Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 2, 2000CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 58,0.21-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES May 2, 2000 MEMBERS Tom Ramsdell, Chair Kevin Hanson Ted Yehle Stephan Johnson Daniel Shattuck The May 2, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ramsdell at 7:00 p.m. Members present were Johnson, Shattuck, Yehle and Ramsdell. Commissioner Hanson was not present. Also present were Joe Hollman (City Planner), Kathryn Pepin (Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission), Ken Anderson (Community Development Director), and Jim Hoeft (City Attorney). MOTION by Yehle, seconded by Shattuck, to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 4, 2000 as presented in writing. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearing Variance Case//2000-0510 Matthew Heath 4252 Washington St. N.E. Columbia Heights, Mn. Mr. Hollman presented the request of Mr. Heath for a 17 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 528 square foot garage set three (3) feet from the rear property line at 4252 Washington Street N.E. 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. He informed the Commission that the surrounding property in all four directions is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential, and is used residentially. Mr. Hollman stated that accessory structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance with requirements 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. THE CiTY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION Of SERVICES EQUAL OPPOrtUNITY EMPloYer PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 Page 2 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. The vehicle entry door will be three (3) feet from the rear lot line, therefore, a variance is necessary. Accessory structures shall be a minimum of three (3) feet from the side lot lines as approved by the Building Official. The proposed location of the garage is four (4) feet from the north side lot line and 12 feet from the south side lot line. Mr. Hollman stated that 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. He noted 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." Mr. Hollman reminded the Commission that, in order for a variance to be granted, hardship needs to be established. Mr. Hollman added that 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 seven (7) feet at 5055 Madison St. N.E 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 eight (8) feet at 2303 Maiden Lane N.E to allow the construction of a garage with the vehicle entry door 12 feet from the property line. This variance was granted because tree location and topography on the property created a hardship. Mr. Hollman stated that one option 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 Page 3 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. He noted 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. Mr. Hollman read a memo from the City Forester regarding the status of the Linden tree in Mr. Heath's yard. The tree was described as being 12 to 14 inches in diameter and reasonably healthy in an adverse environment due to the dirt pile on the east side of the tree and the lean-to in the west side of the tree. It was the Forestor's opinion that the new garage and removal of the existing structures will disturb the root system and result in possible death of the tree. The Public Works Director stated in his memo that it would be his opinion that the garage should be set back at least five feet from the rear lot line to allow for more room for snow storage off the alley. Chairperson Ramsdell opened the public hearing. Matthew Heath was present to present pictures of the Linden tree to the Commission members. He stated that this was the only tree in the rear yard and provided a lot of shade in the area. The new garaoe would be built away from the tree and the mound of dirt would be used for fill and landscaping. He added that he would have more room in the new garage to park his vehicle where he is unable to do so at this time due to access as maneuvering his Dodge Dakota pick-up with an extended cab is difficult. The new garage will still require him to maneuver in and out but not as much as now. Commissioner Ramsdell felt the new garage would be an improvement but would rather see it built at the twenty foot setback distance especially if the tree may not survive anyway. He cautioned Mr. Heath that there must not be any parking of vehicles at the front of the garage due to its close proximity to the alley. Commissioner Shattuck felt the property would have more resale value with the garage set twenty feet back rather than right on the alley. He added that new trees could then replace the one removed. Commissioner Johnson stated that from a real estate standpoint, a mature tree providing shade is worth a lot to some people. Chairperson Ramsdell closed the public hearing. Motion by Yehle, seconded by Shattuck, to recommend to the City Council the approval of the 17 foot setback variance at 4252 Washington Street N.E. due to the hardship of tree location on the property. Voice Vote: All Ayes Motion carried. **THIS ITEM TO APPEAR ON THE MAY 8, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 Page 4 Public Hearing Two Variances Case #2000-0511 Richard Kinnan 819 N.E. 49t" Ave. Columbia Heights, Mn. Mr. Hollman presented the request of Richard Kinnan for a 824 square foot variance to allow the construction of a two-level 18' x 24' addition onto the existing detached garage at 819- 49t" Avenue N.E. 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 case also includes a request for a three (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 three (3) foot variance. Mr. Hollman further informed the Commission that, 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. Mr. Hollman added that the surrounding property to the north, east and west is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, and is used residentially. The property to the south across 49"' Avenue is in the City of Hilltop and is used by Independent School District # 13 for Valley View Elementary and Central Middle School. Mr. Hollman stated that 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 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. In addition, 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 Page 5 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 0arage is roughly 95 feet from the front lot line which meets this requirement. Accessory structures shall be a minimum of three (3) feet inside the side and rear lot lines as approved by the Building Official. The existing detached garage and proposed addition is three (3) feet from the side lot line and the addition will be five (5) feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Hollman reminded the Commission that 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. He further explained that, as indicated on the plan labeled East View, the topography of the property drops from approximately 100 feet in elevation at the front of the existing garage to roughly 92.5 feet at the back of the proposed addition. It was Mr. Hollman's thought that this change in elevation would appear 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. He noted 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. He further noted 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. He noted 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Hollman again stated that a 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 percentaoe of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, and the density and distribution of population; · 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. Mr. Hollman stated that 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 (21' 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. Commissioner Yehle clarified that the roof line of the addition would be constant with the existing roof with the grade difference being the reason for constructing a two story building. Chairperson Ramsdell felt that the current Zoning Ordinance and the hardship criteria does not cover "space". He stated that the owner was trying to comply with the requirement of storing all items inside a building. It was his PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 Page 7 opinion that Mr. Kinnan is a long-time resident of the city and is only trying to improve his property. Chairperson Ramsdell opened the public hearing. Richard Kinnan was present and stated that he was attempting to comply with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance with providing inside storage as he does not like to leave things outside as they may "walk off". He added that he will reside the whole building and cover the block area of the existing garage as he does not like looking at it. He stated that he has talked to the neighbors in the immediate area about his proposal and no one had an objection. Commissioner Yehle asked Mr. Kinnan if he had ever received any complaints about the number of cars in his driveway. Mr. Yehle was at the property and viewed at least four vehicles in the driveway. Mr. Kinnan stated that they were "college cars" belonging to his children that were college students. He added that he has never had any complaints. Commissioner Shattuck felt that the larger accessory structure would not be a problem as Mr. Kinnan's lot is an 80 foot lot and the percentage of lot coverage stated in the Zoning Ordinance will not be exceeded. It was his opinion that if the lot was a smaller lot, he wouldn't be in favor of granting a variance. He further stated that he found a number of very large garage structures in driving around the city other than the those addressed in Mr. Hollman's report. City Council Representative Szurek was present and informed the Commissioners that the Accessory Structure section of the Zoning Ordinance was recently rewritten and adopted in 1996. She added that the members worked long and hard to come up with something that would work for all areas and lot sizes of the city so that people would not be filling up their yards with accessory structures and eliminating green space. Chairperson Ramsdell closed the public hearing as no one was present to address this case. Mntion by Ramsdell, seconded by Shattuck, to recommend to the City Council the approval of the three (3) foot height variance and the 824 square foot size variance at 819- 49t" Avenue N.E. due to the topography of the property which creates a hardship and the proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance. Roll Call: Johnson- Aye; Shattuck- Aye;Yehle- No; Ramsdell- Aye. Motion carried. **THIS ITEM TO APPEAR ON THE MAY 8, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. STAFF REPORTS: Mr. Hollman informed the Commission that he has sent a letter to Keith Jans of Real Estate Equities Development Company regarding their request for approval for a Planned Unit Development, rezoning, replat and variances to construct a 50 unit assisted living senior building and 22 units of affordable rental townhomes. The letter indicated PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 Page 8 that the City Council would not act on the request until the City receives a satisfactory statement of consent to the application of approval from an authorized representative of the property at 825 N.E. 41`t Avenue. The better was to serve as written notice to extend the §0 day time limit for the City to make a decision on the proposed development project until July 17, 2000. Chairperson Ramsdell took the opportunity to inform the Commission members that Joe Hollman was leaving the employ of the City to work in the public sector and that this was his last meeting. On behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission he extended his thanks to Joe Hollman for all the fine work he has done and wished him well. Motion by Yehle, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Voice Vote: All ayes. Motion carried. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40'tH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 ~'~'~SE NOTE: CITY HALL PHONE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED. NUMBERS ARE: MAIN NUMBER (763)706-3600; TDD (7'63)706-3691 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MINUTES May 9, 2000 MEMBERS Tom Ramsdelt,Chair Kevin Hanson Ted Yehte Stephan Johnson Daniel Shattuck The May 9, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ramsdell at 7:10 p.m. Members present were Hanson, Johnson, Yehle, Shattuck and Ramsdell. Also present were Marlaine Szurek (City Council Liaison), Kenneth R. Anderson (Community Development Director and Acting City Planner), and Kim Lee (SRF Consulting Group, Inc.). NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Review of Draft Comprehensive Plan, May 2000. Chairperson Ramsdell opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chairperson Ramsdell introduced Kenneth R. Anderson, Community Development Director, to provide introductory comments regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan for the City of Columbia Heights. Mr. Anderson welcomed the citizens and commissioners in attendance. He explained the Comprehensive Plan is an important long-term planning document for the City of Columbia Heights which sets a baseline for development and redevelopment, and serves as a guide document for decision makers for the next 20 years thru the year 2020. He noted the Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies, and implementation strategies for each of the various plan elements. Anderson further recited the public participation process undertaken over the last couple years preceding this public hearing. He noted that on May 1 and 2 of 1998 the public process began when the Minnesota Design Team visited Columbia Heights. That meeting was followed up on June 10, 1998 with a meeting held by the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) which was established by the City Council to help guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan and provide citizen input. On July 29, 1998, a public meeting was held with the Columbia Heights Business Community. On July 30, 1998, a public meeting was held for the general public to solicit their input and comments. On August 5, 1998, a joint meeting of all the advisory commissions to the City Council was held to solicit their input in their various areas of responsibility. On September 10, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee met again to discuss the results of the Public Meetings previously held. On March 23, 1999, the Planning Advisory Committee met to review and discuss the draft plan that had been prepared by staff and the City's planning consultant, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Mr. Anderson also noted that early in 1999 a second long-term planning process was initiated to develop a Master Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Columbia Heights. This plan was focused primarily on the Central Business District and area along both sides of 40th Avenue from Central THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MINUTES MAY 9, 2000 Page 2 Avenue extending to City Hall. The Master Redevelopment Plan for the downtown area should coincide with the goals and policies and implementation strategies identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan. Finally, he explained that on January 14, 2000, the Comprehensive Plan was circulated to adjacent jurisdictions and effected School Districts for the required sixty-day review and comment period. He also noted that the draft plan was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. The Rice Creek Watershed District submitted written comments which have been attached to the packet distributed to the Planning and Zoning Commission members. The Public Hearing for this meeting was published in the Columbia Heights Focus news on April 27 and notice was also provided on the local government access cable channel to inform the public of this meeting. Mr. Anderson indicated that a recommended motion and draft of Resolution 2000-43 was provided for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners after receiving public comment during the Public Heating. Kim Lee, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., started her public presentation describing various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1995 which requires local governments to update their plans to insure: 1) conformity with Metropolitan system plans; 2) consistency with regional plans; and 3) compatibility with other jurisdiction plans. Ms. Lee's presentation was structured around several transparencies discussing each of the Comprehensive Plan elements including introduction, community development, community image, land use, housing, surface water management, historic preservation, energy conservation, transportation, aviation and airports, water supply and waste water, parks and open space, economic development, intergovernmental cooperation, and implementation. The presentation transparencies are attached hereto and made a part of the minutes of this May 9, 2000, special meeting. During the presentation as part of the land use plan element, Dave Toms, 4445 Van Buren Street NE., questioned the land use proposed between 40th and 41st and adjacent to Van Buren Street NE. He suggested that this area be designated for mixed-uses as part of a mixed-use, transitional land use designation versus a medium density residential designation. Diane Toms, 4445 Van Buren Street and member of the Planning Advisory Committee, suggested that the existing single family homes in this area could be utilized as commercial enterprises for small retail shops or professional offices, etc. Much discussion followed. The consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners was to direct the staff and consultant to change the designation between 40th and 41st and adjacent to Van Buren Street NE. as a transitional development area which would allow a mixed-use development focused on pedestrian oriented commercial uses mixed with medium density residential. Another plan element receiving some discussion was the Surface Water Management Plan. It was noted that second generation standards needed to be incorporated and written comments were provided by the Rice Creek Watershed District. It was agreed that the consultant, Community Development Staff, City Engineer and two watershed districts would incorporate appropriate language into the Surface Water Management Plan to insure compliance with second generation standards and Metropolitan Council requirements. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MINUTES MAY 9, 2000 Page 3 Julienne Wyckoff, City Councilmember, noted that for historic preservation the Library Director had already initiated the process to establish a Heritage Preservation Commission. Staff will review the historic preservation language to reflect that this process is currently underway. Ms. Lee discussed the changes in the functional classifications identified in the transportation plan element. She explained that there were few projected changes in roadway intersection improvements because the intersection operations met Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. A graphic board that was provided as part of the open house which preceded the meeting showed the areas for proposed changes to the functional classifications. Also included was a board indicating the traffic volumes based on 1997 existing traffic volumes and 2020 forecast daily traffic volumes. Discussion followed on the potential impact on traffic and the transportation system with the construction of the new Medtronic World Headquarters in the vicinity ofi-694 and trunk Hwy 65 (Central Avenue). Mr. Anderson discussed the Joint Community Task Force which was being established with representatives of the Cities of Fridley and Columbia Heights and the effected school districts to study the impacts and opportunities created by this substantial economic development project. He further explained that one of the outcomes of this joint effort would be to identify potential sites for development of support associated services including hotel, conference, and entertainment facilities. As part of the Aviation Airports Elements Plan, Julienne Wyckoff questioned how Columbia Heights would be impacted by proposed changes at airports. Ms. Lee replied that the City of Columbia Heights is not affected by airport development and that it is not within the airport impact zone. However, it is necessary for any structures which exceed 200 feet in height to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In Water Supply and Waste Water, Councilmember Julienne Wyckoff noted that a former employee and current Councilmember stated that there may be some operational septic systems in the area of Stinson Blvd. However, only one property was identified on page 110 of the draft Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that perhaps those systems were not properly abandoned. The Community Development Director stated he would contact Councilmember Don Jolly and Public Works Director Kevin Hansen regarding possible septic systems in this area and elsewhere in the City that may not be properly abandoned. Ms. Lee also noted as part of her presentation that the Cities Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would be included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Wyckoff asked how the Comprehensive Plan would impact the property at 4101 Central Avenue which is currently being acquired through eminent domain by the City of Columbia Heights. It was noted the Comprehensive Plan currently shows the area for commercial use in the future land use plan. Ms. Lee pointed out that the law requires a consistency requirement in which the City's CIP, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance must have consistent standards and requirements. In cases were they are not consistent, it was noted that the information in the Comprehensive Plan would be controlling. Commissioner Hanson noted that there would be a significant impact on Columbia Heights and Fridley as far as changes in the next one to two years as a result of the Medtronic World PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MINUTES MAY 9, 2000 Page 4 Corporate Headquarters Project. He explained that the construction value was up to $20 million in construction activity per month for those buildings alone. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances were being drafted to try and reflect anticipated future development. However, the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance could be amended in the future to reflect necessary changes as a result of the Medtronic Development or other projects in the future. Mr. Hanson discussed his opinion that a "Point of Sale Ordinance" would be important for the City Council to consider as it was his opinion that it would increase housing values in the community. He also explained that as part of a housing inspection process, the City should consider licensing housing inspectors to insure that they are qualified to conduct housing inspections as part of a "Point of Sale Ordinance" requirement. Pro Source has schools to train individuals as housing inspectors. From a real estate perspective, it was Hansen's opinion that a "Point of Sale" requirement is really a redundant and triplicate, overkill in that it was already necessary to have title insurance, appraisals, and VA and FHA inspections as part of the home financing process. It was also his opinion that there were currently no standards for housing inspectors and that the cities which have "Point of Sale" inspections operate better if city inspectors do the work. Chairperson Ramsdell closed the Public Hearing at 8:24 p.m. MOTION by Ramsdell to recommend that the Columbia Heights City Council adopt Resolution 2000-43, being a Resolution adopting the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan, subject to final review and approval by the Metropolitan Council and subject to incorporating the changes discussed at this public hearing. Seconded by Yehle. Voice Vote: All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Yehle, seconded by Hanson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Voice Vote: All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth R. Anderson Community Development Director Attachment: Six Page Consultant Presentation Transparencies. G:\Shared~Joe's Files\P&Z5-9-2000 /~... 5