The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOctober 5, 2004CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Our Website at: www. ci. columbia-heights, mn.us Gary Peterson, Chair Donna Schmitt Phillip Baker Marlaine Szurek Rob Fiorendino PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 40~ AVENUE NE 1. Roll Call 2. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2004 3. Public Hearings: Case #2004-1001 · Lot Split Steve Johnson and Anthony Palatino, Applicants 1600 41st Avenue NE/4045 Tyler Street NE Case #2004-1002 · Appeal Joseph Embury, Applicant 640 40th Avenue NE 4. New Business: NONE 5. Miscellaneous: NONE 6. Adjourn 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 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by the Chair person Gary Peterson. Roll Call: Commission Members present-Peterson, Schmitt, Baker, Szurek and Fiorendino. Also present were Ellen Berkelhamer (City Planner), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), and Tami Ericson (Council Liaison). Motion by Szurek, seconded by Fiorendino, to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 4, 2004. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2004-0901 LOT SPLIT Gladys Wychor 1813 40th Avenue NEJ4041 Hayes Street NE Introduction Gladys Wychor, the owner of the property at 1813 40u~ Avenue NE, has made an application for a lot split to reconfigure the property line separating her property and an adjacent property at 4041 Hayes Street NE. Ms. Wychor proposes to sell the rear portion of her lot (6,595 sq. ff. of land) to Mark Carlson, the owner of 4041 Hayes St. NE, to create an increased rear lot for his property. Mr. Carlson has also signed off on the lot split application. Section 9.410 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which shall then provide a report to the City Council either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development. The proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance Both of the properties involved in the lot split are zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential. The lot at 1813 40~h Avenue NE is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE is surrounded on the north, east, and south by properties zoned R-2. The west side of Hayes St. is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Applicable requirements are as follows: · Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 sq. ft. for a single family home. Currently, the lot at 1813 40th Av. NE contains 34,022 sq. ft. and the lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE contains 6,600 sq. ft. After the proposed lot split, 1813 40~h Av. NE would contain 27,427 sq. ft. and 4041 Hayes St. NE would contain 13,195 sq. ft. · Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. The lot widths of the both properties remain unchanged as a result of the lot split. 1813 40th Av. NE has a lot width of 80 ft. and 4041 Hayes St. NE has a lot width of 60 ft. · Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 5 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the setbacks of existing structures on both properties will continue to meet these requirements. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements. · Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent: Currently, the lot at 1813 40th Av. NE has a lot coverage of 21 percent and the lot at 4041 Hayes St. NE has a lot coverage of 6 percent. After the proposed lot split, 1813 40th Av. NE would have a lot coverage of 8 percent and 4041 Hayes St. NE would have a lot coverage of 10 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will create two reconfigured lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements. 3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. 4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public right-of-way. 5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the property. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land. 7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in accordance with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met. 8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Staff finds that the proposed lot split is. consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below. Mrs. Wychor was not present, but her Realtor, Mickey Rooney was present to answer questions. Baker asked what the additional lot would be uSed for? Planner Berkelhamer stated that it will make his backyard area larger. He is limited to what he could do with the lot: The owner could build an accessory structure on it, if all accessory structures do not exceed 1,000 sf. The lot is landlocked at the present time, so without access it is unbuildable. Pat Wieczorek of 4047 Hayes St objects to the lot split. She believes the owner wants to purchase the property for roadway purposes to create a cul de sac to open up lots for building. Planner Berkelhamer reminded the Commission that we can only address whether the proposed lot split meets requirements of the code. If other proposals are submitted in the future for consideration it would require a Public Hearing, with neighbors being notified, which would be the time to address those issues. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Szurek, to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. All aj/es. MOTION PASSED. This will go before the City Council at the meeting of September 27, 2004. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- SUBD.IVISION REQU ES~'-' CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 I, Gladys Wychor, hereby request a split of .. PIN 36-30-24-42-0112 Legally described as: That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2"d Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the noah 180.00 feet thereof. Together with: The easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2"d Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the noah 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PIN 36-30-24-42-0014 Legally described as: The south 60.00 feet front and rear of the noah 240.00 feet, front and rear of Lot 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE: PIN 36-30-24-42-0112 Legally described as: That part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2"d Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the noah 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines thereof. Together with: The easterly 10.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the noah 210.00 feet thereof. Also together with: The west 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2"~ Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PIN 36-30-24-42-0014 Legally described as: The south 60.00 feet of the north 240.00 feet, as measured along the east and west lines of Lot 4 and 5, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 SEPT. 8, 2O04 Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day, against the above described property, are paid. Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day. Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION: This day of ,2004 Offered by: Fiorendino Seconded by: Szurek Roll Call: All ayes. Zoning Officer Signature of Owner, Notarized Owner's Address Telephone No. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of ,2004 COUNCIL ACTION: Notary Public CITY This ~ day of Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: ,2004. Secretary to the Council JulienneWyckoff, Mayor PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 CASE NUMBER: LOT SPLIT Laurie Karnes 1226 43rd Avenue 2004-0902 Introduction Laurie Karnes of LEK Holding Company, the owner of the property at 1226 434 Avenue NE, has made an application for a lot split of the one parcel at 1226 43'~ Avenue NE into one single family lot and two twinhome lots. Ms. Karnes proposes that the existing structure will remain on the single family lot and that she will sell the two twinhome lots to a builder. Section 9.410 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which shall then provide a report to the City Council either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development. The proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance The property involved in the lot split is zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential. The parcel is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Section 9.904 regulates standards for "zero lot line" (twinhome) setbacks. Applicable requirements are as follows: For the proposed sinqle-family lot: · Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 sq. ft. for a single family home. One lot will be created to contain the existing single family home on the site. This is referred to as Lot A on the certificate of survey. The total parcel area is currently 18,850 sq. ft. After the proposed lot split, Lot A will be 8, 700 sq. ft. · Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. The total parcel is currently 130 ft. in width. After the proposed lot split, Lot A will be 60 ff. in width. · Yard setbacks shall be aS follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 5 ft.; corner side yard - 10 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the setbacks of the existing structure on the proposed Lot A will meet these requirements. The front yard setback will be 39.5 ft., the side yard setback will be 8.9 ft., and the corner side setback will be 18.5 ft. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements. · Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent. Currently, entire parcel has a lot coverage of 7percent. After the proposed lot split, Lot A would have a lot coverage of 16 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 For the proposed twinhome lots: A twin home is defined as a single-familY'residential dwelling on an individual lot, sharing a common wall with another single-family residential dwelling. This is also known as a "zero lot line" development. Each individual lot has a separate PIN number. Combined, the two twinhome lots must contain the minimum required lot area, setbacks and lot coverage for twinhome dwellings in a given zoning district. According to Section 9.904, the yard for a single family attached dwelling may be reduced to zero (0) feet, provided that the following conditions are satisfactorilY met: · The wall of the dwelling unit shall be placed upon said property line in a manner that does not encroach upon another property. · The applicant records all required agreements, easements and deed restrictions against all properties that abut the zero lot line. · The minimum front, side and rear building setbacks shall be applied to the structure as a whole, rather than to individual units. Two lots will be created that will each contain one twinhome. These are shown on the certificate of survey as Lots B and C. As required, Lots B and C taken as a whole will have a minimum front yard setback of 25 ft., a side yard setback of 5 ft., and a rear yard setback of 20% of lot depth. Any detached accessory structures must be a minimum of 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. · The minimum lot area requirement shall be applied by dividing the sum of the area of all parcels occupied by the structure by the total number of dwelling units. The minimum lot area needed for development of twinhome dwellings is 9, 000 sq. ft. and the total lot width must be 60 ft. After a lot split, each individual twinhome lot must have a minimum of 4,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit and 30 ft of lot width. Afterthe proposed lot split, Lots B and C will each have 5,075 sq. ft. and a lot width of 35 ft. The total property may have a maximum lot coverage of 30 percent (or 3,045 sq. ft. based on the combined area of Lots B and C of 10,150 sq. ft.). When reviewing twinhome subdivisions, the Planning and Zoning Commission has historically been provided with sample building elevations and footprints to confirm that twinhome development can occur on the property. These samples are not intended to be building permit plans but rather concepts of what will be developed. Therefore, attached to this report is a photograph of a single-family product built by the intended builder of the twinhomes. This product would be modified as shown in the attached elevation sketch to create two zero lot line twinhomes'for the site. Placement would be approximately as shown on the attached building footprint. Each unit would have 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms on the upper level. The lower level of each unit would contain a two-car garage unit and with the remainder of the level unfinished space. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will three lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 o All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning distdct in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public right-of-way. .. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the property. Records do show that the/~roperty was previously two lots that were combined into one lot in 1998. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in accordance with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff finds that the proposed lot split is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below. Fiorendino questioned the percentage of lot coverage on the new lots. He said the drawing that was presented as an example of what could be built there indicates approximately 3,000 sf on each lot. The maximum allowed would be 3,045 sf of structure, therefore if built per the drawing, would be close to the maximum allowed. With that large of a structure, he is concerned with drainage issues from run off. He also questioned the soil conditions and who's responsibility it is to determine whether these are really buildable lots. The City Planner explained that it's the builder's responsibility to submit the necessary information showing how the construction would meet the building code when applying for the building permit, and any expense to correct the soils would also be the builder's/owner's of the property. There was a discussion regarding the soils in that area. Soil tests that were done in the 1970's indicated bad soil at least 70 feet deep in various spots, and properties in the area have had numerous problems. Laurie Kames, the new owner requesting the lot split for development, stated she didn't know the property had bad soil. She stated she had made several phone calls inquiring about such, but didn't get any indications from anyone she spoke to that this was a bad site. Bob O'Donnell of 1232 434 Avenue said he has mowed the vacant parcels over the years and has been witness to debris that surfaces occasionally, especially after a rainfall when pools of water form. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Don Hinrichs of 1225 43"~ Avenue said he'bought his home in 1978 which at that time had a fireplace. He said the fireplace literally fell off the house. He also verified that he has shingles coming up in his yard periodically. Dave Ryan of 1215 43~ Ave said the vacant lots are used by the kids in the area for a play area. He said he's seen actual bundles of shingles with the ties still on them surface in his yard. He was told the area was a swamp at one time that was later used as a dump. He said he's aware of bodngs that have been done and that they hit water between 3 and 4 feet down. Dave Behun of 1209 43rd Avenue grew up in that neighboi:'hood. He said several parties have been interested in those lots throughout the years until they discover the bad soils at least 60 feet down. He questioned the split entry design shown at the meeting, the size of the structure and the placement of the structure as compared to the other homes in the area. He was concemed about the structure being able to meet the setbacks. Planner Berkelhamer explained the Zoning Ordinance addresses this issue, as well as the square footage requirements and lot coverage. There is a formula used that requires structures to have a front yard setback in keeping with the average setback on a block face so as not to allow a large discrepancy between properties. They may have to re-design the homes pending the soil reports to meet the various requirements. Mike Reichenberger of 1208 43~ Avenue stated an old roofer used to dump his left over materials there. He also felt a twin home of the size proposed would be out of place in the neighborhood. He thought a single family home may be acceptable, but not a twin home. Mary Ryan of 1215 43~ Avenue said the proposed design will stick out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood. Why do they have to cram so much onto the vacant lot? They will move out of the area if this is built there. Commission member Szurek stated she had concerns about run off if this site was built on. She said the water ponds there now, and if a large structure such as the one proposed is constructed, it would create more problems for the other homes in the area. She also didn't think the proposed design as shown would fit with the rest of the neighborhood. She doesn't believe this large of a structure is appropriate. Szurek stated although it is financially advantageous for Ms. Karnes to build a twin home versus a single family home, she doesn't feel it's in the best interest of the community. Peterson and Ericson reminded the members they can only make a recommendation about the lot split request. The issues of the soil conditions or any other building issues are not being considered at this time. Peterson said the owner will have one year to file the lot split With Anoka County. He would recommend the owner getting soil tests done and an estimate of what it will add to the cost of building any structures on this property before she proceeds any further. While he appreciates the fact that she's trying to build something that will most likely be owner occupied, it may not be cost effective to do so. He also went on to say he hoped the builder and owner will design something that fits with the rest of the neighborhood. Anne Raymer of 1214 43~ Avenue objects to the lot split on many levels. She owns the property right next door. She is worried about the proposed structure only 5 feet from her property line and is concerned with water runoff. She thinks it is jamming too many people, too much structure, in too little space. Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing. .' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Baker, to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The applicant shall pay parkland dedication fees in the amount of $2,195 per lot for each of the two lots newly created lots. This fee is payable at the time of building permit. Should soil conditions on the property warrant, information as to how soil conditions will be corrected shall be submitted to the Building Official along with the building permit application. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. Ayes-Fiorendino, Baker, Schmitt, Peterson Nay-Szurek MOTION PASSED. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- SUBDIVISION REQUEST CITY Of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 I, Laurie Karnes of LEK Holding Company, hereby request a split of PIN 36 30 24 24 0153 Legally described as: The wesi 60.00 feet of the North 150.00 feet of Lot 6, and the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, lying north of the south 165.00 feet; All in Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE: The west 60.00 feet of the north 150.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. The east 35.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. The west 35.00 feet of the east 70.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Reservoir Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 165.00 feet of said Lot 7. Subject to easements of record. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day, against the above described property, are paid. Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day. Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION: Signature of Owner, Notarized This ~ day of ,2004 Owner's Address Offered by: Schmitt Telephone No. Seconded by: Baker Roll Call: Ayes- Fiorendino, Baker, Schmitt, Peterson Nay- Szurek Zoning Officer SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of ,2004 COUNCIL ACTION: Notary Public CITY This __ day of Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: ,2004. Secretary to the Council JulienneWyckoff, Mayor PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 CASE NUMBER: 2004-0903 APPEAL OF DECISION NOT TO ISSUE RENTAL LICENSE Greg Lonsky 4232 Madison St. Introduction Greg Lonsky, representing the property owners of 4232 Madison St., has made an application for an appeal of a decision by the Fire Department and Zoning Administrator not to issue a rental license for the subject property. Section 9.402 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council has designated the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, responsible for making decisions on all applications for an appeal of any administrative order, requirement, determination or final decision made by the Zoning Administrator or other official in the administration of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission must hold a public headng on the appeal in accordance with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance and after the close of the hearing, render its findings. The decision is then final. Planning Considerations The subject property is located in the R2 One and Two Family Residential District. This District allows for single family and duplex units, if properties meet the minimum required lot, area, and bulk requirements. As described in the attached letter, the owner of the property at 4232 Madison Street, Helen Penicnak, has used her property as a legal, licensed duplex rental unit for over 30 years. In July of 2003, Ms. Penicnak did not renew her rental license because she did not have a tenant. When this property was initially used as duplex, such use was allowed as a legal use on the property. From the time the Fire Department began licensing rental units and keeping records on the same, this property received yearly licenses. Under the most current Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2001, however, the property at 4232 Madison Street was made legally nonconforming with respect to duplex use, as it no longer contains the minimum required lot area. The Ordinance currently requires lots in the R2 zoning district to have 8,400 sq. ft. of area for use as a duplex. Ms. Penicnak's property contains only 5,166 sq. ft. Had Ms. Penicnak renewed her license in July 2003, she would have been able to continue using her property for duplex use. The Zoning Ordinance states that legally nonconforming uses have the right to continue, unless certain circumstances occur. The circumstance that applies in this case is that the nonconforming use was discontinued for approximately one year. Section 9.502 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a non-conforming use that has been discontinued for a period of six months shall not be re-established. Because of the technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, City Staff is unable to approve the request for the rental license. However, Staff and the City Attorney have consulted on this matter and find it to be a unique case for the following reasons: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 · The property has been legally used as a duplex for over 30 years. · The property has been used as rental units as far back as City records exist. · The two units in the duplex are completely separate; there is no connection between the first and second floors, meaning the building is not suitable for single-family use. · The property owner was over 90 years old when she made the decision not to renew her rental license and it is Staff's understanding from speaking with relatives that she did not understand the consequences of this action. Even though the property has not been used as a rental unit for more than 6 months, because of the unique circumstances of this specific case, Staff and the City Attorney do not object to the Planning Commission making the determination that the property may continue to be used for duplex use. The Planning Commission must consider whether to grant an appeal of the decision not to issue a rental license. A Petition/Letter was received from residents in the neighborhood and passed out at the beginning of the meeting. (A copy of which is attached to these minutes). Baker asked if the property had any code violations. Asst. Fire Chief Gorman stated that it did not, and there has not been any problems in the rental unit of this property. He further explained to the members that she has had a rental license since 1999, when it was discovered the property was a duplex and the upper unit was being rented out. He confirmed that the house was built as a duplex and has been used as such throughout the years. The rental licenses are supposed to be renewed annually. · Fiorendino asked if it could be turned into a twin home. It was explained that it must be a side by side to be a twin home and this property is a duplex.' And the lot is not large enough for a twin home to be constructed on it. Schmitt asked if the Commission allows it to be used as a duplex again, could it be sold as such, and be allowed to be used as a duplex by a new owner. The answer was yes. Greg Lonsky, Mrs. Penicnak's nephew, explained to the commission that her aunt purchased the property in 1968 and has used it as rental property since that time. She began licensing it when she found out she was required to do so. When she lost her long time renter, she didn't renew the license, not understanding what the consequences would be. He said this property is her nest egg and she is now in an Assisted Living Facility and needs the money for her expenses. It would sell for less if it is sold as a single family home as it would cost something to convert it to a single family home. John Penicnak, son of the owner, addressed the commission. He confirmed that the family wants to sell the property as a duplex to get the most out of their investment as they can to provide for his mother's needs since she is in her 90's and requires more care now. The Public Hearing was opened. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Jerry Szurek of 4233 Madison St has. lived in the neighborhood for 25 years. He's related to Helen Penicnak and lives across the street from this property. He feels bad about expressing his opposition to granting the appeal for a rental license, but he feels there's enough rental in the area already. He understands her situation and what they are trying to do to optimize her equity. However, he knows how unkept rental property can be and the problems it brings to a neighborhood. He is the spokesman for the people in the area who are opposed to returning it to duplex status. John Penicnak stated there is no guarantee that if it iS sold as a single family home that it won't be rented out. There is no guarantee the new owners or new renters would be desirable. He said the values in the neighborhood has risen and continue to rise even though this has been a duplex for many years. Therefore, he doesn't feel that allowing this property to be used as a duplex will have a negative affect on the area. Bob Streetar, Community Development Director said another option might be to contact Greater Metropolitan Housing Corp. and see if they are interested in purchasing the house for renovation or to possibly rebuild a new single family home on the site. He said he would check into that possibility and contact the present owners to see if something could be worked out. The Public Hearing was closed. Fiorendino asked what legal grounds the Commission had to go against the Ordinance in place. Planner Berkelhamer explained that the Zoning Ordinance gives the Planning Commission power to overturn these type of rules if they see a reason to. The Commission members also expressed concern about allowing the rental license to be re-instated, as it is the City's intent to encourage more owner occupied housing. Peterson stated he felt the request should be denied and to direct staff to contact GMHC to see if a satisfactory solution can be found for all parties concerned. Motion by Szurek, seconded by Schmitt, to deny the request to appeal the decision not to issue a rental license for the property at 4232 Madison Street and to direct City Staff to contact GMHC to see if funding could be found for either renovating the home into a single family residence or to re-develop the property with a new single family home. Ayes-Fiorendino, Szurek, Schmitt, Peterson. Nay-Baker. MO T/ON PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 CASE NUMBER: 2004-0904 SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT APPROVAL ALDI's Inc. 4707 Central Avenue (Arby's Site) Introduction An application has been made by ALDI's Inc., the contract purchaser of the subject property, for Site Plan approval and Preliminary/Final Plat approval for a proposed ALDI's grocery store. Nedegaard Construction is the owner of the property and has signed off on the application. Two actions Will be taken by the Planning Commission, as follows: A. Motion recommending City Council action on the Preliminary/Final Plat B. Motion on approval of the Site Plan The Preliminary/Final Plat resubdivides "Outlot C" that was created as part of the Grand Central Lofts subdivision for future commercial use. Outlot C is being resubdivided into Lot 1 and Outlot A. Lot 1 will be used by the ALDI's store. Outlot A, a 20 ft. strip along the north property line, will be sold by Nedegaard Construction to the adjacent property owner. The preliminary and final plat review has been combined into one action because the minor nature of the plat. Planning Considerations Comprehensive Plan 1) The Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is Transit Oriented Development. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan states that these areas "will focus on the commuting needs of Columbia Heights residents. As a result, a higher percentage of service-oriented commercial/retail development will be necessary with high-density residential development providing the balance of the development. Mixed-Use pedestrian-oriented development near transit nodes will provide opportunities for high-density residential and neighborhood commercial development. Redevelopment of these areas will also provide the opportunity for pedestrian linkages to other parts of the community and improvement of the overall non-motorized circulation system within the community that will help improve the image of Columbia Heights." 2) The proposed ALDI's grocery store complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation: · The development is located along an existing transit route; · It is a continuation of new development in the area begun by the Kmart Redevelopment. New residents in the Grand Central Lofts project, plus existing neighborhood residents, will be able to walk or commute to the grocery store. · Sidewalk connections are provided from the grocery store to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Zoning Ordinance 3) 4) The zoning classification for the property is Mixed-Use District. The purpose of the Mixed-Use District is to promote redevelopment that facilitates linkages and interaction of transit services, housing and neighborhood services. The focus of land use within this distdct is to ensure a pedestrian friendly environment and pedestrian connections to and from residential development and transit facilities. There is no minimum lot size for redevelopment in this zoning district. The proposed ALDI's redevelopment complies with Zoning designation. The size of the subject property is approximately 2.2 acres. The proposed grocery store building is approximately 15,894 sq. ft. 5) The proposed plat is divided into one lot and one outlot. Lot 1 will contain the ALDI's facility. Outlot A will be sold by the property owner to the adjacent property owner. Circulation, Access, Parking and Sidewalks 6) 7) 8) 9) Circulation through the site is provided through one vehicular access off of Central Avenue. The existing Arby's site is served by a full access at Central Avenue that also served the Kmart site. As part of a master plan that City Staff has worked on with MnDOT, as properties along Central Avenue redevelop, access points will be consolidated to provide for more safe ingress and egress to commercial properties. In accordance with discussions with MnDOT, the existing full access will be closed and a new right in/right out access will be created at the north end of Lot 1. The existing median that serves the full access will also be closed and the striping of the adjacent left turn lanes extended as necessary. ALDI's will be responsible for and will pay for the closure of the existing curb cut, creation of the new curb cut, closure of the median, and left lane striping. A Development Contract will be entered into by the City and ALDI's guaranteeing the completion of these actions. ALDI's has reserved an easement for future roadway connection at the northeast comer of Lot 1. As other properties along Central Avenue redevelop, ALDI's will be able to connect through a backage road to a new full access that is planned to be created to serve the remainder of the commercial properties on the east side of Central Avenue, in accordance with discussions between City Staff and MnDOT. The parking requirement for commercial buildings of this size is 48 stalls with dimensions of 9 ft. x 20 ft. ALDI's is providing 83 stalls plus 4 handicap accessible stalls, for a total of 87 parking spaces. The typical size of the standard parking stalls will be 10 ft. x 20 ft. The performance standards for the Mixed-Use District require sensitivity to adjacent usable open space and include pedestrian/bicycle connections to enhance existing circulation patterns. The development will provide approximately 1.6 acres of impervious surface and 0.60 acres of greenspace, including landscaped islands in the parking lot and landscaping around the building and along Central Avenue. A sidewalk along 47th Avenue will connect to a Central Avenue walkway. Additionally, the 47~h Avenue sidewalk will provide a direct, handicap accessible connection tothe ALDI's main entrance. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Szurek asked what the drop in elevation would be between the Housing Development and the AIdi's Store. She was told the drop in elevatiOn would be approximately 12 feet and retaining walls will be designed and constructed to address this. Transit 10) The transit stop servicing northbound traffic currently' stops just north of 47th Avenue, directly in front of Arby's. The transit stop servicing southbound traffic currently stops on the Hilltop side of Central, on the northwest side of 47th and Central. The development includes a sidewalk connection from 47th Avenue to Central Avenue. City Staff will continue to have discussions with Metro Transit about possible site improvements to the Metro Transit stops along the west' side of Central Avenue to enhance transit use from the development. Lot Lines and Setbacks 11) Building setbacks in the zoning district are regulated by the final site plan and development agreement approved by the City Council, based on the following findings: a) the setbacks provide adequate distances from uses in adjacent districts, and b) the setbacks maintain and enhance the character of the neighborhood in which the mixed-use development is located. The setbacks shown on the site plan provide adequate distances to adjacent properties and provide an urban character on the interior of the development appropriate for mixed-use development. The building is setback 20 ft. from the south property line (adjacent to 47"~ Avenue), 30 ft. from the west property line (adjacent to Central Avenue), and 292.2 ft. from the north property line. Approximately 60 ft. of the southeastern portion of the building will be built adjacent to the east property line. This is in the area of the loading dock and will be buffered from the proposed adjacent street serving the Grand Central Lofts by a retaining wall. All required sight lines and sight triangles will be maintained where the building is adjacent to the intersection of 47t~ Avenue and the new public roadway. Parking spaces are setback a minimum of 27.8 ft. from property lines. Baker asked why no setbacks are required on the east side. It was explained that setbacks are not required in a mixed use district. It is decided on a case by case basis, depending on design, rather than a set figure for every structure. Landscape Plan 12) The Developer has submitted a Landscape Plan in accordance with the requirements for site plans in the Zoning Ordinance. The Landscape Plan is well done and consistent both with the Zoning Ordinance and with the Highway District Design Guidelines. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 18 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Signage Plan 13) The Developer has submitted a Signage Plan in accordance with the requirements for signs in the Mixed-Use District. Section 9.1205 of the Zoning Ordinance states that signage shall be allowed in conformance with the approved site plan and development agreement, and reflect the following standards: a) Pylon signs are prohibited; and b) Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as the principal building(s). T.he signage plan meets these requirements. Two wall signs are proposed, one on the north facade above the entry and one on the west fac,,ade above the entry. Each of these signs measures 83 sq. ft. for a total of 166 sq. ft. of wall signage on the building. The monument sign is 9.5 ft. in height and 10.5 ft. in width. The total sign area is less than 100 sq. ft. The monument sign shall be located to the south of the driveway access to the site, shall be two-sided and shall be landscaped at its base. Highway District Design GUidelines The Columbia Heights Design Guidelines were created to guide developers and businesses in the design of expansions, renovations or new construction of buildings or parking within the Central Avenue and 40th Avenue commercial corridors, and to assist City officials and staff in reviewing development proposals. The guidelines are mandatory, but the City may permit alternative approaches that meet the objectives of the design guidelines. The design district that is applied to the ALDI's development is the Highway District. Architectural Guidelines 1) Building Placement Objective: To orient non-residential buildings toward the street in order to improve its walkability, while creating opportunities for more internally-focused residential development. Front facades should be well defined with entrances facing the street. Buildings may be set back a maximum of 85 ft. from the sidewalk in order to allow two rows of parking plus landscape frontage. · The development meets the intent of this objective. The front facade is well defined, although the front of the building is perpendicular to Central Avenue. The front entrance is, however, located immediately adjacent to Central Avenue and is visible and identifiable from Central Avenue. The buildin, g is setback 20 ft. from the south property line (adjacent to 47~h Avenue) and 30 ft. from the west property line (adjacent to Central Avenue), which helps add the urban character of the redevelopment area created by the Grand Central Lofts development. Appropriate landscaping is provided. 2) Pdmary Facades and Roof Treatment Objective: To encourage attached residential and mixed- use buildings that are compatible with the prevailing single-family residential surroundings. Nonresidential buildings may be designed with pitched or flat roofs. The base or ground floor of the building should include elements that relate to the human scale, including texture, projections, doors and windows, awnings, canopies or ornamentation. · The development meets this objective. The building has a flat roof and the entries, windows, canopies and lighting relate to human scale. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 19 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 3) 4) 5) 6) Building Width and Fac,,ade Articulation Objective: To add visual interest and variety to buildings and emphasize the pedestrian scale.' The pdmary fac,,ades of buildings should be 40 ft. or more in width and should be articulated into'smaller increments by following methods listed in the Design Guidelines to lessen apparent bulk. · The building meets this objective. The building facades are predominantly red bdck but are articulated both horizontally and vertically by decorative elements. Horizontally, the facades are divided into smaller increments of about 27 ft. by light colored bdck piers with stone and tile accents and decorative lighting. Vertically, the bUilding is divided by a combinatiOn of awnings and horizontal band of lighter colored brick above the windows, as well as a band of lighter colored brick below the parapet. Building Height Objective: To create increased sense of enclosure, diminish the perceived width of the street, and provide opportunities for upper-story housing, offices or studios. Two and three story buildings are strongly encouraged. All buildings shall have a minimum cornice height of 22 ft. This height is adequate to achieve the building height objective, conveying a multi-story appearance even if the building has only one occupied floor. · The proposed building meets the intent of this objective. The building is one-story with a typical height of 20 ft. Staff finds this meets the intent of the design standards because of the design elements that are included on each fac,,ade of the building (see description in item 3 above). The entrance of the building will have a cornice height of 23 ft. Transparency - Window and Door Openings Objective: To reflect the character of existing storefront commercial buildings, enliven the streetscape and enhance security by providing views into and out of buildings. Where commercial or office uses are found on the ground floor, at least 20 percent of the ground floor fa(;:ade fronting Central Avenue and 15 percent of any two side or rear facades shall consist of window and door openings. The design guidelines note that spandrel glass may be used in up to half of the window and door surfaces on anY building facade. · The proposed building meets the intent of this objective. The length of the Central fac,,ade and the north fa(;ade (the front fac~,ade) are lined with windows. The windows of the front entry way allow for visibility into the store. The remaining windows are spandrel glass because these windows are generally located in front of stock, office and storage areas that for security and aesthetic reasons do not need to be visible from the street. Staff believes spandrel glass in these areas is appropriate. The 47th AvenUe facade also contains two groups of spandrel glass windows that will be visible from the road. Staff directed the applicant to use landscaping along the remainder of this fac,,ade, as elevation changes limit visibility of the fac,,ade in this location. The window shape, size and patterns emphasize the organization of the facade and the definition of the building. Entdes Objective: To establish the visual importance of the pdmary street entrance, and to ensure that entries contribute to the visual attractiveness of the building and are readily visible to the customer. Primary building entrances should face the primary abutting public street or walkway or be linked to that street by a clearly defined and visible walkway. Corner buildings shall use the street with the higher classification as the primary entrance. · The proposed building meets this objective. The front facr~de is located perpendicular to Central Avenue but is visible from this primary street. Additionally, the main entrance is visible and accessible from Central Avenue. The entrance is articulated with a raised roof level and overhang feature, as well as containing vision glass windows. Additionally, the landscaping plan shows landscaped areas in front of the Central Avenue facade. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 20 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Rear Fac, ade and Entdes Objective: To improve the appearance of rear fac,,ades, orient customers parking or walking to the rear of buildings, and provide safe and convenient access to all building entrances. · Each of the fac,,ades of the proposed buildings is designed to the same high standard and meet this requirement. There is no rear entry. The rear (47~h Avenue frontage) of the building includes window treatments, landscaping, and the same architectural and lighting treatments as all other facades. Building Materials Objective: To ensure that high-quality, durable and authentic building materials are used in residential and nonresidential construction. All buildings should be constructed of high-quality materials, including the following: bdck; natural stone; precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that the surfaces are molded, serrated or treated with a textured matedal in order to give the wall surface a three-dimensional character; stucco; jumbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any fac,,ade, provided that it is used only on the lower third of the building wall. EIFS may be used as a pdmary material at a height of at least 3 ft. above grade, limited to a maximum of 60 pement of the fac,,ade when fronting a public street. · The proposed building meets this requirement. The exterior building materials are predominantly face brick, with precast stone sills and accents. Metal flashing will be used on the parapet wall, which is allowed. Aluminum is proposed to be used on the awnings. (See discussion under "Awnings" in item 12 below.) Rooftop Equipment Objective: To ensure that views of rooftop eqUipment from public streets or pedestrian ways are minimized. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent streets, public rights-of-way and adjacent properties. Preferably, rooftop equipment should be screened by the building parapet, or should be located out of view from the ground. · The proposed building meets this objective. Rooftop equipment will be screened from view of the right of way by the building parapet and from view of the adjacent condominium buildings by a screen around the equipment in a material that is compatible with the building materials. Building Colors Objective: To ensure that building colors are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with their surroundings. Building colors should accent, blend with, or complement surroundings. Principal building colors should consist of subtle, neutral or muted colors with Iow reflectance. Warm-toned colors are encouraged. No more than two principal colors may be used on a fac,.ade. Bdght or pdmary colors should be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent' of building fac,,ades. · The proposed building meets this objective. The building and monument sign will match using warm-toned natural colors. The primary brick color will be reddish brown and the accent brick will be cream color. Architectural Detailing Objective: To encourage new building design that echoes the design of the few iconic buildings that remain in Columbia Heights - notably the Heights Theater - while enlivening building facades and contributing to a human-scaled environment. Architectural details such as ornamental cornices, arched windows and warm-toned briCk with bands of contrasting color are encouraged in new construction. The contemporary adaptation of historic and vernacular residential, institutional and commercial styles found in Columbia Heights and in Northeast Minneapolis is encouraged. · The proposed building meets this objective. Horizontal brick bands will be used throughout the middle of the building and at the roofline. Exterior columns will be located along all building facades approximately every 27 ft. Decorative stone, tile and light treatments will also be located on the columns. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 21 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Site 13) 14) 15) 16) Awnings Objective: To encourage the use of awnings as a way to shelter customers, reduce glare and conserve energy, and provide additional accent color to building fac,.ades. Where awnings are desired, canvas or fabric should be used, rather than wood or metal. · The awnings are proposed to be constructed of metal. Staff believes in this instance that the metal awnings as proposed are appropriate for this location because of their durability and because of their size. The awnings are proposed to be 3 f. 4 in. long with an angle of 4 ft. 4 ~ inches long, extending 3 ft. from the building. This will provide ample shelter along the side of the buildings (particularly the north and west fac,.ades where pedestrians may be walking along the building), as well as provide an appropriate decorative feature for the area. Desiqn Guidelines Parking Location Objective: To improve the appearance and convenience of parking lot circulation for vehicles and pedestrians by breaking the parking area up into smaller units. No more than 50 percent of the off-street parking area for the entire site shall be located between the front fac,.ade of the building and pdmary abutting street. Internal accessways with landscaping and sidewalks are encouraged. · The parking location meets this intent. Approximately 57 percent of the Central Avenue frontage is comprised of parking surface. Although not all of this parking is necessary by City Code, the applicant wants to provide increased parking based upon their market needs. However, this parking area is setback from the property line by 27.8 ft. and will be buffered from Central Avenue by landscaping. The parking lot includes landscaped islands. Parking Area Screening Objective: To soften the appearance of parking areas when viewed from an abutting street or .sidewalk and to screen parking areas from residential yards. · The landscape plan for the development illustrates that these requirements are met. Placement and Screening of Service, Loading and Storage Areas Objective: To screen views of service and loading areas, and to ensure that the noise impacts of these functions are fully contained and not audible from surrounding streets and properties. Screening must be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Loading docks, truck parking, trash collection and other service functions shall be incorporated into the design of the building or screened with walls of similar design and materials to the principal building, combined with landscape material to create a screen at least 6 ft. in height. · The site plan for the development illustrates that these requirements are met. The loading area will be screened from the new public road serving the Grand Central Lofts by a retaining wall. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Objective: To ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists have safe and convenient access to all business establishments. Walkways should be at least 5 ft. in width and shall be landscaped for at least 50 percent of their length. · The proposed building meets this objective. A sidewalk will extend from the new public road on the east to Central Avenue, and continue along Central. A walkway will also connect the sidewalk at 47th Avenue to the main entry. Landscaping will be adjacent to the walkways as required. Sidewalks shall be 5 ft. in width. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 22 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 17)Signs Objective: Signs should be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors and details of the buildings and with other signs on nearby buildings. Signs should be an integral part of the building design. Signs should have no more than three colors unless part of an illustration. A signage plan has been submitted that meets the design guidelines requirements. The sign contains three colors, yellow, orange and blue, plus a separate color for the ALDI's logo (allowed as part of an illustration). The signage plan includes one two wall signs (for the north fac,,ade and west facade above the building entry) and one monument sign. All signs are subject to review and approval of sign permit applications, 'and all signs must comply with required setbacks from property lines and utilities and requirements for intersection clear zones. 18) Lighting Objective: To ensure that safe and attractive lighting levels are provided around all buildings and parking areas, without excessive glare or brightness. Exterior lighting should be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Lighting should be designed to coordinate with building architecture and landscaping. Building mounted fixtures compatible with building facades are encouraged. · The Developer has submitted a site lighting plan that shows lighting meets the reqUirements of City Code for glare. · The building mounted fixtures are compatible with the building facade. Baker questioned the placement of the lights in the parking area. He suggested changes be made to the plan to ensure better lighting in the parking lot. The representatives from Aldi's concurred. Findings of Fact Preliminary/Final Plat Based on the discussion above, the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision is found to meet the following Findings of Fact established in Section 9.411 (6) of the Zoning Ordinance for Preliminary Plats. 1. The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. Site Plan Based on the discussion above, the Site Plan is found to meet the following Findings of Fact established in Section 9.413 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan Review. The Site Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this Ordinance. 2. The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 23 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable area plan. The Site Plan has been designed in accordance with the goals, objectives and concept plan of the Kmart Site Redevelopment Concept Plan. The Site Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. Recommendation The recommendation consists of two separate motions; one for approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat and one for the approval of the site plan. It was noted that all conditions that are met pdor to the Council Meeting will be eliminated from the list. Preliminary/Final Plat Motion by Szurek, seconded by Baker, to recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision subject to the following conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: o Upon approval of the final plat, the applicant shall be responsible for filing and recording the final plat with the Anoka County Recorder's Office within one year of the date of City Council action. In the event that a final plat is not recorded within this time period, the final plat will become void. As part of this subdivision, a sidewalk shall be installed along 47~ Avenue from the new public roadway at the east end of the property to Central Avenue. All constrUction traffic SWPPP plan. Due to necessary. shall be directed through the vehicle tracking pad, as indicated on the the traffic volume on Central Avenue, frequent street cleaning may be Due to the height of the proposed retaining wall (exceeds four feet in height) and that it is adjacent to a public ROW, the final plans shall include a wall design by a registered engineer. The wall shall also have protective fencing at the top where the vertical height exceeds 48 inches. Any site grading prior to final plat approval will require an excavation permit, obtained from the Engineering Department. An NPDES permit will be required, at the time of constrUction. The City reserves the right to require additional erosion control measures during construction, as conditions warrant. All erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the City prior to any site activities beginning. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 24 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 9. All restoration of turf areas in the Public ROW shall be by sodding. 10. All site utilities serving ALDI's shall be privately owned and operated. 11. All utilities (water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer), shall meet the City of Columbia Heights specifications for materials and installation. 12. The Development shall provide the City of Columbia Heights with as-built drawings of all newly constructed utilities, in both hardcopy and electronic (.dwg) format. 13. The sidewalk shall meet MnDO T requirements for pedestdan ramps and grade. 14. The developer shall protect the existing sidewalk and provide appropriate construction signage for any work on public sidewalks. 15. 16. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall be responsible for median work, median closing and left rum lane striping as required by MnDOT and in accordance with a Development Contract to be entered into between the City and ALDI's. The developer shall provide the City of Columbia Heights with a written copy of the 40-foot drainage and utility easement that crosses the parking lot. 17. 18. 19. The developer shall provide information from the Fire Protection Engineer designing the building sprinkler system that the 6" water main shown coming into the building is adequate for the sprinkler system. Othen~ise an increased water main will need to be shown on the plans. Final construction plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Developer will install additional lights in the parking lot on the east side with the location of said lights being approved by staff. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Site Plan i~otion by Schmitt, seconded by Szurek, to approve the application for Site Plan Review, based on the Findings of,Fact and subject to the following conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary ensure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Development Ordinance: 1. The approval of a Site Plan by the Planning Commission shall be valid for a pedod of one year. 2. Final building plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Staff to ensure that the building design meets the requirements of the Urban Design Guidelines for the Highway District, prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. All signs are subject to review and approval of sign permit applications, and all signs must comply with required setbacks from property lines and utilities and requirements for intersection clear zones. The monument sign shall be located a minimum of 10 feet (horizontally) from any public utility. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 25 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 Aldi's is hoping to start construction October 1't and be able to open for business in July of 2005. This issue will be considered by the City Council at the September 27, 2004 meeting. NEW BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS Szurek asked staff whether we had an Ordinance in place that regulates which breeds of dogs are acceptable within our city limits. Staff will forward a copy of the Pet Ordinance to Szurek for her information. A question was asked about whether any new plans have been received for new construction in the area of 49th and Central Ave for Great Clips. Staff responded they are not aware of being submitted by Great Clips, but will look into it. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to adjoum the meeting at 10:15 pm. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Han~on Secretary CI'TY OF COLUMBI'A HEI'GHTS PLANNI'NG REPORT CASE NUMBER: DATE: TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PREPARED BY: 2004-1001 October 5, 2004 Columbia Heights Planning Commission Steve Johnson and Anthony Palacino 1600 41st Avenue NE/4045 Tyler Street NE Lot Split Ellen Berkelhamer, AICP, City Planner Zntroduction Steven Johnson and Anthony Palacino, the owners of the property at 1600 41st Avenue NE, have made an application for a lot split of 1600 41't Avenue and 4045 Tyler St. NE to create a total of three lots. The lot at 4045 Tyler St. NE is owned by Bennet W. Nelson, who has signed the lot split application. Section 9.410 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which shall then provide a report to the City Council either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development. The proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance Both of the properties involved in the lot split are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential District. The lots are surrounded on all sides by property zoned R-1. The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Applicable requirements are as follows: · Minimum lot size shall be 8,400 sq. ft. for a single family home. Currently, the lot at 1600 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 5, 2004 Lot Split, 1600 41st Av. NE/4045 Tyler St. NE Case #2004-1001 41st Av. NE contains 18,941 sq. ft. and the lot at 4045 Tyler St. NE contains 18,946 sq. ft. After the proposed lot split, 1600 41st Av. NE would contain 8,699 sq. ft., 4045 Tyler St. NE would contain 14,902 sq. ft. and the new, third lot would contain 8,452 sq. ft. · Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. After the lot split, each of the lots shall exceed this requirement. · Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 5 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the setbacks of existing structures on both properties will continue to meet these requirements. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements. · Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent: After the proposed lot split, 1600 41st Av. NE will have a lot coverage of 15.4 percent and 4045 Tyler St. NE would have a lot coverage of 7.9 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will create a total of three lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public fight-of-way. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the property. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in accordance with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met. o The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Page 2 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 5, 2004 Lot Split, 1600 41st Av. NE/4045 Tyler St. NE Case #2004-1001 Recommendation Staff finds that the proposed lot split is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below. Motion: Move to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 2. The applicant shall pay a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $3,667 for the one newly created lot. This fee is payable at the time of building permit. The property owner of 1600 41st Avenue NE shall be responsible for relocating the water line that currently runs from the rear of the house to the alley. The line shall be rerouted out to 41st Avenue. The property owner shall be responsible for the cost of this relocation. All applicable City requirements regarding street excavation shall be met. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action. Attachments · Location Map · Resolution · Certificate of Survey Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- SUBDIVISION REQUEST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 I, Steve Johnson and I, Anthony Palacino, hereby request a split of PIN 36-30-24-31-0006 Legally described as: Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota PIN 36-30-24-31-0007 Legally described as: Lot 2, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE: Northeastady Parcel: The East 87 feet of Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota Northwesterly Parcel: That part of Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies west of the East 87 feet thereof and that part of the North 13 feet of Lot 2 in said Block 21, which lies west of the East 87 feet thereof. Southerly Parcel: Lot 2, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except that part of the North 13 feet thereof which lies west of the East 87 feet thereof. Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day, against the above described property, are paid. Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day. Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION: This day of ,2004 Signature of Owner, Notarized Owner's Address Offered by: Telephone No. Seconded by: : Roll Call: ~ Zoning Officer COUNCIL ACTION: Notary Public Signature of Owner, Notarized Owner*s Address Telephone No. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of ,2004 CITY This day of Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor CZTY OF COLUMBZA HETGHTS PLANNZNG REPORT CASE NUMBER: DATE: TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PREPARED BY: 2004-1002 October 5, 2004 Columbia Heights Planning Commission Joseph Embury 640 40th Avenue NE Appeal of Decision not to Issue Rental License Ellen Berkelhamer, AICP, City Planner Introduction Joseph Embury, the property owner of 640 40th Avenue NE, has made an application for an appeal of a decision by the Fire Department and Zoning Administrator not to issue a rental license for the subject property. Please see the attached letter from Mr. Embury, explaining his request for an appeal. Section 9.402 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council has designated the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, responsible for making decisions on all applications for an appeal of any administrative order, requirement, determination or final decision made by the Zoning Administrator or other official in the administration of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission must hold a public headng on the appeal in accordance with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance and after the close of the hearing, render its findings. Planning Considerations The subject property is located in the R2 One and Two Family Residential District. This District allows for single family and duplex units, if properties meet the minimum required lot, area, and bulk requirements. The minimum lot area required for duplex use is 8,400 sq. ft. The subject property contains only 6,250 sq. ft. According to the Fire Department, this property was licensed for duplex use from the time the rental-licensing program was originated in 1998 until June 2002, when the property status changed to owner-occupied. Because of the technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, City Staff is unable to approve the request for the rental license. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission Appeal, 640 40th Avenue NE October 5, 2004 Case #2004-1002 Recommendation That the Planning Commission deny the request for an appeal of the decision not to issue a rental license. Motion: Move to (approve/deny) the request to appeal the decision not to issue a rental license for the property at 640 40th Avenue NE and to direct City Staff (to/not to) issue the rental license for duplex use. 'Attachments · Location Map · Letter from Applicant Page 2 I IIIIlllllllllll [~:~l,J~l=[~[ il [ I- __-- J11] IIII I IIIII II[lllllllllll I I I IIIllllllll I_lllll I I IIll/IIIIIlllllllI I City of Columbia Heights 590 40~ ave NE Columbia Heights, MN 5521 TO: Columbia Heights zoning administrator and Planning and zoning commission FROM: SFC Joseph F. Embury; I have applied for a duplex license with the Fire Department and am aware that it has been denied because of my lot size is not up to zoning standards. I have lived in Columbia Heights since January of 1998 and have felt it a great experience. I am very thankful for living in such a great neighborhood and a wonderfully constructed house that the previous owner John Super and his brother had built as a Duplex. The Supers used this property to raise a family and rent for many, many years. All the while the neighbor hood still stayed the same. I did not use this house as a duplex because I did not want to rent to anyone until my children were grown. I did buy the house because of the appeal of being able to rent it when all my children were grown or when I planned to sell it was an added benefit to own a duplex instead of a single family home. I also believe the next owner should have the same option as I did either to use it as I did as a complete home or rent it as a duplex. My house was inspected a few years ago when I installed windows and I had talked to the inspector whether the house was worth more as a single family home, because I was paying duplex rate for garbage and water. He said it would cost more to replace my meters and that a duplex was a good investment. I decided to keep the meters and all water heaters and furnaces. I am petitioning the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant me an exception to rent my house as a duplex instead ora single family home. I am also asking permission to appear at the October 5* meeting to plead my case, because it is very hard to explain in just a letter. SFC Joseph Francis Embury U.S. Army