Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 2, 2000CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS~ MN ,5542 !-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 MEMBERS Tom Rams~ell, Chair Kevin Han~on Ted Ye~ Step~n · Johnson Da~l Shattuck PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2000 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 N.E. 40'r" AVENUE 1. Roll Call Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of April 4, 2000. NEW BUSINESS: Petitions, letters and requests. Public Hearing Setback Variance Case #2000-0510 Public Hearing Two Variances Case #2000-0511 Matthew Heath 4252 Washington St. N.E. Columbia Heights, Mn. Richard Kinnan 819 N.E. 49t" Avenue Columbia Heights, Mn. 4. Staff Reports. 5. 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: 2000-0510 Page: 1 Case #: Owner: Address: Phone: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE MAY 2, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL INFORMATION 2000-0510 Matthew Heath 4252 Washington St. NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (763) 782-0936 Parcel Address: 4252 Washington St. NE Zoning: R-2, One and Two Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: LDR, Low Density Residential Applicant: same Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: R-2 South: R-2 East: R-2 West: R-2 Land Use North: Residemial South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential BACKGROUND Explanation qf Request: This is a request for a 17 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 528 square foot garage 3 feet from the rear property line at 4252 Washington Street NE. Section 9.104(5) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that the distance between the vehicle entry door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley. Case Histo~_ : There are no pertinent zoning cases on the lot or in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS Surrounding ProperS_: The surrounding property in all four directions is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential Case: 2000-0510 Page: 2 and is used residentially. Technical Review: Accessory structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. Requirements are as follows. · No accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure or fifteen (15) feet, whichever is less - the proposed garage will be roughly 13 feet in height. · No accessory structure or combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet - the proposed garage will be 528 square feet which meets this requirement. · Any lot less than 6,500 square feet may have a lot coverage of up to 35% - the lot coverage will be approximately 22% which meets this requirement. · Detached accessory structures must be six (6) feet or more from the principal structure - the proposed location of the garage is roughly 40 feet from the principal structure. · Whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley, the distance between the door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more - as mentioned earlier, the vehicle entry door will be 3 feet from the rear lot line so a variance is necessary. · Accessory structures shall be a minimum of 3 feet from the side lot lines as approved by the Building Official - the proposed location of the garage is 4 feet from the north side lot line and 12 feet from the south side lot line. The primary purpose of the 20 foot setback requirement is to allow enough room on the property for a vehicle to park in the driveway without encroaching into the street or alley right-of-way. Please note that the applicant has informed staff that he intends to utilize an existing parking pad located to the south of the proposed garage. 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. There is an existing Linden tree located roughly 27 feet east of the rear property line which would need to be removed if the garage were constructed at the required 20 foot setback. According to the definition of hardship provided in the Zoning Ordinance, tree location is a legitimate hardship. Also, the City has granted variances due to tree location in several other instances. The following briefly summarizes two similar cases. · Case 9805-24 was a variance of 7 feet at 5055 Madison St. NE to allow the construction of a garage with the vehicle entry door 13 feet from the property line. This request for a variance was approved due to tree location and number on the lot. · Case 9810-45 was a variance of 8 feet at 2303 Maiden Ln. NE to allow the construction of a garage with the vehicle entry door 12 feet from the property line. This variance was Case: 2000-0510 Page: 3 granted because tree location and topography on the property created a hardship. One option that staff has considered is the possibility of rotating the garage so that the vehicle entry door faced south instead of west. If this were done, the proposed location would meet minimum setback requirements. However, there would only be 12 feet between the vehicle entry door and the south property line which would make it difficult to maneuver a vehicle in and out of the garage. Please note that there is an existing garage and lean-to in the same location as the proposed garage which will be removed. The vehicle entry door of the existing garage faces south, but the applicant has stated that there is not enough room to maneuver his vehicle in and out of the garage due to the proximity to the south property line. Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential Development. The proposal does not impact the goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan. Summary: The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal will improve the property by replacing an existing garage and lean-to. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. Any vehicles attempting to park in front of the vehicle entry door would be partially located in the alley right-of-way. CONCLUSION Sta_ff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request as tree location on the property appears to create a legitimate hardship. Recommended Motion: Move to recommend City Council approval of the 17 foot setback variance at 4252 Washington Street NE because tree location on the property creates a hardship. Attachments: · Completed application form; Survey; Site Plan; and Public Notice CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHT& ~--A~plication For: ~ezonin& Variance ~ Privacy Fence Conditional Use Permit ._._. Subdivision Approval . Site Plan Approval O:her Application Date, F/X/mO o....o: Jooo - 6. ZoninK~ Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning ~"~" Present, Use fi' (~ :' ~'-~"' '~ ~ Proposed Zoning Proposed Use AcknowledRment and 5iRnature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of lay, for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia Heights to take the action herein requested, tha: all statements herein are true and that all york herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the Ci%y of Columbia Heights and the lays of ~he S:ete/~,,~,~~~ Signature of Applicant: /~./ ~9 ./. ~/ - Da~e:__ · Taken g'LLE !,'~ LE \L"~L6 ~q X X ,O'L /~ ,,0~,/0.00 N ,00'0~' ....,...,.,...-..,.,:,:,:.:,:,: ::::: .....:.::.: ::::...:::.:::... ":.1:.:,:,:.:.:.::.:" · .i:i :::::::i !:: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::: 3 ,,l~t,L~.O0 S ,00'01~ 0 0 c) cD Z CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 4OTH AVENUE N.E:., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-28OO TDD 782-2806 PLEASE NOTE: CITY HALL PHONE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED. NEW NUMBERS ARE: MAIN NUMBER (763) 706-3600; TDD (763) 706-3691 Members Tom Ramsdell, Chair Kevin Hanson Ted Yehle 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 40t" Avenue NE, at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 2, 2000. The order of business is as follows: A request for a 17 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 528 square foot garage 3 feet from the rear property line at 4252 Washington Street NE. Section 9.104(5) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that the distance between the vehicle entry door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley. For questions you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 763-706-3673. 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: 2000-0511 Page: 1 Case #: Owner: Address: Phone: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE MAY 2, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING 2000-0511 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: same Richard Kinnan 819 49th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (763) 571-5744 Parcel Address: 819 49th Avenue NE Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: LDR, Low Density Residential Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: R-1 South: City of Hilltop East: R-1 West: R-1 Land Use North: Residential South: I.S.D. # 13 East: Residential West: Residential BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: This is a request for an 824 square foot variance to allow the construction of a two-level 18' x 24' addition onto the existing detached garage at 819 49th Avenue NE. Section 9.104(5) 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. Currently, there is 960 square feet of accessory structure on the property, and an additional 864 square feet is proposed. As a result, the 824 square foot variance is being requested. This is also a request for a 3 foot height variance. Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that no accessory structure can exceed 15 feet in height, as measured to the highest point. Plans indicate that the proposed addition will be 18 feet in height which requires a 3 foot variance. As stated on the application, the purpose of the request is to provide additional space for auto/boat parking, and also to allow space to pursue the applicants retirement hobby of furniture restoration. Case: 2000-0511 Page: 2 Case Histori: There are no pertinent zoning cases on the lot or in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS Surrounding Property: The surrounding property to the north, east and west is zoned R-I, Single Family Residential, and is used residentially. The property to the south across 49th Avenue NE is in the City of Hilltop and is used by Independent School District # 13 for Valley View Elementary and Central Middle School. Technical Review: Accessory structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. Requirements are as follows. · No accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure or fifteen (15) feet, whichever is less - plans indicate that the proposed garage will be 18 feet to the highest point which requires a variance. · No accessory structure or combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet - the proposed addition will be two levels at 432 square feet per level for a total of 864 square feet. The existing detached garage is 624 square feet and there is an existing attached garage which is 336 square feet. The cumulative square footage for accessory structures on the property will be 1,824 square feet. · Any lot over 6,500 square feet in size may have a lot coverage of up to 30% - the lot coverage will be approximately 23% which meets this requirement. · Detached accessory structures must be six (6) feet or more from the principal structure - the existing detached garage is approximately 25 feet away from the principal structure and the proposed addition will be behind the existing detached garage. · Whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley, the distance between the door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more - the existing detached garage is roughly 95 feet from the front lot line which meets this requirement. · Accessory structures shall be a minimum of 3 feet inside the side and rear lot lines as approved by the Building Official - the existing detached garage and proposed addition is 3 feet from the side lot line and the addition will be 5 feet from the rear lot line. 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. As indicated on the plan labeled East View, the topography of the property drops from Case: 2000-0511 Page: 3 approximately 100 feet in elevation at the front of the existing garage to roughly 92.5 feet at the back of the proposed addition. This change in elevation appears to create a legitimate hardship on which to base an approval of the height variance. However, it does not seem to create a hardship which would require the excess accessory structure space. As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing the addition to the existing detached garage to create additional space for auto/boat storage and to have a workshop to restore furniture as a hobby. One issue that should be identified is the possibility of this hobby becoming a home occupation. Home occupation is defined as any gainful operation or profession engaged in by an occupant of a dwelling unit. Such use must be clearly incidental and secondary to the principal use of the dwelling for residential purposes and shall not change the residential character of the dwelling or have an adverse effect on adjacent properties nor constitute a nuisance or safety hazard. Please note that home occupations are permitted as an accessory use in the R-1 District provided they register with the City. Also, no outside storage of products, materials or equipment connected with the home occupation is allowed, and if the home occupation is conducted in a garage, the minimum amount of required garage parking spaces shall be maintained for parking. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of two off- street parking spaces for single family dwellings, one of which shall be in a garage. In addition, Section 5A.207(1)(f) of the Housing Maintenance Code states: "Outside storage of articles, equipment, construction materials, items not designed for exterior use, and miscellaneous items, including but not limited to, lawn mowers and other lawn maintenance equipment shall not be allowed." Considering that there is also an attached garage on the property, the parking requirement can be met without the construction of the addition. However, the additional space may be necessary to comply with the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Code. Please note that according to the Columbia Heights Fire Department no violations of the Housing Maintenance Code on the subject property have been reported to the City. As mentioned above, hardship needs to be established for a variance to be granted. Section 9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance also states that the Commission shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Ordinance in instances where their "strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and to recommend variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance". Section 1 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Four of the purpose statements are identified below: · protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare; · dividing the City into zones and districts restricting and regulating therein the location, height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, and the density and distribution of population; Case: 2000-0511 Page: 4 · providing adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property; and, · preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating the use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land and buildings surrounding them. Staff is aware of one previous case where a variance was granted to allow accessory structures in excess of the maximum allowed. The following briefly summarizes this case. · Case 9807-34 was a variance of 2,072 square feet at 4015 Stinson Boulevard to allow the total square footage of all existing and proposed accessory structures on the lot to be 3,072 square feet. Unusual topography and potential loss of trees and shrubbery around the existing garage were identified as a hardship. At the time of the request, the property had the following accessory structures: One 462 square foot garage (2¥ x 22'); One 154 square foot shed (7' x 22'); and, a 576 square foot guest cabin. The proposal indicated a new two-level attached garage would be constructed, totaling 1,880 square feet (940 square feet per level). The applicant demonstrated that due to the topography on the lot a two story garage was necessary, or a large amount of fill would need to be brought in to elevate the main floor of the garage to the same level as the house. Also, if the existing accessory structures were required to be removed, there would be a substantial loss of existing trees and shrubbery on the subject parcel and adjacent property. Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential Development. 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 proposal will create additional space for auto/boat storage, and the proposal will also allow space for the applicant to pursue his retirement hobby of furniture restoration. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal is in excess of the maximum square footage allowed for accessory structures. CONCLUSION Sta_ff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request because there does not appear to be a legitimate hardship on which to base approval of the size variance, although topography of the property does create a hardship for the height. It is staff's opinion that because minimum lot coverage and setback requirements will be met, the property will not be overcrowded, and adequate light, air, and convenient access to the property will be maintained, so the proposal seems consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. However, the property will exceed the minimum number of Case: 2000-0511 Page: 5 parking spaces required, and hardship still needs to be established to grant the variance. Recommended Motion: Move to recommend City Council denial of the variance request because a legitimate hardship has not been established. Alternative Motion Recommending Approval: Move to recommend City Council approval of the 3 foot height variance and the 824 square foot variance at 819 49th Avenue NE because topography of the property creates a hardship and the proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance. Attachments: · Completed application form; Site Plan; Elevation View; and Public Notice CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Application For: ~ezoning Variance Privacy Fence Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Site Plan Approvai Other Fee: /~ Date Paid Street Address of Subject Property: Addres s: ~ / g - ~ r~ ~- Address: Description of l~equest: Z oninK: Applicable City Ordinance Number Present ZoninE ~- ( Present Use ~ f4{~,t~- ~ Proposed Zoning Prop.ed Use Exhibits Submitted (maps, diagrams, etc.) Acknowledgment and SiKnature: The unders'iTned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of lay, for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all york herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City o£ Columbia Heights and the laws 'of the State of Hinnesota. Signature of Applicant: Date: Taken BT: ..... ELK RIVER OONGRETE PRODUOT$ · 8421 WAYZATA BOULEVARD · MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 5~42~ (SI2) S41-8~/2 · INWARD WATS -- 100 + 5S2-1IB ..~,','~'~'~' ,, ~F ~, DA'II c./- II- ~c:) CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 4OTH AVENUE N.E:., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 5542. !-3878 (612) 782-28OO TDD 782-2806 PLEASE NOTE: CITY HALL PHONE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED. NEW NUMBERS ARE: MAIN NUMBER (763) 706-3600; TDD (763) 706-3691 Members Tom Ramsdell, Chair Kevin Hanson Ted Yehle 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, May 2, 2000. The order of business is as follows: A request for an 824 square foot variance to allow the construction of a two- level 18' x 24' addition onto the existing detached garage at 819 49th Avenue NE. Section 9.104(5) 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. Currently there is 960 square feet of accessory structure on the property, and an additional 864 square feet is proposed. As a result, the 824 square foot variance is being requested. This is also a request for a 3 foot height variance. Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that no accessory structure can exceed 15 feet in height, as measured to the highest point. Plans indicate that the proposed addition will be 18 feet in height which requires a 3 foot variance. For questions you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 763-706-3673. 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 CITY 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 SPECIAL MEETING 6:30 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 N.E. 40TM AVENUE 1. OPEN HOUSE 6:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 PM Introduction by Kenneth R. Anderson, Community Development Director Presentation by Klm Lee, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Questions, Comments, and Discussion Close Public Hearing 3. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 4. ADJOURN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 4, 2000 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: RE: JOE H O LL M AN, C IT Y PL ANNE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As you know, the City of Columbia Heights has been involved in an extensive process to update the City Comprehensive Plan. The following is intended to provide the Commission with some background information regarding the planning process. The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency for the seven-county metropolitan region. In order to coordinate development within the region through the year 2040, the Council has developed a Regional Blueprint. This Blueprint includes goals, policies and action steps that are to be used as a framework for communities in the development of individual comprehensive plans. All communities within the region, including the City of Columbia Heights, are required to develop comprehensive plans that conform to the regional goals found in the Regional Blueprint. The Comprehensive Plan for Columbia Heights sets a baseline for development and redevelopment, and serves as a guide document for decision-makers for the next 20 years. The Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies for each Plan element. Goal statements are designed to focus on the major issues that have been raised during the work with the Planning Advisory Committee and public participation components of the planning process. Goal statements are broadly worded, highlighting the primary value or establishing the vision. Policy statements help to define the goals in "real world" terms and are typically stated as official positions on particular issues. Implementation Strategies will commonly direct a specific course of action that responds to and works to support the official position stated by policy. The Strategies define activities that the City may initiate or continue to achieve the Goal statements. Public participation has been a key element in the development of the Goal statements. The following briefly summarizes the public participation process which was used during the preparation of the Plan. · May 1 and 2, 1998 - The public process began when the Minnesota Design Team visited Columbia Heights. · June 10, 1998 - A meeting was held with the Planning Advisory Committee which was established to help guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan. · July 29, 1998 - A public meeting was held with the Columbia Heights business community. · July 30, 1998 - A public meeting was held for the general public. · August 5, 1998 - A joint meeting of all the advisory commissions to the City Council was held. · September 10, 1998 - The Planning Advisory Committee met to discuss the results of the May 4, 2000 Comprehensive Plan Page 2 public meetings. March 23, 1999 - The Planning Advisory Committee met to review and discuss the draft Plan. After the March, 1999, Planning Advisory Committee meeting, the City initiated a second long- range planning process to complete a Master Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Columbia Heights. Note that it was the City's position that the Master Redevelopment Plan and the Comprehensive Plan needed to be consistent, so adoption of the Comprehensive Plan was delayed until after the Master Redevelopment Plan was complete or nearly complete as is the case. A Task Force was created to help guide the development of the Master Redevelopment Plan, and the following briefly summarizes that process. · July 14, 1999 - An initial Task Force meeting was held. · September 29, 1999 - A second meeting of the Task Force was held to review project objectives and begin work on downtown land use alternatives. · October 28, 1999 - A Task Force meeting was held to review and discuss the final concept alternatives. · November 17, 1999 - A Town Meeting Open House was held to facilitate public comment on the proposals. · December 15, 1999 - A final Task Force meeting was held to select final concept alternatives and discuss streetscape design. · January 17, 2000 - The Master Redevelopment Plan was informally presented to the City Council. Please note that certain elements of the Master Redevelopment Plan have been referenced in the draft Comprehensive Plan. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to take action on just the Comprehensive Plan and not the Master Redevelopment Plan during the May 9 public hearing. The Master Redevelopment Plan will be presented to the Commission at a later date. On January 14, 2000, the Comprehensive Plan was circulated to adjacent jurisdictions and affected school districts for the required 60 day review and comment period. The Rice Creek Watershed District is the only jurisdiction which submitted comments (attached). As required by State Statute a legal notice was published in the Columbia Heights Focus News on April 27, 2000 (attached), and a notice is being aired over the local govemment access cable channel (attached). Recommended Motion: Move to recommend that the Columbia Heights City Council adopt Resolution 2000-43 which is a resolution adopting the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan, subject to final review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Attachments: ~..-... RESOLUTION 2000-43 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, State Statutes (Minn. Stat. 473.175-473.871 (1996)) requires that cities review and revise their comprehensive plans for consistency with Metropolitan Council policy plans; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has amended its policy plans; and has provided system statements outlining Council policy relative to the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights is required to review its comprehensive plan for consistency with the amended policy plans and to prepare a revised comprehensive plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights has scheduled and budgeted to complete a major review and update of its comprehensive plan, and has proceeded diligently to complete its comprehensive plan for Metropolitan Council review; and, WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights facilitated an extensive public participation process to assist in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, on January 14, 2000, the City of Columbia Heights circulated the revised document to the adjacent governmental units and affected school districts for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 9, 2000, to review the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Columbia Heights City Council adopt the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Columbia Heights City Council hereby adopts the Comprehensive Plan, subject to final review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. PASSED THIS Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: DAY OF ,2000. Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk " RECEIVED 2O0O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'; Rice Creek Water: 3585 N. LEXINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 330 ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 55126-8056 PHONE (651) 766-4191 · FAX (651) 766-4196 March 15, 2000 Mr. Joe Hollman, City Planner City of Columbia Heights 59040th Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 SUBJECT: City of Columbia Heights Stormwater Management Plan Dear Joe: drewrOI3'l @tc.t Board of Managers Regular Meetings: 2nd and 4th Wednesdays at Shoreview City Hall KATE DREWRY, District Admin. BONITA TORPE, Admin. Assist. We have completed our review of the City of Columbia Heights Draft Comprehensive Plan dated January 14, 2000, received January 19, 2000. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the Rice Creek Watershed District's (RCWD) questions and concerns regarding the Surface Water Management Plan. We feel the plan is very comprehensive and well done, especially the quantitative analysis of the drainage systems. The RCWD certainly appreciates the City's efforts on the Surface Water Management Plan portion of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The current issues are listed below, subdivided by management topic for clarity. ADMINISTRATIVE In lieu of a very detailed, text-based review of the City's current policies and ordinances, we feel it is more prudent for the City to include in the plan a general reference to conformance with the RCWD's current policies and standards. The purpose of this recommendation is two-fold: Eliminate repetitive revisions of text-based policies strictly to comply with RCWD's Management Plan. 2. Maintain currency of the City's plan when the RCWD's Management Plan is updated. However, this reference does not remedy the policies stated in the plan which are in direct conflict with the RCWD's policies and objectives. Please include in both the Introduction (page 53) and Surface Water Management Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies (page 76) sections a statement which references conformance with the current RCWD Management Plan's policies and objectives. BOARD OF MANAGERS A.J. CARDINAL, SR. TOM WADDELL ROBERT M. HULT ORDEEN J. BRAATHEN EUGENE L. PETERSON ANOKA COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY MONTGOMERY WATSON Consulting Engineers 612-593-9000 · Co-Counsel: HAROLD H. SHEFF 612-332-1000, MICHELLE J. ULRICH 651-699-9845 Mr. Joe Hollman -2- March 15, 2000 Goal 1, page 82, specifies "the City will establish a permitting program for water resource management." The District would prefer to maintain the current permitting arrangement. Detailed review of in-place ordinances would be required in the event the City wished to assume some permitting authority. The District is also better poised with in-house staff and resources to better facilitate an inter-municipality permitting program. Please clarify the City's intention regarding this matter. If the City does not wish to assume permitting activity for water resources and/or Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) activities, please include a statement to this effect in the plan. Our copy of the plan did not include Section 13, Implementation Plan. Specifically, the District needs to review the Capital Improvements Program and may be of some assistance regarding retrofit water quality project cost sharing. Please forward a copy of this section. Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 would be more legible in color, although the current black and white figures wi!!. suffice. The plan should provide easement acquisition procedures for all floodplains, ponds, wetlands, ditches, storm sewer, and all other water resources features included on parcels undergoing development or redevelopment. WATER QUALITY Water Quality Results and Problem Areas, page 74, specifies that the majority of stormwater runoff within the City does not receive NURP treatment, and that natural lakes and ponds are primarily used for stormwater control and treatment. The District recognizes the city's developed nature and small Silver and Hart Lake subwatersheds, and in the absence of recurring flooding problems the RCWD is primarily concerned with water quality. To meet this concern, the District would like to see an in- depth analysis of the Silver and Hart Lake drainage areas with regards to potential retrofit water quality ponding. The RCWD may have cost-share monies available for water quality retrofit projects. Under Watershed D (Silver Lake drainage system) on page 76, it is stated that "efforts should be made to provide wet detention areas or other improvements where practical" tributary to Silver Lake. Has the City put any efforts into motion? Does the Capital Improvements and Implementation Plan reflect this policy? Please address further. WATER QUANTITY/HYDROLOGIC MODELING Table 4-2 specifies a normal water level for Hart Lake of 950.0, which was assumed from USGS quad maps. Does the City have an as-built for that storm sewer system which could provide a more accurate normal water level? The RCWD often uses detailed studies such as the City's to provide 100-year flood elevations for stormwater bodies not included in the District's hydrologic model. Please comment on the availability of more accurate data. Mr. Joe Hollman -3- March 15, 2000 Policy 4, page 78, specifies, "The City will require an SCS Type II 24-hour storm or other accepted critical storm analysis to be considered in determining the critical event for stormwater storage areas." While this statement is technically accurate, please augment this policy by including the 7.2- inch, 10-day runoff event as the other potential 100-year critical event. Policy 5, page 78, specifies the City will manage land use constraints along water resource features based on their respective 100-year flood levels, as computed in preparation of the Columbia Heights Water Resources Management Plan. 'Our plan only shows 100-year flood elevations for Hart Lake. Please address the manner in which other water resource management high water levels will be obtained within the RCWD. Below is the hydrologic data for Silver Lake, which was included in the RCWD's District-wide model. Please add this data to Table 4-2 and include a note as to its origin. NWL 100-Year 100-Year Peak 100-Year Critical Event Flood Level Discharge Detention Volume 930.99 933.8 16 cfs 210 ac-ft 10-day, 100-year runoff Policy 3, page 77, addresses provisions for outlets to landlocked basins. Please augment this section with a statement that specifies that placing outlets on previously landlocked basins will not create significant impacts on downstream water levels and flow rates, and no wetlands are dewatered as a result of outlet installation. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT Does the City plan to adopt the DNR's shoreland management ordinance? Please address this topic in the plan. APPENDICES · Please include the RCWD's full permit application, brochure materials, infiltration checklist, and design guidelines in the plan's appendix. The RCWD appreciates the City's efforts to bring the City of Columbia Heights' (Draft Comprehensive Plan) Surface Water Management Plan into full conformance with District standards. Please contact Kate Drewry (651) 7664193 or me at (763) 595-5261 with any questions. Sincerely, MONTGOMERY WATSON Derek S. Knapp, P.E. Kate Drewry, RCWD Helen Boyer, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services What: Where: Who: City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing The Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review the updated City Comprehensive Plan which is a document that contains goals and policies used by City officials to guide decision-making Tuesday, May 9, 2000, at 7:00 PM The public hearing will be preceded by an open house which will begin at 6:30 PM City Council Chambers of City Hall at 590 40th Avenue NE All persons having an interest will be given the opportunity to be heard