Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 6, 2005 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING JULY 6, 2005 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson Szurek. Roll Call: Commission Members present-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek. Also present were Perry Thorvig and Jennifer Haskamp (City Planners-from Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), and Tami Ericson Diehm (Council Liaison). Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Fiorendino, to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 7, 2005. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS The order of the cases was changed to allow the Planners to present the cases they each were responsible for back to back (Planner Haskamp-cases 1 and 4, Planner Thorvig-cases 2 and 3). CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCA rION: REQUEST: PREPARED BY: 2005-0701 Badreddin A. Alnizami 1330/1334 & 135244 % Avenue Lot Split Jennifer Haskamp, Consultant Planner Introduction Badreddin Alnizami, the property owner of 1348 44 1/2 Avenue NE, has made an application to subdivide the current lot into 3 lots: A, B, and C, where lot A would have the existing duplex (1348 and 1350). The current lot has approximately 33,172 square feet, and is zoned R-2. The applicant would like to create two new lots on which a single family home or a twin home could be constructed provided adequate soil conditions and lot size requirements are met. The Applicant should be aware of the outstanding moratorium on the construction of twin homes that would prevent either ofthe created lots to have a twin home constructed. The lots could be developed for single-family attached homes given current zoning regulations. The moratorium expires on December 5, 2005. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 2 Planning Considerations Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as low-density residential emphasizing single-family detached and attached homes. The City would like to encourage redevelopment of vacant parcels into low-density residential uses to strengthen existing neighborhoods. The proposed lot split would allow for the construction of single family or a twin home on each of the lots. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance The lot at 134844 Y2 Avenue NE is zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential and is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot split meets all of the lot area, lot frontage 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 frontage (lot width) requirements; and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverage. Findings of Fact The lot at 134844 Y2 Avenue NE is zoned R-2 One and Two Family Residential and is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-2. The lot split meets all ofthe lot area, setback, frontage and lot coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Section 9.903 ofthe Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot coverage requirements. Applicable requirements are as follows: · Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 sq. ft. for a single family home and 9,000 square feet for a twin home. Currently, the lot at 134844 Y2 Avenue NE contains approximately 33,172 square feet. After the proposed lot split, lot A will contain approximately 9,000 square feet, lot B will contain approximately 10,000 square feet, and lot C will contain approximately 13,500 square feet. Lot A must have a minimum of9,000 square feet to comply with the zoning ordinance. The lot areas should be verified and calculated prior to approval of the subdivision. However, based on the materials submitted each of the areas appear to meet the minimum lot areas. · Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet for all of the proposed lots. After the lot split, lot A has approximately 80 feet of frontage, lot B has 75 feet of frontage and lot C has 110 feet of frontage. All of the lots as proposed meet or exceed the lot width requirements. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 3 · 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 ofthe existing duplex will continue to meet these requirements. Any new structures constructed 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 1010 43 Y2 Avenue NE has a lot coverage of 5 percent. After the proposed lot split, lot A will have a lot coverage of 19 percent. Any new structures constructed subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement. · A park dedication fee in the amount of$5,452 at final approval of the lot split. Recommendation Staff fmds that the proposed lot split is consistent with the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan and meets the regulations stated in the Zoning Ordinance for the R-2 district. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the lot split conditioned on: · That the applicant pays the park dedication fee in the amount of $5,452. Peterson questioned what type of structure could be built on the lots if the split were approved. He was told only single family homes could be constructed since the moratorium was passed prohibiting twin homes from being built. Peterson then asked whether the construction of a twin home would be allowed once the moratorium expires. Szurek said, no, as it was the Council's intent that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permanently prohibit the construction of twin homes as most of the lots in Columbia Heights are too small to accommodate them. Szurek asked the owner how long he had owned the property. He responded that he has owned it for four years. She then asked ifhe was aware that Proposed Lot C had previously had a house on it. The house was determined to be a "Sick House" and was removed due to the soil conditions and the affect it had on the structure. She explained that at that time, the City Council was told that the soil was contaminated and emitted gases that were dangerous and caused the previous owners to get very ill. She said she does not want the City held responsible if someone spends a lot of money on this property, possibly builds on it, and then finds out there are problems because they weren't aware of the possible conditions of the site. The owner's representative said they were aware of the house being removed. He said he believed it was because the house had sunk and the sewer pipes broke and the sewer gas is what caused the illnesses and the mold and mildew in the home. He said the soils report he had taken indicated that it would take about $45,000 worth of pilings to make the property buildable. He said there is a lot of peat in the soil which makes it very soft. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF mL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 4 Szurek noted that he only had soil samples taken from the four comers of the property, not in the middle where a structure would be built, or where the previous house was located. She would suggest he have more soil borings done, and to have the soil tested for contaminates, not just type of soil before proceeding any further. Peterson also felt it would be irresponsible to proceed without more tests. Planner Thorvig questioned what type of structure he had planned to build on the lots. He felt this is something that should also be addressed that could have an impact on whether the owner would want to proceed with his request. The owner's representative stated the plan was to build a twin home spread over both the lots. He said he had already spent about $20,000 on having the soil tests done and drawing up the plans for the twin home. He felt he should be "grandfathered" in as he had spoke with staff prior to the moratorium being passed. He was told no, he would not be "grandfathered in", as an application was not received prior to the moratorium going into effect. Szurek then explained that the moratorium was passed in June, 2005 to prohibit construction of twin homes or double bungalows, to allow time for the Zoning Ordinance to be amended which will permanently prohibit this type of structure. She explained that he could possibly build two single family homes on the properties, if the soil tests indicate that it is possible. She stated that he needs to be aware that he cannot build what he wants, and she doesn't want him to expend more money into something that may be unbuildable, or to try and dump the lots onto someone else in the future. Fiorendino asked ifthe condition of the soil is relevant to the lot split being requested. Planner Thorvig said no, it isn't. Fiorendino then said that the job ofthe commission was to follow policies and ordinances in place, and there is no legal justification for denying the request. Approving the lot split does not make the lot buildable or give permission to construct any kind of building. Thompson, who is an Engineer, reviewed the soils report. He said the borings only tested the type of soils present, not for possible contaminates. He said it indicates that pilings would be required at least 40 feet deep due to the soil type tested at the four comers of the property, not in the middle where a structure would sit. He would recommend that further tests be ordered prior to any building permits being issued for this property, if the lot split is approved. Council member Ericson-Diehm stated this is very similar to the Karnes case a few months back whereby a lot split was granted after making it clear to the owner ofthe potential soil conditions. She was aware of that fact and sold the property to a builder who now is limited as to what he can do with the property also because ofthe expense of soil corrections needed to put a structure on it. As a Commission and City Council, all we can do is make the owners aware of the fact, and to require extensive testing before approving any building permits. Peterson felt the City and the owners should both do independent soil borings to get a true analysis of the soil conditions which could be used for future decisions regarding the property. Fiorendino asked whether they would be interested in splitting the parcel into two lots instead of three. The owner replied that he would prefer three lots. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 5 After making it clear, that if approved, the owner would be responsible for paying a park dedication fee, even though the parcels may be deemed unbuildable, and that further tests will need to be provided prior to allowing any building on the site. With that said, Szurek stated there are no grounds to deny the request. The Public Hearing was opened. No one spoke on this issue. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Schmitt to recommend the City Council approve the lot split of 1348 44 'lS Ave NE into three lots, as the proposed lot split is consistent with the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan and meets the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for the R-2 District, once the precise lot size and structure coverage calculations of the lot where the existing home sits are provided and the park dedication fee of $5,452 is paid. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 2005-0702 Schafer Richardson/Ryland Homes Industrial Park Redevelopment Phase 1 & 2 1. Part of 39th Avenue east of 5th St NE 2. 38th Avenue from University to 5th St 3. Part of Lookout Place and part of adjacent alley Vacations of above streets and alley REQUEST: PREPARED BY: Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner Introduction The implementation of the master plan for the Park View project requires the assembly of property in several blocks. Once assembled, the new development will encompass the several blocks and extend across some existing streets. Those street and alley rights of way must be officially vacated by the City of Columbia Heights before construction can begin. Background This is a request from the Schafer-Richardson development team to vacate the following: 1. Part of 39th Avenue NE east of 5th St. NE 2. 38th Avenue NE from University Avenue to 5th St. NE 3. Part of Lookout Place and part of an adjacent alley The vacations are necessary for the orderly and efficient development of the Park View housing development. Planner Thorvig displayed the maps for the members to help them visualize the areas involved. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 6, 2005 PAGE 6 Analysis The surrounding property to the south ofthis project is industrial and residential. University Avenue forms the west border. Huset Park is to the east of part of the development and north of part ofthe development. All ofthe vacated streets will be incorporated into the 28-acre redevelopment site. There are no utilities that have to be preserved in the respective rights of way. Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director, has reviewed the vacation requests and recommends approval. No one has objected to the proposed vacations. Thorvig explained that two other vacations will be coming before the Commission at the August meeting. Those being the east 30 ft. of the University Ave Service Road and part of 5th St. These are the remaining two areas that need to be cleared up legally to allow the development to proceed. The permission to vacate University Ave is being finalized with MNDOT before it can be brought to the Commission, but they are willing to give up the 30 feet for the development as it is already blocked off. Conclusion The street and alley sections that are proposed for vacation are no longer needed for any public purpose and no one has objected to the vacations. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed street and alley vacation requests. The Public Hearing was opened. Mike Gondek who owns 334 40th Avenue and 325 Summit asked ifthese vacations had anything to do with Lookout Place and 40th Ave area. He was told no. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the following parcels as shown and described to the Commission: 1. Part of 3f1h Avenue east of 5th St 2. 3th Ave from University to 5th St 3. Part of Lookout Place and part of an adjacent alley All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 7 CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 2005-0703 Schafer Richardson/Ryland Homes Industrial Park Redevelopment Phase 2-West side of Huset Park between 5th St and University Ave Site Plan/Preliminary Plat REQUEST: PREPARED BY: Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner Introduction Schafer-Richardson has requested two approvals: I. The preliminary plat for the Phase 2 of the redevelopment of the industrial area west of Huset Park, and 2. The site plan for Phase 2. Phase 2 contains 12.8 acres. It is part of a larger 28-acre redevelopment area known as Park View. Phase 1 was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council in June of2005. There are 5 two-story townhomes and 17 three-story carriage home buildings. There are 40 units in the two-story townhomes and 118 units in the three-story carriage homes. Each unit has two parking spaces in the building and two in the driveway. There are 87 additional parking spaces in parking bays or on the private streets in Phase 2. Planning Considerations 1. A concept site plan was prepared in 2004 by the developer as part of the preliminary development agreement entered into with the City. The concept plan was found to be compatible with the provisions ofthe Transit Oriented Mixed-use Zoning District. 2. This zoning district calls for a flexible mix of uses with a minimum residential density of 12 units per acre and a maximum density of 20 units per acre, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. The concept site plan showed a density of less than 20 units per acre. The subject property is located adjacent to a transit corridor (University Avenue NE) and will include a trail connection linking the new residential and mixed-use neighborhood to and through Huset Park. The trail will be constructed as part of the parkway along 39th Ave NE. 3. The City Staffhas prepared Design Guidelines to be applied to the redevelopment of the subject property. These guidelines are directly based on the existing City Design Guidelines adopted in 2003. The guidelines include characteristics that are appropriate to the residential and mixed-use character of the Industrial Park redevelopment area, and not those aimed at highway, strip or suburban architecture and development. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF mL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 8 4. The purpose ofthe Mixed-Use District is to promote efficient use of existing City infrastructure; ensure sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods, create linkages between compatible areas of the City; provide appropriate transitions between uses; ensure high quality design and architecture; create good pedestrian circulation and safety; promote alternative modes of transportation; and increase the quality of life and community image of Columbia Heights. The proposed Industrial Park redevelopment will be designed as a pedestrian friendly mixed-use project that will accomplish these goals. 5. The Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use District requires that the mix ofland use include two or more of the following uses: residential, commercial and industrial. The proposed Industrial Park redevelopment will meet this requirement by including predominantly residential uses with some mixed-use commerciaVresidential uses. 6. Though the concept plan was previously approved for this project, the detailed site plan and preliminary plat must comply with the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance. Several zoning compliance issues are discussed below. Findings of Fact Preliminary Plat Section 9.411 (6) ofthe Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following findings before approving a preliminary plat: 1. The proposed preliminary plat conforms to the requirements of Section 14 of this ordinance. Section 14 of the ordinance only requires that the streets conform to the Comprehensive Plan by allowing the continuation of the appropriate projection of principal streets and that the plat conform to the neighborhood plan. In Phase 2, there are no existing streets other than the University Avenue frontage road, 38th Avenue and Lookout Place. Street vacations are being proposed for 3th Street and part of Lookout Place. Part of the University Avenue frontage road also needs to be vacated to accommodate the new plat. Because of the unique location, these streets can be vacated without disruption of the grid pattern that will adversely affect the area. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has been modified to Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Development in expectation of this kind of development. Therefore, the project is consistent with the plan. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 6, 2005 PAGE 9 3. The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. The site layout has some of the same issues as Phase 1. They are asfollows: a) Ownership of the utilities not lving within the rif!ht ofwav of a public street. Kevin Hanson, Public Works Director, believes that it would be beneficial that the City take ownership of all the 8 inch water mains and sanitary sewer that is in any private street that is 22' or greater in width. This is the accepted practice in similar developments in the city. The utilities would be built according to City specifications and there will be no confusion as to who is responsible for maintenance and repair. Therefore, the preliminary plat should be approved with a condition that specifically states that the City will take ownership of the utilities described above and be responsible for repairs. b) Spacing between buildings. No building will be closer than 25' to another building. However, the distance from garage door to garage door across the private street is only about 62feet. Two, 20' wide driveways (parking spaces) infront of the garage doors and a 22 foot wide private street occupy the 62-foot space between the garage doors. These dimensions are less than what is normally required. For example, the The Columbia Heights code requires a 24-foot wide access drive. Section 9.612 (7) reads as follows: "b) Access and Circulation. Exceptfor parking accessory to one and two family dwellings, each required off-street parking space shall have direct access to an aisle or driveway no less than 24 feet in width and designed to provide safe and efficient means of vehicular access to and from the parking space without using public right-of-way for maneuvering. " Staff is recommending approval of the driveway and private street dimension. Staff has worked with the applicant to minimize the amount of hard surface space on the site in favor of more green space between or in front of the buildings. Therefore, staff, including the fire department, is comfortable with the 20-foot driveways and 22' private streets in the project. c) Sidewalk connections. All units should be connected by way of sidewalk to the city's sidewalk system and the new parkway. Most of this project has the required sidewalks. Only the two-story units just off of the Lookout Place extension appear to have no sidewalks. This is the same situation as in Phase 1. This should not be a problem, however, because there are sidewalks just across the private street that should serve the needs of pedestrians in the development and provide access to Huset Park. The north-south sidewalk that runs mid-block between the buildings should be continued in the block containing the two-story units. It should intersect with a meandering trail that runs east to west between the two-story units. A tot lot should be created at the intersection of the trail and sidewalk. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 10 d) EnJ!ineerinJ! considerations. Kevin Hansen has reviewed the plat and found that there are several technical changes typical with all plats that must be made in order to assure that the utilities are installed properly and up to City and State requirements. Several conditions of approval are included in the recommendation to address Mr. Hansen's concerns. There is also the need to make sure that University Avenue, 38h Avenue, and Lookout Place are vacated and the MnDOT has rescinded their need for the easterly 30 feet of University A venue. f) Fire access considerations. Chief Gorman 's June 24 memo describes the concerns about maneuvering fire equipment around and through the looping street pattern. He cites a recent experience in Fridley with a similar development where it was very hard to gain access. He and the City Engineer will need to run more tests to make sure that there is adequate turning radii for the city's fire apparatus. Preliminary Plat Conclusions There are two unresolved issues that need to be addressed before a final plat can be approved. They include approval of street vacations and resolution of fire access. Some lots/units may have to be removed from the fmal plat in order to resolve these issues. It is expected that the final plat will need to be modified a bit between the time the preliminary plat is approved and the final plat is submitted for approval. Site Plan Section 9.413 (4) ofthe Columbia Heights zoning code requires the Planning Commission make each of the following findings before approving a site plan: a) The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of the Ordinance. The Phase 2 site plan is consistent with the ordinance except for the following: 1. Internal street access drive widths are less than 24 feet in most of the project. In circumstances such as Phase 1, this was judged to not be a problem. However, in this phase, the Fire Chief has expressed concern. The site plan should not be approved at this time. 2. Ornamental trees must be 2" not 1.5' as proposed. b) The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with the general direction established in the Comprehensive Plan for a mixed use/transit oriented development. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 11 c) The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. A concept plan for the area has been accepted by the city and Design Guidelines have been adopted. A shortened list of the Design Standards is attached. Staff has found the project to be in substantial compliance with the standards. However, some discussion of various issues is needed. 1. Setbacks: Buildings are 10 to 25 feetfrom the sidewalks. Some of the buildings may be a little farther from the street than the standards suggest (20 feet maximum). However, the spirit of the ordinance is certainly met by fronting units on the street with garages hidden to the rear of the buildings. 2. Density: Overall, the project is supposed to be 19.7 dwelling units per acre. Phase 2 has a density of just over 12 units per acre. Therefore, units can be subtracted in Phase 2 without falling below the 12-20 units per acre density range agreed on by the developer and the City. 3. Exterior Materials: The exterior materials proposed for the project are vinyl, brick, and cultured stone. The developer has submitted drawings that show that the entire end wall of selected units will be brick. (See the attached map showing these locations.) In addition, the three-story buildings with seven or more units will have 3 units that have brick faces. The other three-story buildings will have 2 units that have brick faces. The two-story units will have brick to a height of about four feet above grade on the middle units and complete brick fronts on the end units. The rear sides of all the buildings will be heavy. 042 gauge vinyl siding. 4. Third Unit Type: One of the provisions in the development agreement between the developer and the applicant is that there be at least three unit types. The applicants are not quite sure how they will meet this requirement. One of the ways the applicants propose that this objective be accomplished is by provision of a different kind of two-story unit in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. They have submitted renderings that depict the different unit. Pictures are attached. The end units of the two-story buildings will contain single level living units in contrast to the other units that have several floors. This should appeal to some of the city's empty nester or elderly population. The other way that they might achieve the variety requirement is if they develop a Craftsman style front for the three-story carriage units. If they choose to go this way, they will need to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of their plans since they do not have any renderings ready for review at this time. Staff recommended that the Commission wait to approve a third unit design until they have both design options available for consideration. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF mL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 12 5. Landscaping and University Avenue Buffer: Overall, the landscaping plan is very good. However, there are a couple of issues that need resolution - setbacks from University Avenue and the fence design along University Avenue. This development will occupy part of the approximately 30' of vacated University Avenue frontage road. The building's proximity to University Avenue is similar to the townhouse project across University Avenue from the Fridley city hall. Private drives are proposed between the remaining University Avenue and the units. However, the spaces between the fence along University Avenue and the private drives, as well as the setbacks of the buildings from the street, are very shallow. It is recommended that the buildings and the private drives be set back further from University Avenue to allow adequate landscape buffering. At least 15 feet should be required as a setback from the private drive to the new University A venue right of way. This will mean that the end units on five of the buildings will have to be removed. The developers have suggested that they might use a cedar fence of some kind with brick columns. Staff recommends that the fence along University Avenue not be a solid wood fence. These kinds of fences deteriorate over time. Furthermore, there is no room to use landscaping on the University side of the fence. Staff recommends the construction of the same kind of wrought iron fencing, brick columns, and landscaping solution that was used on the townhouses in Fridley that are across from Fridley city hall. This should give the whole development a much nicer image than a wood fence. There are several pictures attached that show the fence and landscaping in the area between the fence and the private access drives in the Fridley project. 6. Fire Access: The discussion above related to the preliminary plat sets forth the possibility that some units may have to be removed from the site plan in order to provide adequate turning radii within the private street system. However, the basic site plan is not expected to change appreciably. 7. Sidewalk Connections: The north-south sidewalk that runs mid-block between the buildings should be continued in the block containing the two-story units. It should intersect with a meandering trail that runs east to west between the two-story units. A tot lot (common area) should be created at the intersection of the trail and sidewalk. d) The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. The area is evolving from industrial to residential. The remaining industrial uses will be able to function even as the new housing is developed because the housing is oriented in a way that buffers it from the industrial uses. Likewise, there are only two single-family homes on the north side of the project that are immediately adjacent to the new buildings. Therefore, impacts on the existing homes north of the project should be minimized. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 13 Site Plan Conclusions The site plan is acceptable with the condition that the buildings be located 15' further from University Avenue and that there be an attractive wrought iron fence and solid landscaped screening between the highway and the project. Staff recommends approval of the Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Site Plan with the conditions that were discussed. Fiorendino asked how much can a developer change the plans between the Preliminary Plat and Final. He asked about how long it would be before the Final Plan is submitted for approval, and wondered if it is advised to approve what has been submitted thus far. Thorvig explained that the Preliminary Plat is about 90% final. There are always a few changes as the plan is tweaked. He stated that sometimes a couple of units may be added or dropped. The members were told that the Final Plat for the first Phase will be brought to the August meeting for approval and that it will be about 6 months before the Final Plat for Phase 2 is submitted. Thompson asked if that would affect the density per acre. Thorvig responded that it would not make much difference as the overall density will be met once the proposed apartment/condo building is approved. Thompson also was concerned about the lack of erosion control and site conditions ofthe area now. Brian Sullivan from Ryland Homes said the present work is not being done by Schafer Richardson, or by Ryland Homes. It is the City's Contractor for the soil corrections that were necessary prior to the development starting. Sullivan then addressed the 15 foot set back requirement along University Avenue. He felt this was excessive and that a compromise could be reached that would include a shorter distance and a better buffer of trees and shrubs and ornamental fencing that would be more aesthetically appealing. Peterson would like to see continuity oflandscaping from 37th_40th Avenue along University Ave. He was told that they are not responsible for the properties north of the development area and when the property at 40th and University is developed, any improvements may have to be removed anyways. Sullivan then spoke to the third building type. He said he originally thought the third building type would be a Schafer Richardson building. But since that is not necessarily the case, they are in the process of re-designing the original Carriage townhomes that were shown in the Phase I documents. They are changing the front facades to vary the look. The second option would be the addition ofthe Heritage Townhome that has a different design from the two story townhouses. They actually combine flats and two story townhouse units. The end units are flats, with the upper units having 1700 sq. ft. of single level living space and the lower units having 1300 sq. ft. of single level living space. The middle units are two story units with approx. 1600 sq. ft. This type of building appeals to a larger market group and provides a variety of options. He wanted the commission members to approve this type of building for the third design so they can move ahead with their plans. He said the plan would be to add five of these buildings into the mix. However, the members and staff want to see both options before making a final decision on which units should be added. PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 14 Schmitt asked about the sidewalk connection and the ornamental fencing that may be used. She was concerned with safety and whether the fence would be climbable. Sullivan responded to her questions. Peterson thanked Mr. Sullivan and his company for their efforts with this project and for the cooperation they have received thus far. The Public Hearing was opened. Roger Nordeen of 4115 Jefferson St had a list of questions regarding the development. 1. Is there a limit to the number of people per unit? Thorvig answered, no limit of people per family, but there is a city ordinance addressing the number of unrelated members in a household. 2. How many cars per unit? Thorvig said 2 spaces in the garage and two spaces on the driveways. 3. Where will company park? Thorvig said, in addition to the driveway parking, there are 87 additional parking spaces on the streets throughout the development. 4. Where will the children play? He was reminded this development is next to Huset Park. Thorvig also explained that experience shows that very few children are usually in developments of this type. 5. How may units are in the development? Thorvig responded 118 carriage homes and 40 townhomes. Peterson stated that this is a new concept for our community, but the east coast and west coast have been doing this for some time. Compact use of space is a trend that is desired by a larger number of people all the time. Steve Jonak, a business owner from 533 3ih Ave, pointed out that the dates were wrong on the notices mailed out to affected property owners. He voiced his concern for the high density use of the 28 acre site and the lack of privacy for families and lack of play areas for the children. He thinks the use ofthe property is too intense, with rows and rows of homes, and it will cause the crime rate to rise. He is concerned whether the properties will be able to be maintained properly and remain attractive for resale. Thompson stated that the commission is making the best decisions it can based on the decision the City Council has made regarding the re-development of this site. The owner from 555 38th Avenue questioned whether 38th Ave will remain a dead end street. She was told there are no present plans to change that. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission approve the site plan based on the follOWing conditions. 1. The Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits reviews any major changes to the exterior elevations of the three-story carriage home units. 2. The vinyl siding be at least .042 mm thick. 3. The mid-block sidewalk is continued through the block along with the construction of an east-west trail between the two-story units along with a tot lot. 4. The buildings and the private drives be set back 7-15 feet further from University Avenue to allow adequate landscape buffering. An acceptable detailed landscaping plan of the buffer area needs to be submitted and the fence detail should follow the guidelines above and be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission at a future meeting. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 2005 PAGE 15 5. Fire access issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. 6. The Planning Commission review and select an alternative design for a 3rd unit type in either the 3 story Carriage Townhouse design or the 2 story Heritage Home design at a future meeting. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Schmitt, That the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat based on 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: 1. The development agreement must reflect an agreement between the City and the developer on what utilities and streets within the project will be the City's long-term maintenance and repair responsibilities. 2. The Common Interest Community documents clearly state the responsibilities of the City and homeowners association related to streets and utilities. 3. All street vacations (by the City) should occur concurrent or prior to the final plat approval (by phase) by the City Council and after MnDOT has rescinded their need for the approximately easterly 30 feet of the University Avenue service road right of way. 4. The Street names must be included on the final plat and follow 'Street' for North-South and 'Avenue' for East- West 5. All construction traffic must be controlled and shall be directed through the vehicle tracking pads, as indicated on the SWPPP plan. Due to the traffic volumes, frequent street cleaning may be necessary. 6. All erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the City prior to any site activities beginning. 7. In areas of concentrated flow or where slopes exceed 3:1, silt fence shall be heavy duty (wire backed). 8. Under Erosion Control Notes, note 10, the 14-day requirement is a maximum for restoration as described. 9. Due to the Public construction of Huset Parkway and related timing/schedule, other erosion control devices may be necessary. A temporary sedimentation pond (or other approved means) shall be utilized until the offiite ponding is completed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 7, 2005 PAGE 16 10. Wherever any of the proposed retaining walls exceeds four feet in height, the final plans shall include a wall designed by a registered engineer. The wall shall also have protective fencing at the top where the vertical height exceeds 48 inches. 11. Any site grading prior to final plat approval will require an excavation permit, obtained from the Engineering department. 12. An NPDES permit will be required, at the time of construction. The City also reserves the right to require additional erosion control measures during construction, as conditions warrant. 13. All restoration of turf areas in the Public ROW shall be by sodded with 4 inches of topsoil. 14. All streets, storm sewer, signage and striping serving the development shall be privately owned and maintained. 15. All utilities (water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer), shall meet the City of Columbia Heights specifications for materials and installation. 16. The developer must provide the City with locatable references for service lines, such as swing ties and GPS coordinates. 17. The final plans should provide detail and design information on the proposed method, such as a Stormceptor Chamber, or other approved means, as required by the City's Storm water Management Ordinance, to remove coarse-grained particles. 18. Additional 8" gate valves must be added in-line for isolation. 19. All sanitary service pipes shall be SDR 26 or Schedule 40 pipe. 20. All street signage shall meet MnMUTCD (latest version) requirements. For regulatory signage, the City requires VIP grade. Street name signs shall be a different color (for private streets), and must be approved by Public Works. 21. All sidewalks shall meet ADA requirements for pedestrian ramps and grade. 22. At final plan submittal, the developer must provide plan/profile sheets for the utilities. 23. The developer shall provide the City of Columbia Heights with as-built drawings of all newly constructed utilities, in both hardcopy and electronic (. dwg) format. All Ayes. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 17 Attachment Industrial Area Redevelopment Design Guidelines Building Placement Well designed front fa~ade facing the street Res. Buildings 10-20 ft. from sidewalk edge Articulation in front facades encouraged Primary Facades Pitched roofs One foot eves Building Width and Articulation Articulation through off-sets or different textures Building Ht. 2-4 stories Window and Door Openings 20% window and door openings in front 15% in sides Entries Face street or walkway Or linked by sidewalk to the street or courtyard Building Materials Required brick (33 to 38%), natural stone, precast concrete or block (integrally colored), jumbo brick, _ 40%, lower third Glass for windows and doors Synthetic wood (fiber cement, Hardie board) resembling horizontal lap siding NO unadorned plain concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, prefab steel or sheet metal panels, Aluminum, vinyl, for commercial and mixed-use ), fiberglass asphalt or fiberboard masonite siding. Accent materials on 15% Front and rear should have similar materials Res. Permitted - vinyl, heavy gauge, deep colors of gray, tan, olive, blue, or red. Building Colors Complement surroundings, warm toned, 2 principal colors per fa~ade, Architectural Detailing Ornamental cornices, arched windows, warm-toned brick, bands of contrasting colors, CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2005-0704 John & Lillian Sarkinen 4446 Arthur St Partial Vacation of 45th Avenue NE PREPARED BY: Jennifer Haskamp, Consultant Planner PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF mL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 18 Introduction The Applicants, John and Lillian Sarkinen are requesting the vacation of a portion of 45th Avenue NE for the purpose of building an addition onto their garage. The northern property boundary adjoins the right-of-way owned by the city for the Minneapolis Water Treatment Facility. A portion of 45th Avenue NE west of the proposed area has already been vacated, and the applicant proposes continuation of the vacated right-or-way to extend across their northern property boundary. Planning Considerations The proposed partial vacation of 45th Ave NE will continue the vacated right-of-way east extending adjacent to the southern property boundary of the Minneapolis Water Treatment Facility. The right-of- way currently is not accessible and does not serve through traffic, or accommodate access points or garages. The proposed vacation will allow the applicant the opportunity to consider an addition to their existing garage. Vacating the right-of-way will not affect adjacent landowners or the existing traffic flow. All structures constructed on the vacated right-of-way will need to meet all necessary setback requirements, and will be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed vacation of 45th Ave NE is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed vacation will not adversely impact the adjacent property owners or impact traffic flow. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance The zoning ordinance requires the property owner to have a certificate of survey completed for the portion of the vacated right-of-way and to submit a legal description. A certificate of survey was not submitted with the application. A survey of the proposed vacated area should be identified prior to approval of the vacation. The applicant discussed the proposed vacation of 45th Ave NE with the Public Works Department, and they find no objection to the vacation ofthe right-of-way on 45th Avenue NE. The Public Works Department provided the following legal description ofthe proposed right-of-way vacation: That part of southerly twenty (20) feet of adjacent vacated 45th Avenue between the northerly extension of east and west lines of North ~ of Lot 17, Block 2, Walton's Sunny Acres Addition to Columbia Heights Minnesota, Columbia Heights, Anoka Co. Findings of Fact The applicant has proposed the vacation of a portion of right-of-way that currently sits vacant and does not serve any use. Portions of 45th Ave NE have already been vacated due to the proximity of the right- of-way to the Minneapolis Water Treatment Facility. The proposed vacation will not adversely impact adjacent properties. There are no utilities or other public easements that are necessary on the property according to the Public Works Department. The proposed vacation of 20 feet will afford the applicant the opportunity to construct an addition onto their existing garage thereby improving the current home and lot. The proposed garage addition will need to be verified for setback requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF mL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 19 The applicant provided a legal description of the property and a list of adjacent property owners. The applicant did not provide a certificate of survey. Prior to approval of the vacation ofthe right-of-way the applicant should submit a legal survey to ensure that there is an accurate description of the property and the vacated right-of-way. Recommendation Staff finds that the proposed vacation is consistent with the Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan and with the regulations stated in the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore recommends approval of the request for vacation of the right-of-way on 45th Ave NE conditional on the following: · That the applicant submit an official certificate of survey accompanied by a legal description. Peterson asked how the adjacent property owners receive the property. Is it a gift or do they pay for the vacated piece. Thorvig responded that it is usually at no cost to the adjacent owners. Peterson thought maybe other options should be explored that would have more benefit to others in the community such as a walking path along the water works, or a bike path, etc. Szurek felt there were other, more important things to spend money on. Schmitt thought it would be too costly to maintain this area if turned into a public path. She said it is a two block area that doesn't really go anywhere, and it would be more prudent to allow the adjacent owner to improve his property and maintain it. Todd Sarkinen-son of the owner, spoke for his father. He explained his father has maintained the property for 40 + years and that the area to the west has already been vacated and added to that property. His father would like to add on to his garage and is unable to do so without the vacated part being added to his parcel. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke on this issue. Motion by Fiorendino , seconded byThompson, to recommend that the City Council approve the request to vacate the right of way on 45th Avenue as submitted on the condition that an offiCial certificate of survey accompanied by a legal description is provided by the applicants. Thompson, Fiorendino, Szurek, Schmitt- ayes, Peterson-Nay. MOTION PASSED. NEW BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS Peterson asked whether ill Badges were available for the Commission members. He said it would be helpful when he goes out to check on various cases that come before the commission. He was told that he could obtain one through our Police Dept. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF WL Y 6, 2005 PAGE 20 There was a discussion on Conditional Use Permits for the greenhouse/plant sales versus the Fireworks tents which obtain Peddler Licenses instead. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 pm. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Respectfully submitted, 2~&M~, Shelley Hanson Secretary