Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 6, 2004PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson, Ted Yehle. Roll Call: Commission members present- Peterson, Schmitt, Baker, and Yehle. Commission members absent- Szurek Also present were Tim Johnson (City Planner), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), and Tami Ericson (Council Liaison). Motion by Baker, second by Schmitt, to approve the minutes from October 28, 2003, as submitted. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Baker, second by Schmitt, to approve the minutes from November 4, 2003, as submitted. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Yehle questioned why the City Council accepted the minutes from these two meetings at their meeting of November 10, 2003, when they hadn't been approved yet by the Commission. Council member Ericson stated that the minutes are stamped "Not Yet Approved" and are submitted as Informational Items only. Secretary Hanson further explained that the City Council usually takes formal action on items that have gone before the Commission within a week'or two, and the Council needs the information and recommendations provided in the minutes to make their decision. She concurred that they are provided as an informational tool to the Council and that they are accepted, not approved by the Council. Yehle was satisfied with the explanation. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE #: DATE: TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 2004-010'! December 30, 2003 Columbia Heights Planning Commission Osborne Builders Parkside Village 2nd Addition (5'1st Avenue) REQUEST: Minor Subdivision - Plat Adjustment This is a request from Osborne Builders for Minor Subdivision approval for Parkside Village Townhomes. Osborne is proposing to reduce the overall number of units in the development from 25 to 22, mal~e lot line adjustments to the odginal plat, and adjust the building footprints accordingly. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 2004 PAGE 2 The site was platted as Parkside Village by Nedegaard Homes and approved by the City in July 2002. The first building site of 6 units facing 51~t Avenue was constructed and finished in 2003. Osbome Builders has purchased the remaining three building sites from Nedegaard Custom Homes and will assume the developer role for build-out of this project. Nedegaard Custom Homes has decided to focus on other priority projects, such as Grand Central Lofts (Kmart) and Ramsey Town Center. Osborne Builders have proposed to change the current platted footprints for each building site, slightly modify the floor plans, and drop one unit from each remaining building site. The first six-unit building facing 51't Avenue was previously constructed, and will not change. The existing infrastructure and bituminous surface including visitor parking for the site was also previously constructed and will function 'as is'. The formerly approved building footprints will be adjusted slightly to accommodate a modified floor plan that is better suited to current housing market demand. With the sale of the three remaining sites a motion must be made to approve the Minor Subdivision by Resolution 2004-01. Plannina Considerations: Comprehensive Plan: The 2001 City Comprehensive Plan designates the property for high-density residential use, which is proposed for this site. Zoninq Ordinance: The Zoning Classification for the property is R-3 (Multi-Fam!ly). The proposed use will not change and meets the zoning classification. Highway District Design Guidelines: The site is not in the Design Guidelines area, and as such this requirement is not applicable. Site Plan Requirements: The proposed minor subdivision does not significantly impact the former site plans. There will be some very slight modifications in roof lines, topography, but the former approved elevations will not change. The overall site plan is modified slightly by the proposed minor subdivision. The only substantive and recognizable change is the reduction of 3 total units from the original approvals. The access, parking areas, easement areas, walkway around the perimeter of the development, and the trail connection to Sullivan Lake Trail are not impacted by this proposal. Site Plan review is not required for this proposal as the changes are minor in nature. However, the new site plan, elevations, and floor plans have been included for your reference. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 2004 PAGE 3 Residential building setbacks~lot coverage: · Minimum front yard building setback is 30 feet; The existing building meets this requirement as it is 30 feet from the property line. · Minimum rear yard building setback is 30 feet; The proposed building meets this requirement, as it is 30 feet from this property line. The ordinance does allow for architectural features as encroachments up to 3 feet into the required setback area. · Minimum side yard building setbacks is 20 feet; The proposed buildings meet this requirement, as they are more than 20 feet from either side property lines. · Maximum building lot coverage is 35% of the total site. The total site area is 2.27 acres (99,138) square feet. The proposed building Sites cover approximately 32, 683 square feet or 32.9% of the site and meet this requirement. Platting: Parkside Village was formedy platted as: Block 1, Lots 1-5 (This is being replaced by Block 3, Lots 1-4) · Block 2, Lots 1-7 (This is being replaced by Block 2, Lots 1-6) · Block 3, Lots 1-6 (The building was built, this legal will not change) Block 4, Lots 1-7 (This is being replaced by Block 1, Lots 1-6) Minor Subdivision Required Rndings: The Zoning Ordinance requires that certain findings are necessary in order to confirm that the minor subdivision proposed meets the identified standards from the zoning ordinance. These findings are: · The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three (3) lots. Although this minor subdivision is made up of 16 land parcels, these 16 parcels are not newly created parcels. They were platted in 2002. There are actually 3 less parcels in the newly proposed minor subdivision. · The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The existing drainage and utility easements will be maintained for the site. · 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; The proposed lots meet all Zoning Distdct standards pertaining to lot requirements. · The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property; Dedication of right-of-way is not required for this project. The current access for the property is not changing. · The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this ordinance; The property was platted in 2002, and has not since been subdivided or modified. · The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land; The proposed subdivision does not affect land conveyance. · The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments; The proposed subdivision does not impact assessments and related records. · The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in Section 14 (Subdivision Regulations); The minor subdivision proposed meets all required Subdivision Regulations specified in Section 14. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 2004 PAGE 4 Staff recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision proposal from Osborne Builders to modify the original Pad(side Village plat. Yehle questioned whether the trees, shrubs, and general landscaping plan that was originally approved would remain intact. Planner Johnson responded that Mr. Osborne would be required to assume those approved requirements. He also will need to provide the sidewalks, walkways within the subdivision, and connections to the Parkland as was originally approved. He asked whether the Pad( Dedication fees that were already paid would decrease due to less units in the development. Planner Johnson was not sure whether the City would be obligated to refund any fees since the units would be reduced from 25 to 22. He will confer with the City Attorney on this matter. Baker asked whether Mr. Nedegaard retained the ownership of the existing 6 units and if he is still responsible for the sale of these units. Planner Johnson stated that Nedegaard does still own the first set of six units, and has heard a couple of the units may be sold, but that they have nothing to do with the matter before the Commission tonight. Peterson asked Mr. John Osborne if negotiations on the Pad( Dedication fees hadtaken place as part of the sale. Mr. Osborne stated that nothing had been negotiated between the two parties, but since Mr. Nedegaard had already paid up front for these fees, any refund should be made to him. Schmitt asked if the extedor of the buildings would remain the same as what was previouSly approved. Mr. Osborne stated that, yes, the extedor items such as roofing, siding, windows, landscaping, and trees would remain the same. Only the floor plan would be changed slightly to make them more marketable. He said that he will construct one building at a time. The east building will be built first, then the west building, and finally the north. Motion by Peterson, second by Baker, to recommend City Council approval of Resolution 2004- 01, a Minor Subdivision for Parkside Village 2~d Addition, as the Minor Subdivision meets required findings, and subject to the following conditions of approval that have been found necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Development Ordinance: 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorders Office. 3. The applicant shall pay parkland dedication fees for each lot created beyond the original number of lots existing prior to subdivision, except when such fees have been applied to the properly as part of a previous subdivision. ,l. The applicant shall be responsible for filing the approved subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorders Office. The approved minor subdivision shall become invalid if the subdivision is not filed with the Anoka County Recorders Office within one (1) year of the date of City Council action. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES IANUARY 6, 2004 PAGE 5 NEW BUSINESS Acquisition of NEI property at 825 41st Avenue NE Enclosed in the agenda packets was a memo from Tim Johnson, City Planner regarding the acquisition of the NEI property located at 825 41st Avenue NE. This property is in the process of being acquired by the Columbia Heights EDA. State statute requires that the Planning Commission be notified of the intent to purchase land. However, At this time no specific redevelopment plan has been proposed for the site. The EDA intends to acquire this parcel'in anticipation of clearance/demolition of the currently distressed building, for a potential redevelopment oppommity. Minnesota Statute 462.356 requires that if a City has a Comprehensive Plan, it must notify the Planning Commission of the intent to purchase or sell land. The City Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Transit-Oriented Development and the Zoning is R-4, Multi-Family Residential. Future housing or a mixed-use project for this site would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Schmitt asked if anyone else was interested in the property. Planner Johnson explained that three other parties were possibly interested in the site, however the City wants to get control of the property which is a little more than 5 acres in size, so they could decide how to best utilize the site. Peterson agreed that the City should purchase'this property, but he was not anxious to have it demolished right away. He would like some research done to possibly renovate the existing building as it is unique and has some historical beauty that could possibly be preserved. Yehle said he was sure that staff and the council would research all the possibilities and are well aware of the importance of the building. Motion by Peterson, second by $chmitt, to convey to the Columbia Heights City Council that the purchase of the NEI property located at 825 41st,4venue NE by the Columbia Heights EDA. would comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 2004 PAGE 6 MISCELLANEOUS Zoning Bulletin-Enclosed in the agenda packet was the most current edition of the Zoning Bulletin. Planner Johnson stated this was included in the packets for the Commission members to review as it addresses various legal aspects pertainihg to zoning issues. Yehle commented on the fact that Columbia Heights has been in the press quite fi'equently ' during the last two months for several issues he feels negatively impact our community. He encouraged citizens to get to know your neighbors, and to watch over one another. He would like to see the residents of our community act responsibly and keep Columbia Heights out of the news. Motion by Peterson, second by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 7:34 pm. Ail ayes. Motion passed. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary