HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 6, 2006
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
June 6, 2006
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice-Chairperson Schmitt.
Roll Call:
Commission Members present-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, and Peterson.
Commission Members absent- Szurek
Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Planner), Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), and Shelley Hanson
(Secretary).
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Fiorendino, to approve the minutes fi'om the meeting of May 2, 2006.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2005-11 02
James Sarna, Sarna Inc.
3955 University Ave
Final Plat, Sarna's Addition
Mr. James Sarna is proposing to construct a new 7,440 square foot restaurant on the southeast corner of
University Avenue and 40th Avenue. This project will incorporate the combination of five (5) different
properties, as well as the vacation of a portion of Lookout Place. On October 24, 2005, the City Council
approved the Preliminary Plat for this development, as well as the first reading for the vacation of a
portion of Lookout Place. City Council also approved three (3) variances in association with the project,
including a 10- foot setback variance for hard surface parking, an 8- foot height variance for the
monument sign, and a 35 square foot area variance for the monument sign. On April 10, 2006, the City
Council approved a fourth variance, being a 2-foot parking stall length variance to accommodate more
on-site customer parking.
At this time, Mr. Sarna is requesting the Final Plat approval for Sarna's Restaurant.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The area in which the restaurant will be located is guided 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 2
ZONING
The propelty 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, is adjacent to University
Avenue, 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 City would like to see
enforced.
Immediately to the south of the development is ME Global, located on a parcel zoned I, Industrial. The
parcels to the north, east and west are zoned GB, General Business, with the exception of some
residentially zoned parcels bordering the southeastern portion of the property. These residences are
zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential.
ANALYSIS
Ponding
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 sanitary sewer line will be
resized to accommodate a IO-year event, with little interference or ponding in the parking lot. During a
I OO-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 City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan for the site and has determined that it meets the
City's standards.
Landscaping
The submitted landscape plan meets the City requirements for the necessary landscaping in a new
development. At the time of the Preliminary Plat approval, the applicants requested the use of a 6-foot
tall arborvitae hedgerow screening the southeastern portion of the parking lot from the residential
property to the east. The current landscape plan indicates that there will be a 6-foot tall wooden privacy
fence used for the screening mechanism. A 6-foot tall fence meets the City's requirements for screening
a commercial use from abutting residential uses.
Parking
The proposed restaurant will be 7,440 square feet in area, and will accommodate 184 indoor seats.
During warmer months, the outside seating area will be opened, adding 45 seats. In total, the restaurant
would be able to accommodate 229 dining patrons, requiring 69 parking stalls per City Code. The site
plan indicates that there will be 89 parking stalls on site, exceeding the City Code requirement. A
parking stall length variance has been approved, decreasing the length of all parking stalls on site from
20 feet to 18 feet. This variance enabled the restaurant to accommodate more parking stalls on site,
decreasing the number of patron parking in the adjacent residential area.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Final Plat
Section 9.104 (L) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the
following findings before approving a final plat:
1. The final plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat.
The Final Plat application conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat with a couple exceptions.
They are as follows:
A. The Preliminary Plat did not include a 25' x 50' portion of the northwest corner of the
Final Plat application. Originally, the City was under the impression that MnDOT
controlled and owned the property. After a title search, it was determined that the City
owned that piece of land, which was conveyed back to the Sarna Development.
B. The Preliminmy Plat also did not include a description of the easement required by the
City over a portion of Lookout Place, to be vacated and conveyed back to the project.
2. The final plat conforms to the requirements of 99. I 14.
39.114 is the Subdivision Regulations section of the City's Zoning ordinance. Conforming to this
section would require the appropriate iriformation to be submitted to the City for Final Plat
approval. The applicants have met this requirement.
Staff recommends approval of the final plat.
Ouestions bv members:
Thompson questioned whether a stipulation could be added to the conditions that the configuration of
the alley be done right away before the main construction begins so that residents would have access, as
well as garbage service to the area. Sargent stated that yes, that could be added.
Thompson then asked about the 6 ft high fence. He said it isn't shown on the landscape plan, just on the
site plan. Sargent explained it is a requirement of the zoning ordinance to install the fencing between
two different zoning districts for site plan approval. The landscape plan shows the ornamental bushes
approximately 3 ft high running inside the fence for aesthetics. The applicants and the neighbors both
want the fencing as they feel it will do a better job of screening headlights, and providing security.
Thompson asked if all outstanding issues with ME Global and Mr. Gondek had been worked out.
Sargent replied that it had and that all agreements were in place.
Fiorendino questioned why the placement of the building had been changed. Sargent explained that
originally Sarna's had considered having a basement and a 2nd story. However, they have since changed
their minds and increased the footprint of the building instead. The slight change in the placement
allows them better visibility and a few more parking spaces. It seemed to be a better use of the space.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 4
There were no further questions from the members.
Public Hearing Opened:
Mr. Gondek of325 Summit St. had concerns about having a fence on the site. He felt this may become
unsightly as it would attract graffiti. He suggested planting larger trees along the inside and outside of
the fence. He was told there isn't enough room to plant trees or bushes on the outside of the fence as it
will run along the public sidewalk. Sargent also explained that the zoning ordinance requires a privacy
fence that is at least 80% opaque. The alternating board fence is the one most cormnonly used. He also
said the fence will be on the Sama's propelty and that it will be their responsibility to maintain it.
Public Hearing was Closed
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Final Plat of the Sarna's Restaurant, Sarna's Addition, based on the following
conditions:
1. 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~
2. All restoration of turf areas in the Public Right-of-Way (ROW) shall be by four (4) inches of
topsoil/sodding.
3. All work within Public ROW shall be inspected by the City Engineering Department. Twenty four
(24) hour advance notice of an inspection is required
4. All utilities (water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer), shall meet the City of Columbia
Heights specifications for materials and installation.
5. Disconnect any existing utility service stubs in accordance with Public Works requirements.
6. All sidewalks shall meet ADA requirements for pedestrian ramps and grade.
7. An Anoka County and MnDOT permit shall be requiredfor doing work within the Right ofWay.
8. ApermitfromAnoka County will be requiredfor the driveway access to 40th Avenue NE.
9. That restoration of the adjacent alley be done, to provide access, prior to the start of the main
construction.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The attached Resolution will go to the City Council at the June 12, 2006 meeting.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 5
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR JAMES SARNA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case No. 2005-1102) has been submitted by James Sarna to the City Council
requesting a subdivision from the City of Columbia Heights Subdivision Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: Southeast corner of University Avenue and 40'h Avenue NE.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sarna's Addition
THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed subdivision upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to traffic, property values, light,
air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; and has held the required public
hearing on this proposal on June 6, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after
reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning
Commission:
I. The proposed minor subdivision conforms to the requirements of Section 14 of the City Code.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with
good planning and site engineering design principles.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached condition, plans, maps, and other information shall
become part of this subdivision approval.
CONDITIONS:
I. 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.
2. All restoration of turf areas in the Public Right-of-Way (ROW) shall be by four (4) inches of
topsoil/sodding.
3. All work within Public ROW shall be inspected by the City Engineering Depmtment. Twenty
four (24) hour advance notice of an inspection is required.
4. All utilities (water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer), shall meet the City of Columbia
Heights specifications for materials and installation.
5. Disconnect any existing utility service stubs in accordance with Public Works requirements.
6. All sidewalks shall meet ADA requirements for pedestrian ramps and grade.
7. An Anoka County and MnDOT permit shall be required for doing work within the Right of Way.
8. A permit from Anoka County will be required for the driveway access to 40'h Avenue NE.
9. That restoration of the adjacent alley be done, to provide access, prior to the start of the main
construction.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 6
Passed this _ day of June 200_
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
Approval is contingent upon execution and return of this document to the City Planning Office.
I have read and agree to the conditions of this resolution as outlined above.
James Sarna
Date
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0601
T-MobiIe USA
1400 - 49th Avenue NE
Conditional Use Permit Telecommunications Tower
At this time, Mr. Steven Edwards, a Site Acquisition Specialist for T-Mobile USA, is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the installation of a new cell phone tower located at Columbia
Heights High School. The cell phone tower is considered a stealth tower, as it will replace an existing
light pole sUlTounding the football field at the high school. T -Mobile proposes replacing the existing
light pole with a 78-foot pole, with the capacity to hold the existing light system and a T-Mobile canister
installation to enhance T-Mobile's digital telephone network nationwide and paliicularly in the area
around the Columbia Heights High School and surrounding residential community.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for a Park. The current use of the propeliy is for Columbia
Heights High School and Highland Elementary School. These uses are consistent with the acceptable
uses in the zoning district in which they are located. Telecommunication towers are allowed as
Conditional Uses in residential districts.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 7
Consistency with Zoning Ordinance
The property is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, as are the properties to the north and east. The
properties to the west are zoned R-2A and R2-B, Two-Family Residential. The properties to the south
are zoned R-2A and R-3, Multiple Family Residential.
The City's Zoning Code has a specific section regarding the installation of telecommunication towers
within the City of Columbia Heights. This ordinance outlines specific criteria for the location of towers
in the City, and must be followed in order to receive a CUP. Some of the specific requirements are as
follows:
1. Co-location/shared use of Towers. The City should strive to promote and encourage the
shared use/co-location of towers and antenna support structures in order to help minimize the
total number of towers within the City and to lessen the negative impact that a
telecommunications tower may have on a residential neighborhood. Applicants must prove
that they have studied alternative locations, and must provide reasoning as to why the
alternative location would not work.
A Search Ring is a geographic area in which potential sites may be located to ~fJectuate the
maximum amount of coverage in a service-poor area. Radio Frequency engineers identifY a
Search Ring based on several criteria, including coverage and capacity needs, topography,
and locations of other T-Mobile towers. First, T-Mobile will look for potential co-location
sites within the Search Rings in order to minimize the cost of new construction and to meet
the spirit and intent of local regulations that encourage co-location to minimize the number
of towers within ajurisdiction.
T-Mobile identified an existing tower near the Search Ring, which would potentially be able
to satisfY some of T-Mobile 's needs. The American Tower is located behind the existing
water tower in Hilltop. Although the location would be suitable, the tower would not allow
for a 360-degree coverage of the area, which is neededfor cell phone use. When no other
towers or rooftops were identijied, T-Mobile determined that a stealth tower around the
football field would suffice their needs.
Locating a telecommunications tower in the R-1 District is permitted as a Conditional Use,
as long as the tower does not exceed 80 feet in height.
2. Setbacks. The City Code requires that all telecommunication towers be placed at a distance
equal to or greater than the height of the proposed tower from all abutting property lines.
The proposed tower will be 78 feet in height, and will be located 272 feet ji'om the northern
property line, 946 feet from the eastern property line, 819 feet ji'om the southern property
line, and 366feet Ji'om the western property line.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 8
3. Screening and Landscaping. The City Code requires that wireless communication towers
shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the
tower compound from sU11'0unding property. The standard buffer shall consist of a
landscaped strip at least 10 feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound.
Representatives fi"om Columbia Heights High School have requested not to screen the
compound area for safety purposes. The tower will be replaced in an area used for track
and field competitions. If a landscape buffer were implemented, it would obstruct the
athletes competing in several track events. The school has also requested if the fence used to
surround the compound could be a chain link fence, and not a wooden privacy fence. A
privacy fence would encourage hiding spots for students or other people accessing the
property.
The tower itself will be masked to look like an existing light pole. A new light pole will
replace the old pole, with the T-Mobile antennae placed below the new lighting system. The
lights themselves will be replaced at the existing height as the previous lights on the pole, at
a height of approximately 78 feet.
The City Code Section regarding telecommunication towers was established in order to protect the City
from an overabundance of wireless towers, while maintaining and protecting the character of
residentially zoned neighborhoods. City Staff finds that the T -Mobile proposal has done an effective job
in locating a new tower in a stealth-like manner; minimizing the visual impacts the tower may have on
the City as a whole, and specifically on the surrounding residential neighborhood.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines 9 conditions that must be met in order for the City to
grant a conditional use permit. They are as follows:
(a) The use is one of the conditional uses listed for the zoning district in which the propel1y is
located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Telecommunication towers are allowed as a Conditional Use Permit in the R-l, Single-Family
Residential District as long as the tower does not exceed 80 feet in height.
(b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.
The use is in harmony with the existing use and zoning of the property. The intent of the
Comprehensive Plan would guide this area for a public use, consistent with the school's
function.
(c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
The design of the wireless communication tower will blend in to the current surrounding area,
and will not impose hazards on neighboring properties. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has issued T-Mobile a license to work within the allowable fi"equency
emissions.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 9
(d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
The use will have no impact on the use of the property in the immediate vicinity.
( e) The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is
compatible with the appearance of the existing or intended character ofthe surrounding area.
The proposed tower will be camouflaged to look like a light pole used to light the existing
football field. The intended character of the surrounding area will remain unchanged.
(f) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public
facilities and services.
(g) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public
streets and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
There will be no increase in traffic as a direct result in the approval of this CUP.
(h) The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the
cumulative effect of other uses is the immediate vicinity.
The use will not have a negative cumulative effect on other uses in the immediate vicinity.
(i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
Conditional Use Pelmit a new telecommunications tower to be erected at Columbia Heights High
School, subject to conditions of approval outlined in the recommended motion.
Ouestions bv members:
Peterson asked whether the light/tower would impede any of the sport events on the field. He was told
depending on the amount of fencing and landscaping done around the base, the only event that
might be affected would be some of the track and field events. Peterson wondered if the pole
couldn't have been located in a different spot to the west. Mr. Steve Edwards, a representative
from T-Mobile said they couldn't meet the setback requirements at that location. And other
possible locations were not possible due to power problems. He also stated an Engineer would
determine whether it was safe to use the exiting pole or to install a brand new one. At this point, he
thought they would be going with a new one.
Schmitt asked if the new pole would blend in with the others. Mr. Edwards assured her they would do
their best to see that is done.
Thompson asked how much rent is being paid to the School District. No one present knew the answer to
that qnestion.
Public Hearing Opened:
Jim Totzke of 1630 Fairway Dr. asked if it would provide any noise to the area residents. Edwards
stated there are intemal air conditioners, but nOlmally they can't be heard past 25 feet. Totzke then
questioned why it comes before the Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission and the
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 10
City Council if it is located on School District property. He asked ifthere was a financial benefit to
the City as well as the school district. Sargent explained to him that it comes before the City
because it requires a Conditional Use Permit that must be approved by the Council, to ensure it
meets City Codes and that all conditions are met, prior to the School District entering into a formal
agreement with T-Mobile and being able to move ahead with the installation. Sargent also
explained that any new tower would go through the same process whether it was installed on
private or public property. And any other companies that may wish to locate on an existing pole
would need to prove they would not be interfering with what is presently there, that they can't go
elsewhere, that the pole would support such equipment, illld that all conditions are met per City
Code just as this case. Mr. Totzke was refelTed to the School Board or the Superintendent if he
wished to know the financial arrangements with the School District.
Howill'd Seim of 1425 Molan Terrace (used to serve on the School Board) asked if there would be any
electronic magnetic interference with wireless equipment. Steve Edwards ofT-Mobile stated there
me 26 other sites within the city and that they have never received a complaint to date on any
adverse affects to wireless equipment. Their system operates at a higher frequency level. Mr.
Seim also asked if the existing pole is replaced and they run new wiring to the pole, how it will
affect the other poles as they are all interconnected. Ml'. Edwards was not aware of that and said
he would pass that information along to his company.
Phil Clark of 1260 Lincoln TelTace asked if other companies would now come forward and be allowed
to put equipment on the tower also. Smgent explained that any company willlting to put additional
equipment on the pole has to go through the same process. This approval does not grant access for
all future equipment.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications tower to be located at 1400 -
49th Avenue NE, subject to certain 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. All required state and local codes will be met and in full compliance.
2. A barbed-wire fence may not be usedfor security around the tower compound.
3. In lieu of a privacy fence, the applicant shall use a chain link fence surrounding the tower
compound.
4. The telecommunications tower and compound may not be sold, transferred or assigned without
prior notification to the City.
5. No sublease shall be entered into by any provider until the sub lessee has obtained a permit for
the subject wireless communications facility or tower or antenna support structure.
6. The tower design must be certified by a qualified engineer specializing in tower structures and
licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota. The certification must state the tower design is
structurally sounds and, at a minimum, in conformance with the City's building code and the
State Building Code.
7, The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the tower.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE II
Ayes-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt
Abstain-Peterson
MOTION PASSED.
The attached Resolution will go to the City Council at the June 12,2006 meeting.
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
T-MOBILE, USA
WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2006-0601) has been submitted by Steve Edwards of T-Mobile to the
City Council requesting a conditional use permit from the City of Columbia Heights at the following
site:
ADDRESS: 1400 - 49th Avenue NE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: A Conditional Use Permit per Code
Section 9.109 (O)(5)(e), to allow a telecommunications tower in the R-I, Single-Family Residential
District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code
on June 6, 2006;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Plamling
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed conditional use permit upon the health, safety, and
welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility
of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding
areas; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after
reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning
Commission:
I. The use is one of the conditional uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is
located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
2. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The use will not impose hazards or distributing influences on neighboring properties.
4. The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
5. The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is compatible
with the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area.
6. The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public
facilities and services.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 12
7. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public
streets and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
8. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the
cumulative effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity.
9. The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that
this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar
veal' after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. All required state and local codes will be met and in full compliance.
2. A barbed-wire fence may not be used for security around the tower compound.
3. In lieu of a privacy fence, the applicant shall use a chain link fence surrounding the tower
compound.
4. The telecommunications tower and compound may not be sold, transferred or assigned without
prior notification to the City.
5. No sublease shall be entered into by any provider until the sub lessee has obtained a permit for
the subject wireless communications facility or tower or antenna SUPPOlt structure.
6. The tower design must be celtified by a qualified engineer specializing in tower structures and
licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota. The certification must state the tower design is
structurally sounds and, at a minimum, in conformance with the City's building code and the
State Building Code.
7. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the tower.
Passed this _ day of June 200_
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 13
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0602
Riaz Shad
4100 Reservoir Boulevard
Lot Split and Variances
At this time, Mr. Shad is requesting a minor subdivision (lot split) to create two lots (Parcel A and B),
located at 4100 Reservoir Boulevard. In association with the lot split, the applicant is also requesting
two variances. The first is a 598 square foot area variance for Parcel A per Zoning Code Section 9.109
(C). The second is a 4.7-foot rear yard setback variance for the existing house located on Parcel A per
Zoning Code Section 9.109 (C).
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Low Density Residential. The property is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential and is currently being used as a single-family house. The request will create a
new parcel for a single-family house, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this reason.
Consistency with Zoning Ordinance
The property at 4100 Reservoir Boulevard is zoned R-I, Single Family Residential. The propelties to the north,
south and east are also zoned R-l. The properties to the west are zoned R-2A, One and Two Family Residential.
The proposed lot split is required to meet the minimum lot area, lot width and setback regulations as outlined
below:
Lot Size. The minimum lot size in the R-1 District is 8,400 square feet in area. The proposed lot split
will create two separate lots, Parcel A and Parcel B. The proposed Parcel A will have a lot area of
7,802 square feet, which is less than what the Zoning Code requires. For this reason, a 598 square foot
area variance is required. Proposed Parcel B will have a lot area of 10,452 square feet; meeting the
minimum lot area standards.
Lot Width. The minimum lot width in the R-I District is 70 feet. Parcel A will have a proposed lot
width of 89.86 feet and Parcel A will have a proposed lot width of 70. 00 feet. Both of these widths meet
the minimum lot width standard for the district.
Setbacks. The minimum setbacks in the R-1 District are as follows:
Front yard:
Side Yard:
Corner Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
25 feet
7 feet
12 feet
20% oflot depth
At this time, there are no house plans for Parcel B, however an existing single-family home is located on
Parcel A. When the lot split is complete, the orientation of the lot will remain the same, with the front
yard abutting Reservoir Boulevard, and the comer side yard abutting 41 sl Avenue. The lot split,
however, will cause the house to become non-conforming for setback purposes. The existing house will
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 14
have the following setbacks when the lot split is complete:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Corner Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
30.5 feet
15.3 feet
16.1 feet
10.25 (requires a 5-foot variance)
The rear yard setback is determined by taking 20% of the average lot depth. In this case, the average lot
depth is 76.21 feet. 20% of the average lot depth would yield a rear yard setback requirement of 15.24
feet.
Park Dedication. The required park dedication for a subdivision is determined by taking 10% of
the estimated market value of the newly created, undeveloped land. Anoka County records
indicate that the estimated market value of the undeveloped land for Parcel B would be
$48,891.50. Therefore, the park dedication fee for Parcel B will be $4,889.15, to be paid upon final
approval ofthe lot split.
FINDINGS OF FACT (minor subdivision) Section 9.104 (J) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines 8
required findings that must be met in order for the City to grant a minor subdivision (lot split). They are
as follows:
a) The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots.
The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of two new parcels.
b) The proposed subdivision ofland does not involve the vacation of existing easements.
No existing easements will be vacated as a result of this subdivision. The applicant will be
required to dedicate an additional 5 feet to the existing 10-loot drainage and utility easement
located on the western lot line of Parcel B, in order to create a 15-100t drainage and utility
easement.
c) 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.
Parcel B will not coriform to the lot area requirements established for the district. For this
reason, a 598 square foot area variance is requested to meet the minimum standards. The lot
area on Parcel A conforms to code. All lot widths for resulting parcels will meet the city's
minimum standards as well.
d) The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose
of gaining access to the property.
No public rights-of-way will be dedicated for the purpose of gaining access to the property.
e) The propeliy has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this
article.
This property has not been previously subdivided.
f) The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land.
The conveyance of the land will not be hindered by the minor subdivision.
g) The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records
related to assessments.
h) The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in Section 9.114.
The proposed subdivision meets all the design standards for minor subdivisions executed in the
City of Columbia Heights.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 15
FINDINGS OF FACT (variances) Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines 5 required
findings that must be met in order for the City to grant a minor subdivision (lot split). Response (1) will
be for the 598 square foot lot area variance and response (2) will be for the 4.7-foot rear yard setback
variance. They are as follows:
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of
this al1icle would cause undue hardship.
(1) The property in its current state is 18,254 square feet in area. If the property were to be
split evenly, the resulting parcels would be 9,127 square feet each. The property's
hardship lies in the fact that it is oddly shaped, and triangular. There is no way for the
applicant to be able to split the property while maintaining both a 70-foot lot width and
a minimum of 8, 400 square feet in area. If the property were a perfect rectangle, the
applicant would not need a variance for lot area when splitting the property.
(2) In order for the applicant to maintain a 70-foot lot width for Parcel B, the new proposed
lot line was placed 10.55 feet fi'om the existing house on Parcel A. The required rear
yard setback for the existing house on Parcel A is 15.2 feet. For this reason, a 5-foot
rear yard setback variance is required.
b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and al'e generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classification.
(1) There is one other similarly shaped parcel along Reservoir Boulevard. The stated
hardship is therefore unique to the property.
(2) The applicant would like to 5plit a piece of property already containing a house. Given
the sizes of the parcels in the City of Columbia Heights, it is rare to find a parcel of land
large enough to subdivide, which has an existing house on it.
c) The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created
by any person currently having a legal interest in the propel1y.
(I) The hardship is caused by the irregular shaped lot" created at the time of the initial
platting of the area.
(2) The house was placed on the property prior to the applicant having legal interest in the
property.
d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
comprehensive plan.
(1) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the comprehensive plan for both of the
requested variances because of the property's low density status.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 16
e) The granting of the variance 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.
(1) The applicant owns the existing house on the subject parcel of land and is creating a new
parcel that meets City Code for lot area and lot width. Because the variances themselves
are minor in nature and the property will remain low density, the request is a negligible
departure fi'om the ordinance.
(2) The new house to be located on Parcel B could be placed in a location consistent with all
the other houses in respect to neighboring houses. For this reason, the granting of the
variance would not be injurious.
Staff recommends approval ofthe lot split and the variance with the conditions noted in the
recommended motion.
Questions bv members:
Peterson asked what the setbacks are for the existing houses in that area. Sargent replied that the
propeliy to the north also has a 30.4 ft setback. The prope1iy to the south is not shown on the survey,
but all the houses in the area seem to be very close to the same distance.
There was a discussion regarding the size of some of the other lots in the area, the topography of the lot
in question, as well as the narrow width of 41 st Avenue west of Reservoir Blvd. The alley adjacent to the
property in question is unimproved and used as additional green space by the adjoining properties. It
was noted that a developer will have a difficult time constructing a house on the split off piece due to the
topography and the drainage requirements that would need to be met. However, the question before the
commission is whether to approve the lot split and variance, not to address what mayor may not be built
sometime in the future.
The question was asked how long the owner had before the propetiy had to be developed. Sargent
explained it is up to the owner to file the lot split with the County within a year, then what he does with
it after that is up to him. He can sit on it forever and never develop it, ifhe chooses.
Public Hearing Opened:
Jim Totzke of 1630 Fairway Dr felt taking one lot and splitting into 2, lowers the value of the lots, and
encourages low valued homes to be built because the lot sizes are now smaller. He is concerned about
condensing too many properties into an area. Sargent again explained, the commission can only
approve what is before them at this time--the lot split and variance-and whether it meets the criteria
for approval. They cannot address what type of house may be built at this time.
Fiorendino asked whether there would be any parking issues along 41 st Ave. Sargent said any new
house would require a double garage and with driveway parking would be no different than any other
home constructed in the City.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 17
Public Hearing was closed.
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the lot split with the following conditions:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become part of the permit.
2. The applicant shall pay apark dedication fee in the amount of$4,889.15, due at the time of
final approval by the City Council, and prior to any permits issued for the property.
3. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 5-foot easement on the western property line of
proposed Parcel B for drainage and utility purposes, to be approved by the City Engineer.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the 598 square foot area variance for Parcel A and the 51'oot rear yard setback
variance for Parcel A with the following conditions:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become part of the permit.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The attached Resolutions will go to the City Council at the June 12,2006 meeting.
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR RIAZ SHAD
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case No. 2006-0602) has been submitted by Riaz Shad to the City Council
requesting a subdivision from the City of Columbia Heights Subdivision Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 1400 Reservoir Boulevard
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall
THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 18
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed subdivision upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to traffic, property values, light,
air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; and has held the required public
hearing on this proposal on June 6, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after
reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning
Commission:
I. The proposed subdivision ofland will not result in more than three lots.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements.
3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements
established for the zoning district in which the property is located.
4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the
purpose of gaining access to the propeliy.
5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this
miicle.
6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land.
7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records
related to assessments.
8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the 99.114.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached condition, plans, maps, and other information shall
become part of this subdivision approval.
CONDITIONS:
I. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become part of the permit.
2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of$4,889.15, due at the time of final
approval by the City Council, and prior to any permits issued for the property.
3. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 5-foot easement on the western propeliy line of
proposed Parcel B for drainage and utility purposes, to be approved by the City Engineer.
Passed this _ day of June 200_
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 19
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE
FOR RIAZ SHAD
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2006-0602) has been submitted by Riaz Shad to the City Council
requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 1400 Reservoir Boulevard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 598 square foot area variance per
Code Section 9.109 (C), and a 4.7-foot rear yard setback variance per Code Section 9.109 (C).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code
on June 6, 2006;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light,
air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the sU1l'Ounding area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that
the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings ofthe Planning Commission:
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, where strict adherence to the
provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship.
2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classification.
3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been
created by any person currently having legal interest in the property.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The granting of the variance 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.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, plans, maps, and other information shall
become part of this variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree
that this variance shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1)
calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 20
CONDITIONS:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with the
application shall become part of the permit.
Passed this _ day of June, 2006
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0603
Welle Auto Supply
4801 Central Avenue
Site Plan Approval
At this time, Ken Welle d/b/a! Welle Auto Supply, is requesting a Site Plan review in order to construct
a 3,200 square foot addition to his existing business located at 4801 Central Avenue. Mr. Welle is
proposing to expand the building by 51 feet to the east in order to accommodate 6 new service bays.
CU11'ently, the business is an auto supply store that does not do any type of service work. The proposed
addition would allow service work on-site as an added accommodation of the store.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan classifies this area as a Transit Oriented Mixed-Use District. This district
requires a higher percentage of service-oriented commercial/retail development, due to the focus on the
commuting needs of Columbia Heights residents. The proposed addition to the existing business would
be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for this area because it will intensify a service-
oriented commercial establishment.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 21
Zoning Ordinance
The property is located within the MXD, Mixed Use District, as are the properties to the north, south
and east. The property to the east is the location of the new Grand Central Lofts development. The
propelties to the west are within the City of Hilltop. The Zoning Code states that the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall approve the site plan for any new construction located in this district.
ANALYSIS
Circulation, Access, and Parking. The proposed addition will be 3,400 square feet in area, and will be
comprised entirely of service bays for automobile repair. The Zoning Code states that the business will
be required to have one (1) parking stall for each 300 square feet of floor area for the addition, plus two
(2) parking stalls for each service bay added to the building. Using these figures, the new addition
would require 23 parking stalls.
The remainder of the building would require one (1) parking stall for each 300 square feet of retail and
office space, plus one (1) parking stall for each 3,000 square feet of warehouse. This would require 21
parking stalls for the existing building. With the proposed addition, 44 parking stalls would be required
to meet city code. The proposed site plan indicates that there will be 48 parking stalls on site.
It should be noted that there was an existing driveway and parking easement located on the southern 5
feet of the subject property. The easement was 25 feet wide, with the remaining 20 feet located on the
property to the south. The applicant has amended this easement to convey that it will be strictly a
driveway easement for the shared use of both propelty owners. This is essential, as it will allow Mr.
Welle to gain an adequate drive aisle for his customers to access the rear of the property.
Signage Plan. The applicants are proposing to incorporate two small directional signs located on the
building to indicate the location of the service bays. Such signs may not be painted directly onto the
building, but vinyl decals are permitted. There have been no other plans to alter the existing signage in
any way.
Highway District Design Guidelines. This propelty is located within the Highway Design District,
pertaining to the design guidelines established for the Central A venue corridor. The only alteration to
the front of the building is to install a large window facing Central A venue. The remainder of the
addition will be to the rear of the building and will have no impact to the public right-of-way, or
passersby along Central Avenue. For this reason, the proposed addition will conform to the design
guidelines, as the Planning Department deems as necessary.
Re-submittal. In December of 2005, Welle Auto received approval from the Planning Commission on
a site-plan for an addition to the building incorporating seven (7) service bay doors. These doors were
situated to the rear of the building, and faced east towards the Grand Central Lofts development. There
were some concerns at the meeting regarding the noise that an automotive repair business would
generate, with its proximity to the residential development to the east. Conditions were imposed on Mr.
Welle restricting the amount of noise that could be generated as part of the approved site plan.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 22
The proposed site plan incorporates only 6 service bays, with three facing the north and three facing the
south. The reason for the reorientation of the building was due to poor soil quality located on the north
end of the property. The current configuration of the addition would avoid the poor soils and would also
help reduce the amount of noise transferred to abutting residential properties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (M) requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make each of the following
findings before approving a site plan:
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements ofthis article
The proposed site plan meets all the requirements pertaining to setbacks, parking, and public
access for the district in which it is located.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions ofthe city's comprehensive plan.
The site plan conforms to the comprehensive plan, as it is a proposal to expand on an existing
service-oriented business located within the Transit Oriented Mixed-Use District.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
The plan for the area incorporates service-oriented businesses as a part of the Transit Oriented
Mixed-Use District. For this reason, the proposed addition to the existing business would be
consistent with the applicable area plans.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
The proposed addition will be located to the rear of the building and will have a very minimal
impact to the public right-ofway. The addition will not be getting any closer to the northern
property line, as it will remain the same distance as the existing building. The expansion will be
located 51 feet closer to the rear property line than the existing principal structure. When the
expansion is complete, the building will be located 63 feetfrom the rear property line. This is
greater than the minimum requirement of 20 feet in other commercially zoned districts.
Residents potentially affected by the proposed addition would be the future residents located in the
Grand Central Lo.fts. Automobile repair stations naturally generate noise in association with the
repair of vehicles. The Grand Central Lo.fts mayor may not be affected by the auto repair noise, as
they are located approximately 24 vertical feet above the Welle Auto Supply store.
Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan with the conditions noted in the recommended motion.
Ouestions bv members:
Fiorendino asked about Condition #6-noise levels. He wondered if any readings had been taken
recently. Sargent explained this issue came up at the December meeting when the first site plan was
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 23
approved. Since that time, Mr. Welle and the Police did test the site and found that the traffic alone
along Central Avenue exceeded the limits already. So they amended #6 to read "cannot exceed current
levels." How the Police will monitor this is yet to be determined.
Schmitt stated that at the December meeting there was a verbal agreement between Mr. Nedegaard and
Mr. Welle regarding landscaping between the two sites along Central Ave. She would like to have this
included in the conditions of approval. She also thought that having the dumpsters enclosed should be
added to the list of conditions. The other members agreed.
There was a discussion regarding the poor condition of the outside ofthe current building, and the
material that will be used on the new building. Sargent explained the new building will have to meet the
Design Guidelines and conform to the accepted list of outside materials. And they would expect the
outside of the existing building will be re-painted to blend with the new construction in an acceptable
color as listed in the Design Guidelines. The Architect also reported that they would be adding a
window on the Central Ave front of the building on the south end and will trim it in the existing brick
that will be removed in the process. Gary Peterson also concurred that the present building is unsightly
and he felt it should be improved prior to allowing construction on the new one.
There was also a discussion regarding their non-compliant signage. Sargent explained as long as it
exists and is not removed or changed, they are allowed to keep it. If it is ever removed, it will not be
allowed to be replaced.
David Philips, architect for the project, explained that the new design presented at tonight's meeting
with three service doors facing north and three doors facing south, rather than all of them facing east is a
better plan for them and for the neighbors. Mr. Welle will also be upgrading facilities to meet ADA
requirements, and will add the window to the front of the existing building. He explained that Mr.
Welle is not planning on changing the signage at this time. He also stated they were planning on
constructing the new building as a concrete block building similar to the existing one. The members
stated this is not an accepted material to be used according to the Design Guidelines for Central Avenue.
Mr. Philips felt too many restrictions or conditions will make this cost prohibitive.
Sargent explained that the outside materials to be used for the new building are not an additional
condition, it simply is a requirement that must be met according to the Guidelines adopted by the City.
Any mention of acceptable materials is a reiteration of our code that already exists.
Public Hearing was opened:
No one wished to speak on this issue.
Public Hearing was closed:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 24
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2006-PZ02, there
being ample copies available to the public.
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution No.2006-PZ02, being a resolution
approving a site plan for the proposed addition at 4801 Central Avenue, subject to the nine (9) stated
conditions as approved by the Planning Commission:
1. The new parking lot shall be stripped to indicate 48 parking stalls as approved on the submitted
site plan.
2. The amended driveway easement shall be recorded with Anoka County, and evidence of the
recording be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Any proposed signagefor the building shall meetthe requirements of Section 9.106 (P), as it
relates to signage.
4. The hours of operation for the service department shall be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays.
5. A maximum of two (2) bays doors may be open continuously at any given time on the weekdays.
The bay doors must remain closed at all times on Saturdays and Sundays with the exception of
moving the vehicles in and out of the service bay.
6. Noise levels may not exceed the current decibel levels as measured from the eastern property
line separating Welle Auto Supply from the Grand Central Lofts.
7. A landscape plan must be submitted for staff approval prior to the building permit being issued
8. The building materials on the new building must coriform to the Design Guidelines for issuance
of a permit.
9. The dumpster facilities must be enclosed per City Code.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-PZ02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN
FOR WELLE AUTO SUPPLY WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2006-0603) has been submitted by Ken Welle of Welle Auto Supply to
the Planning and Zoning Conmlission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights
at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4801 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for an addition in
the MXD, Mixed-Use District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code
on June 6, 2006;
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 3, 2006
PAGE 25
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of
the City Staff regarding the effect of the proposed conditional use permit upon the health, safety, and
welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility
of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding
areas; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts and
adopts the following findings:
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting tlus permit the city and the applicant agree that
this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed witllin one (]) calendar
veal' after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. The new parking lot shall be stripped to indicate 48 parking stalls as approved on the submitted
site plan.
2. The amended driveway easement shall be recorded with Anoka County, and evidence of the
recording be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Any proposed signagefor the building shall meet the requirements of Section 9.106 (P), as it
relates to signage.
4. The hours of operation for the service department shall be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays.
5. A maximum of h1Io (2) bays doors may be open continuously at any given time on the weekdays.
The bay doors must remain closed at all times on Saturdays and Sundays with the exception of
moving the vehicles in and out of the service bay.
6. Noise levels may not exceed the current decibel levels as measured from the eastern property
line separating Welle Auto Supply from the Grand Central Lofts.
7. A landscape plan must be submitted for staff approval prior to the building permit being issued.
8. The building materials on the new building must conform to the Design Guidelines for issuance
of a permit.
9. The dumpster facilities must be enclosed per City Code.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 26
Passed this 6th day of June 2006,
Offered by: Thompson
Seconded by: Peterson
Roll Call: 4 Ayes 0 Nays
CHAIR Marlaine Szurek
Attest:
SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson
Approval is contingent upon execution and return of this docmnent to the City Planning Office.
I have read and agree to the conditions of this resolution as outlined above.
Ken Welle
Date
NEW BUSINESS
None
MISCELLANEOUS
The members reviewed the dates ofthe meetings for the next several months due to changes in the
schedule. The meetings will be as follows July st", August 8th, September 6th, October 3'd, and
November 8th.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Fiorendino, to a4Journ the meeting at 9:05 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
" r;[hn n n,~ eJ-hNlilY\,
~l{e~s
Secretary