706-3673. Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt Fehst City Manager jh 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 DtSCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY iN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER