Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 4, 2005 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2005 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson Szurek. RollCall: Commission Members present-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek. Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Planner), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), Tami Ericson Diehm (Council Liaison) Tom Johnson (Police Chief) and Bob Streetar (Community Development Director). Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 16, 2005. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Bob introduced Jeff Sargent, the new City Planner, to the Commission. Jeff gave the members a brief review of his background and experience. Chief Johnson presented information to the commission members on the subject of a 2 a.m. bar closing. Tom gave some background on this subject and the research he has gathered from other communities. He will be making a presentation to the City Council at a work session in November and the Planning & Zoning Commission will also be invited to attend. He requested the members review the information he gave them and to submit any comments in writing prior to the meeting. ChiefJohnson reviewed some of the material handed out and answered questions regarding the impact on staffing and scheduling, expense of overtime, statistics ofDWI arrests and domestic calls, as well as past problems with noise levels at the establishments that have music. Several surrounding communities are also in the process of establishing Ordinances and fees associated with the 2 a.m. closing time. This information was included in the packet given to the members. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 2005-1001 James Sarna Southeast Corner of University Ave and 40th Avenue and a portion of Lookout Place Right of Way Preliminary Plat, Vacation, Site Plan, thl'ee Variances Jeff Sargent, City Planner REQUEST: PREPARED BY: Planner Sargent explained that James Sarna is requesting six (6) approvals at this meeting. follows: I. 2. 3. They are as 4. 5, 6. The Preliminary Plat for Sarna's Addition. The Site Plan for Sarna's Addition. A 10-foot front yard setback variance for hard surface setbacks fi'om a public right-of-way per Code Section 9.612, subd. 7.g. An 8-foot height variance for a monument sign per Code Section 9.616, subd. 12.a.iii. A 35 square foot area variance for a monument sign per Code Section 9.616, subd. 12.a.iii. A partial vacation of the Lookout Place right-of-way as described in Appendix A. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 OCTOBER 4, 2005 Mr. James Sarna is proposing to construct a new 6,000 square foot restaurant on the southeast corner of University A venue and 40th A venue. This project will incorporate 5 different properties currently owned by the Economic Development Authority (EDA), as well a~ the vacation of a portion of Lookout Place. Three different variances will be needed as well. The first is a setback variance to gain adequate parking space for the patrons. The second and third variance requests are for the monument sign promoting the business, located on the southeast corner of University Avenue and 40th Avenue. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The project is located on the southeast corner of University Avenue and 40th Avenue, and is located within the Design Overlay District of 40th Avenue. Properties located in this district are subject to stricter design guidelines when discussing the placement of the building on the lot, the height of the building, architectural details of the building, and signage. Planner Sargent explained that the design guidelines build on and complement recently completed streetscape improvements to the Central Avenue business district. They were developed by City staff, consultants and a Task Force with representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, area business and landowners, and interested citizens, and are intended on being mandatory. It is assumed that the intent of the guidelines should be met, however, it is understood that there may be many ways to achieve the same design objectives. The City may permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the objective(s) of the design guideline(s) equally well. The City may also waive any guideline when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make compliance more difficult or inappropriate. The property is also located in the GB, General Business District, and is adjacent to University Avenue. Being that the project is on the fringe of the 40th Avenue Design Corridor, and is also a focal entry point into the City's downtown business district, enforcement of the design guidelines will be subjective to the overall design objectives that the Cify would like to see enforced. FINDINGS OF FACT Preliminary Plat Section 9.411 (6) of the 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 requires that the preliminary plat contain the necessmy information needed to approve it as such. The submitted application for the Sarna's Addition is acceptable to be approved as a Preliminary Plat. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 OCTOBER 4, 2005 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area towards "Transit Oriented Development". The Comprehensive Plan states that this classification focuses 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. With the Schaefer/Richardson and Ryland Homes project just to the south of the proposed "Sarna's Restaurant ", this type of use fits perfectly with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. The site layout does have the following issues: a) Drive aisle width. On the southeastern portion of the parking lot, the preliminary plat indicates that one of the drive aisles only be 20 feet in width as opposed to the City Code requirement of 24 feet. All other drive aisles and parking stall lengths meet City Code requirements. City Staff feels that because this will not be a major drive aisle, the 20-foot width aisle would suffice the needs of traffic circulation throughout the site. If the developer were to increase the size of the drive aisle to meet City Code requirements, two additional parking stalls would have to be removed. b) 6-foot wooden fence. City Code requires that a 6-foot tall wooden privacy fence be erected between any new commercial developments and adjacent residential properties. There is one portion of the property on the southeast corner of the lot that abuts residentially zoned property. In lieu of a 6-foot high fence, the applicant has proposed to install 6-foot tall arborvitae trees, spaced at an interval that would in essence create a solid wall. City Stafffeels that natural vegetation would be more aesthetically pleasing than a wooden fence. A condition will be imposed on the applicant that the arborvitae tress planted in this area shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height. c) On-site /Jondinf!. The applicants are not proposing any type of on-site ponding. The development will rely on two catch basins at the south end of the site to control rainwater runoff and carry it to the City's storm sewer lines located within the Lookout Place right- of-way and adjacent alleyway. The storm sewer line will be sized to accommodate a 10- year event, with little interference or ponding in the parking lot. During a 100-year event, however, there will be some significant ponding on the south portion of the parking lot (up to 6 inches) until the rain subsides and is carried on through the catch basins to the sanitary sewer lines. The applicants are also considering using the roofiop as a means of ponding, but would rather not pursue that option. d) 334 - 40lh Avenue. The design layout of the new plat, in association with all vacations, new sidewalks and alleyway reconjigurations, has decreased the access for Mr. Gondek, whom resides at 334 - 40lh Avenue, into his business. The applicant has agreed to enter into an easement to grant access to Mr. Gondek through the development property to gain access into his property. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 OCTOBER 4, 2005 e) Enrdneerinf! considerations. Kevin Hanson 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. Hanson's concerns. Site Plan Section 9.413, subd. 4 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission make each of the following findings before approving a site plan: I. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of the Ordinance. As stated previously, the project site is located in the Design Guideline Corridor of 4d" Avenue, and is also adjacent to University Avenue. The applicant wants to take advantage of motor vehicle traffic along University Avenue because of the site's proximity to this major thoroughfare. For this reason, the site does not conform to the design guidelines in some respects. They are as follows: a) The buildinf! does not meet the setback or orientation reauirements. The design guidelines specify that building facades should be flush with the sidewalk or set back no more than 10 feet for at least sixty percent (60%) of the length ofthefrontfOl;ade. At intersections, the building should "hold the corner", that is have street facades at or near the sidewalk on both streets. The proposed restaurant sits at an angle to both the western and southern lot lines, with an approximate 1-foot setback to each property line. The design standards would require the building to be placed at the intersection of University Avenue and 40'" Avenue, at a'setback of no more than 10 feet from the northern and western lot lines. City Staff feels that because the front of the building faces University Avenue, some discretion pertaining to the setbacks can be made. In this case, the proposed location of the building makes the most sense and would achieve the same goals as outlined in the design standards for 4d" Avenue. b) Buildinf! heif!ht. The design guidelines require that all buildings shall have a minimum cornice height of 22 feet, to convey a multi-story appearance even if the building has only one occupied floor. d The proposed 6,000 square foot restaurant is only one story in height with a height of approximately 16 feet. Because of the site's location in relation to University Avenue, as well as the function of the building, City Staff feels that this is an acceptable height that would meet the objectives of the design guidelines. Staff also feels that the exterior architectural features of the building will offiet the need for this building to appear as ifit is 2 stories in height. 'I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 OCTOBER 4, 2005 c) Parkinz issues. The design guidelines specifY that ofJ-street parking in the 4d" Avenue District be located to the side or rear of buildings, with a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of the lotji-ontage being occupied by parking. The placement of the building on the site makes it difficult to achieve this specification. The site has 74 parking stalls on site, with 42 stalls located in front of the building along 40'" Avenue (56.7%). Again, the applicants would like the front of the building to be adjacent to University Avenue. City Staff has no problems with an extra 5 stalls being located in front of the restaurant adjacent to 4d" Avenue. A 10-foot setback variance will also be required for hard surface parking along the University Avenue right-of way. d) Siznaze. The underlying zoning (GB, General Business) allows for a pylon sign on this site, as it is acijacent to University Avenue. The design guidelines specifY that only a monument sign may be incOlporated in the 4d" Avenue Corridor. The proposed monument sign requires two variances due to the proposed height and square footage of the sign. 2. 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. 3. 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. Staff has found the project to be in compliance with the standards to an extent that would make this project beneficial to the City. All other design features not in compliance with the design guidelines have also been approved by City Staff based on the project using sound planning standards. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. The proposed 6,000 square foot restaurant is positioned away from abutting residential uses and in an area that minimizes the impact on property in the immediate vicinity. The exterior building materials used on the restaurant will compliment the design guidelines and will add aesthetic appeal to the area. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 OCTOBER 4, 2005 Variances Section 9.407, subd. 6 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission make each of the following findings before approving a variance: 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel ofland involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship a) 10-foot setback variance for oarkinf!. The minimum setback requirement for parking surfaces is 15 feet from the lot line. The applicant would like to place his parking lot 5 feet from the lot line. For this reason, a 10-foot setback variance is required. The applicant stated that the extra 900 square feet that will be acquired through this variance request would enable the restaurant to install needed parking stalls to ensure sufficient customer access. The on-site parking would also ensure that patrons would not park in the surrounding residential areas. The variance request is located adjacent to University Avenue where 30 feet of a 60-foot right-of way will be obtained from the MnDOT. MnDOT would retain the other 30 feet, leaving 35 feet of green space between the parking lot and University Avenue. City Stafffeels that this request is justified. b) 8-foot heif!ht variance for Sif!n. The maximum height for a monument sign is 8 feet. The applicant would like to construct a 16-foot tall sign. For this reason, an 8-foot height variance is required. The applicant stated that the proposed monument sign will be approximately 35 feet from University Avenue, and the additional height is needed so motorists can see the sign in a timely fashion. There is also a fence along University Avenue that would completely screen the sign if it were only 8 feet in height. The monument style fence would meet the design guidelines criteria, and the stated hardship would justifY the proposed variance. c) 35 square foot area variance for Sif!n. The maximum square footage for a monument sign is 40 square feet. The applicant would like to construct a monument sign with 75 square feet of sign age on both faces. For this reason, a 35 square foot area variance is required. The applicant stated that the larger sign is needed so it can be seen more easily from motorists traveling quickly along University Avenue. The increased size will also keep the sign in proportion to its proposed height. City Stafffeels that the stated hardship justifies the variance request and has no problems with the proposal. 2. The conditions upon which the variance(s) is (are) based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and area generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. This is a unique parcel in that it is located within the 40/h Avenue Design Corridor and has frontage along University Avenue. The only other parcel in the City with these conditions is the Jvfarathon Gas Station parcel across the street. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 OCTOBER 4, 2005 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The land on which the parcel lays causes the two hardships for the variances needed for the monument sign. The variances are needed to gain visibility from passersby along University Avenue in a timely manner so they can make the turn onto 40'" Avenue, and into the restaurant. The applicant causes the parking lot setback variance. It is possible to reconfigure the restaurant and parking on the site and eliminate the variance request. The current configuration is one that the applicant feels will be most economically rewarding, as it gives the restaurant the needed parking stalls to access the restaurant. 4. The granting of the variance(s) is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. As previously mentioned, the proposed restaurant meets the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The associated variances would help the restaurant fimction in a manner that would allow the restaurant to remain at its proposed site. The variances would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The granting of the variance(s) will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development, or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. City staff feels that the proposed project will do just the opposite. A restaurant use in the proposed location will be an asset to the community, and will be beneficial to the enjoyment, use and value of property or improvements in the vicinity. Vacation Section 9.409, subd. 6 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission make each of the following findings before approving a vacation of a street, alley, or public right-of- way: 1. No private rights will be injured or endangered as a result ofthe vacation. The vacation will enable the applicant to have sufficient parking for the restaurant patrons. In this case, no private rights will be injured or endangered. 2. The public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation. Although the public right-of-way will be taken away, the project will incorporate a pedestrian sidewalk that connects the east and southeast residential components of the area to 4d" Avenue and the restaurant. For this reason, the public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation. Planner Sargent noted that Centerpoint, Xcel Energy, and Qwest have all given their approval ofthe vacation. Comcast is the only utility that still needs to respond to the request. Public Works also will be requiring an easement as an 8" watermain runs through Lookout Place. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 OCTOBER 4, 2005 Conclusion The final plat needs to reflect any site plan changes resulting from the comments above. Assuming those issues can be resolved, the preliminary plat can be approved. 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. It should be noted that the vacation process takes two public hearings, a first and second reading by the City Council until it becomes valid. The vacation does not go into effect until 30 days after the second reading of the ordinance is approved. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, the site plan, the vacation, and the variances with the conditions noted in the staff report. Streetar reminded members that the properties will not be sold until all approvals have been obtained. Questions/Comments from Commissioners: Commissioner Peterson asked for clarification of pylon size allowances versus the variance being requested for the monument sign. If a pylon sign were installed it could be 20 ft high and have 75 square footage of signage space. The applicant is requesting that his monument sign be approved for 16 ft height instead of the 8 ft allowed, which would still be shorter than the allowed height of a pylon. The monument sign will have a 4 ft base, a smaIl reader board advertising specials, and the business name on the top, which is why the variance for sf of the sign is also requested. Peterson felt the monument sign, even with the increase in size, is far more attractive than a standard pylon style sign. Szurek also felt the sign would look nicer than a pylon design. Thompson thought there may be a parking issue on Summit Street due to overflow from the restaurant. Sargent explained that residents will have to access Summit by a different means due to the vacating of Lookout Place. However, it is not their intent to have parking go onto neighborhood streets. And with the entrance and exiting to 40th Avenue, any overflow would probably be along that street. Szurek asked ifit would be possible to have signs placed on Summit St that would indicate "Resident Parking Only". That can be referred to the Traffic Commission. Thompson asked about storm sewer/ponding issues. It was explained that the current storm sewer will be expanded from what it is now to handle a "10 year" storm. "100 year" storms will result in ponding on the site. Thompson also wanted the alley constmcted prior to Lookout Place being blocked off so neighbors would have access. He also thinks once the street is vacated, it will be difficult to access to the Gondek property. The turning radius is not shown on the plans. He also questioned the age of the watermain serving the property. He wants to ensure that the Public Works Director checks into that during his review. Fiorendino questioned what level of drainage is required by code. Sargent responded that he thought the requirement is for a "10 year" storm. He said the City Engineer reviews that requirement and he is satisfied, this meets the requirements. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 OCTOBER 4, 2005 Schmitt asked what the height of the sign was at the Oasis Market across the street from this site. Schmitt felt the applicant's sign could be similar to that sign in height, but should not be higher. And she didn't think the chain link fence blocks the view of the proposed sign, so she questioned whether there really is a need for the additional height. Fiorendino also thought the sign was too large and would like to see something closer to the size required in the Design Guidelines. Fiorendino asked how many other signs there would be. In addition to the monument sign, there will be a small directional sign marking the entrance off 40th and an awning over the door to identify the entrance to the restaurant. Schmitt was concerned about lack of fencing next to the residential properties. She felt it may be needed to prevent people from trespassing onto neighbor's yards. Fiorendino asked about access from the south where the residential redevelopment will take place, and whether it will allow walking traffic. Sargent said there should be sidewalks, but these plans are not clear on that. Peterson questioned if the maximized parking plan they have proposed will impact the neighborhood. And he questioned who would be responsible for tJimming the barrier trees to ensure they do not encroach in the attached areas. Planner Sargent informed him that the restaurant owners will be responsible for maintaining the site and the landscaping. Peterson asked Mr. Sarna what type of restaurant this would be. Dave Sarna (11437 Cannon Crt, Blaine) responded that it would be similar to an Applebees or Champps. The bar will be located in the center and tables around the exterior ofthe building. It is not going to be a "Sports Bar" with all the focus on TV's and sporting events. He said it will cater to people 30 years old and up who are looking to sit down for a meal or sandwich and relax and talk. It will not cater to the younger crowd or have loud entertainment. Szurek commented that at first she was concerned about lack of fencing, but now thinks the trees will work better and be more aesthetically appealing. She also commented that no lighting plan was included. The applicants stated that there will probably be 2 or 3 lights that will be screened and the light will be directed to the parking lot and should not shine onto neighboring properties. When asked about the color scheme planned for the building, the applicants stated the building would be either tan or grey brick and stucco and will having roofing to match. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR OUESTIONS/COMMENTS Mike Gondek, owner of 334 40th and 325 Summit St, spoke to the problems he will have with access to his properties once Lookout Place is vacated. The business on 40th has been in his family since 1958. The loading door faces west and trucks now back up to the garage door. He receives deliveries from two Speedy Tmcks and two UPS trucks everyday and a semi truck occasionally. He stated that he and the Sarna's have been working on an agreement to gain access to his property, but as ofthis date have been unable to come to terms acceptable to both parties. Gondek said they are close to reaching an agreement, and the remaining issue is with grading that would be needed to make the proposed agreement work. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 OCTOBER 4, 2005 Jim Sarna stated that they have offered to increase the size ofMr. Gondek's loading door to 10 feet, to widen the driveway, add a service door to the rear of the building, and do some grading. However, Mr. Gondek wants additional grading done and is not willing to share the cost. Mr. Gondek stated the additional grading needs to be done so the approach is not too steep and also is waiting for an Engineer's approval on the new beam that would be required to widen the loading door. Once these two issues are resolved, and agreement should be signed. Mr. Gondek said his other concern is that the house on Summit St., which also faced Lookout Place, will now face the alley and when the alley is plowed it will push the snow onto the front steps. It was agreed this would be an inconvenience, but something he was aware of when he purchased the property. Bruce Shellito, 403 Summit St, stated that the existing alley has problems now and he doesn't want to see them compounded. Szurek responded that she believed the City Engineer and the Fire Chief would look at these issues during their review of the Final Plat. Joyce Shellito, 403 Summit St, questioned whether a 10 ft. alley, to a 10 ft. turn with a tree in the way, is adequate. She also questioned whether the building being proposed is too big for the site since they are asking for variances to allow the placement of the building closer to University Ave. The Commission members explained that it is a reasonable request as there is additional green space along the Highway due to a MN DOT easement and that the green space will still be sufficient. Shellito then questioned the parking being adequate if they expand and add a banquet room to the lower level. Mr. Sarna stated that they have no plans to do that. They are not putting in an elevator shaft which would be required to operate a banquet room. Planner Sargent also explained that the parking requirement is 30% of the 180 seats resulting in a minimum of 54 required stalls. 74 stalls are currently being proposed to help keep the parking on site. Even if the 10 foot variance were not approved, the same size building could still be constructed, because parking would be met. The variance being requested has nothing to do with the size of the building, it is being requested to provide parking spaces in excess of the requirement. Shellito then asked about deliveries and trucks that would come and pick up grease from the site. She doesn't want it to be a bother to residents in the neighborhood. She also is concerned about the lighting not interfering with residents. The Public Hearing was closed. Peterson asked how residents would have their concerns addressed. Szurek stated it was not the Commission's place to answer all the concerns, but that residents should submit their concerns in writing so they can be addressed during the review of the final plat by staff. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE II OCTOBER 4, 2005 Motion by Szurek, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission approve the site plan based on the following conditions: 1. A row of arborvitae shall be planted at a minimum of 6-feet in height and spaced as to create a full screening barrier along the eastern property line abutting the residentially zoned parcels. 2. Screening and/or landscaping has been shown on the plan along the entire perimeter. Must provide a landscape plan indicating plant types, sizes and species. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Fiorendino, that the Planning Commission recommends that 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 reflectan 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 Plat should identifY the name of the proposed development. 3. University Avenue is a MnDOT roadway, and 4d" Avenue is an Anoka County roadway. Must provide the City with their respective review comments of the Development plans. 4. A 30-foot "turn back " from MnDOT for the University Avenue Service Drive is included in the preliminary plat. MnDOT's position on removals, landscaping andfencing of this area needs to be clarified before final platting. 5. The University Avenue Service Drive is still used for 3901 Lookout Place. Therefore, an alternate access should be developed for 3901 Lookout and installed by the Developer prior to the removal of the University'Service Drive in this area. 6. All construction traffic must be controlled and shall be directed through the vehicle tracking pads, as indicated on the SWPPP plan. All construction access will be limited off of 4d" Avenue. Due to the traffic volume on 4d" Avenue, frequent street cleaning may be necessary. 7. The City standard for drive entrances is a concrete apron matching the concrete curb and gutter. 8. If any existing curb and gutter grades are less than one percent (1%) at the driveway cuts, provide a concrete cross gutter. 9. All erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the City prior to any site activities beginning. 10. Any site grading prior to final plat approval will require an excavation permit, obtained from the Engineering department. 11. An NPDES permit will be required, at the time of construction. Additional erosion control measures along the southerly property line are recommended, due to the natural slope of the property. The City also reserves the right to require additional erosion control measures during construction, as conditions warrant. 12. All restoration of turf areas in the Public Right-of Way (ROW) shall be by four (4) inches of topsoil/sodding. 13. All work within Public ROW shall be inspected by the City Engineering Department. Twenty four (24) hour advance notice of an inspection is required. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 OCTOBER 4, 2005 14. The alley connection shown by the Developer connecting tlJ.e existing east-west concrete alley to access Summit Avenue is acceptable. The Final Plans shall include a design detail meeting City requirements for alley construction. And that alley access must be provided prior to Lookout Place being closed. 15. A north-south sidewalk connection has been shown extending to 4d" Avenue to the north and Summit Avenue to the south. The Final Plans shall include a design detail meeting the City requirements for pedestrian ramps and grade. 16. All utilities (water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer), shall meet the City of Columbia Heights specifications for materials and installation. 17. Disconnect any existing utility service stubs in accordance with Public Works requirements. 18. The final plans should include signage for the alley change of direction. 19. All sidewalks shall meet ADA requirements for pedestrian ramps and grade. 20. At final plan submittal, the developer must provide plan/profile sheets for the utilities. 21. The plat must befound acceptable to the Fire Chief All Ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Szurek, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 1 O-foot front yard setback variance for parking. All Ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Szurek, seconded by Peterson that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 8-foot height variance for the monument sign and the 35 square foot area variance for the monument sign. Ayes-Szurek, Schmitt, Peterson Nayes- Thompson, Fiorendino MOTION PASSED. Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Szurek, that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested vacation of the portion of Lookout Place as described herein 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 proposed easement for the existing utilities be extended 5 feet further west to accommodate the existing water main line, to be approved by the City Engineer. 2. The closure and removal of the existing Lookout Street section shall be the responsibility of the Developer. 3. The second reading of the proposed vacation will not occur until the City Council approves the preliminary and final plats. 4. The approval of the vacation is contingent on the utility companies (namely CenterPoint Energy, Comcast Cable, Qwest, and Xcel Energy) giving approval of the vacation. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 OCTOBER 4, 2005 To reiterate the issues the Commission wants to have checked more closely: A more detailed Lighting Plan to include Summit St. New Alley constructed prior to closing Lookout Place. Check the condition of the existing watermain and sanitary sewer. Access agreement for loading dock. Comments from Fire Chief. NEW BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS Bob Streetar updated the commission members on the following: 1. The City Council approved the hiring ofDSU to design a plan for the Sheffield area. It will be a long process, but residents in the area are in support of continuing the redevelopment of the area. 2. The EDA entered into an agreement with Anderson Builders to re-develop the 49th.50th block of Central Avenue. Taco Bell and Udupi Cafe are the only two businesses that will still be located in the block. 3. The groundbreaking of Phase II will be held October 19th. Mr. Streetar reported that 8 units in the new Park View Addn. have already been sold. 4. The City is working with'DSU to establish a plan for the Burger King-Mady's property on the 3900 block of Central Avenue. 5. Jeff will be working with Commission members to re-write the Sign Ordinance to streamline and update the code to CUlTent situations. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, r-:Jll1o U LM_(~(jV\ ~~lleYHans~ Secretary