HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 8, 2006
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
August 8, 2006
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson Szurek.
Roll Call:
COlllinission Members present-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek.
Also present were Jeff Sm'gent (City Plmmer), Gary Peterson (CoUl1cil Liaison), aJ1d Shelley Hanson
(Secretary).
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Schmitt, to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 6, 2006. All
ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Sargent opened his presentation by reviewing the role of the Connnission. He told the members and the
andience that the Planning & Zoning Commission's responsibility is to uphold aJ1d follow the
Comprehensive Plan including the Design Guidelines mld the Zoning Ordinm1ce, which have been
adopted by the City Council. He further explained that the Design Guidelines were established by a
conl1nittee of residents, business owners, and leaders in the conununity, who desire to improve the
aesthetics of our business corridors of 40tll Avenue mld Central Avenue. He stated he is reviewing these
responsibilities as this is the first time staff has recommended denial of a request in quite some time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0604 & 0605
Border Foods Inc/Taco Bell & Starbuck's Coffee
4900 & 4910 Central Ave
Site PlanNariancc
INTRODUCTION
The staff report will cover both cases as they are being presented together by the same applicant and
have the same issues. Border Foods, Inc. ("applicant') is representing both Taco Bell and Stm'bucks in
an effOlt to redevelop the land located at 4900 Central Avenue and 4910 Central Avenue. The proposal
includes replacing the existing Taco Bell restaurant and Dave's Car Wash, with a new Taco Bell
restaurant and a Starbucks building. The proposal requires the following approvals:
1. Site Plan Approval for the Taco Bell restaurant per Code Section 9.104 (M).
2. Site Plm1 Approval for the Starbucks restaurant per Code Section 9.104 (M).
3. A 2- foot parking stall length variance for the Taco Bell parcel per Code Section 9.1 06
(L)(7)(a).
4. A 2-foot pm'king stall length varimlce for the Stmbucks pmcel per Code Section 9.106
(L)(7)(a).
5. A 31.24 square foot area variance for wall signage for the Taco Bell building per Code
Section 9.106 (P)(l2)(b)(l).
6. The project will also require 13 deviations from the Highway District Design Guidelines.
Backgrouud
For approximately the last four years, Border Foods, Inc. has attempted to acquire 14 feet of the
soutllerly portion of the propelty occupied by Dave's Cm' Wash, for the purpose of building a new Taco
Bell at fue existing location. On FeblUary 7, 2006, Border Foods acquired this property in its entirety.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 2
AUGUST 8, 2006
After the acquisition, the applicant contacted the City of Columbia Heights ("City"), indicating their
desire to redevelop the site to include a new Taco Bell restamant and a Starbucks Coffee Shop. Dming
mmIY meetings, it became apparent that the Border Foods proposal would require vmimIces and a
number of waivers from the City's Design Guidelines. Staff worked diligently with the applicant,
suggesting some potential alternatives to bring their proposal into conformity with the City's Design
Guidelines.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan is prepmed by the community and approved by the City Council. It
establishes the future vision for Columbia Heights over a IO - year period and best represents the public
interest. The Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations, Building Code and Design Guidelines are
stmldards created to ensme the Comprehensive Plan is implemented. The primary function of the
Plmming Commission is to ensme the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plml designates this area for commercial development mId includes goals for
commercial mld economic development. These include strengthening the image of the community as a
desirable place to live and work; providing opportunities and mechmIisms for successful redevelopment
of targeted meas; preserving and enhancing the existing commercial areas within the community;
advocating high quality development and redevelopment within the community; mId enhancing the
economic viability of the community. The applicant's proposal is a commercial proposal, and therefore,
consistent with the Comprehensive Plml in that regm'd.
The applicmlt's proposal also requires 13 waivers [rom the City's Design Guidelines. These Guidelines
were adopted by the City Council after one year of prepm'ation by a citizens group that included
residents, as well as Central Avenue business owners. The guidelines were established to increase the
visual appeal and pedestrian orientation of certain major street corridors within the city, thereby
increasing the economic vitality of these corridors, mld supporting the goals of the Comprehensive Plml.
The guidelines represent the minimum standmds for design quality and have been implemented by
Discount Tire, Advanced Auto Parts, and Grand Central Lofts, all on Central Avenue. Ryland I-Iomes,
Inc. and Schafer Richardson have also used the guidelines in the redevelopment of the Industrial Pm'k.
Border Food's request to waive 13 of the Design Guidelines is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
ZONING CODE
ZONING
The property is located in the GB, General Business District, and is adjacent to Central A venue. The
properties to the north and east are also zoned GB, General Business. The properties to the west are
zoned R2-A mld R2-B, One and Two Family Residential Districts. The property to the south is zoned
commercial and is in the City of Hilltop.
Landscape Plan
For all new construction, the City's Zoning Code requires a ImIdscape plan meeting minimum standards
as outlined in the Code. The proposed landscape plan effectively screens the proposed parking meas
while creating a pedestrian-fi'iendly atmosphere. The existing fencing along the alley right-of-way is
also in poor condition, however the applicant has proposed to replace the fence with a new privacy
fence. These improvements meet the City Code requirements in all aspects.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 3
AUGUST 8, 2006
Storm water Management
According to the City Engineer, the Taco Bell/Starbucks preliminary site plans did not meet the
requirements of City Code section 9.609 - Stormwater Management and the City's NPDES permit
requirements. The plan set did not include any type of provisions for treating the surface water prior
discharging from the site in accordance with the Stormwater Management Ordinance and the City's
BMF's. A site-specific stormwater plan must be submitted for approval for final platting.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The project is located at 4900 and 4910 Central Avenue, which is also located within the Design
Guidelines' "Highway District". Properties located in this district are subject to these design guidelines
when discussing the placement of the building on the lot, the height of the building, architectural details
of the building, and signage.
The design guidelines build on and complement recently completed streetscape improvements to the
Central Avenue business district. They were developed by consultants, and a Citizen Task Force with
representatives from the City Council, Planning Conunission, area business owners and landowners, and
interested citizens, and are mandatory.
It is asswned that the intent of the guidelines should be met, however, it is understood that there may be
alternative 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Site Plan
Section 9.413, subd. 4 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Planning Connnission
make each of the following four (4) findings before approving a site plan:
I. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements ofthe Ordinance.
As stated previously, the project site is located in the Design Guideline Corridor and is located
in the "Highway District". There are 13 total proposed deviations from the Design Guidelines
for the construction of the Taco Bell and Starbucks buildings as currently presented. They
include the following:
Building Placement. The Design Guidelines require the buildings to have a well-defined pont
fa,ade with primary entrances facing the street. Buildings should be aligned so that the
dominant lines of their facades parallel the line of the street and create a continuous edge.
PLANNING & ZONING COMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
AUGUST 8, 2006
. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell building does not have a well-defined front fa9ade facing
Central Avenue. The main fa9ade with accompanying fi'ont entrance face the south. into
the parlring lot; which does not meet the Design Guidelines criterion.
. Starbucks. The Star bucks building does not have a well-defined front fa9ade facing
Central Avenue. The main fa9ade with accompanying fi'ont entrance face the north. into
the parking lot, which does not meet the Design Guidelines criterion.
Building Height. All buildings shall have a minimum cornice height of 22 feet in order to create
an increased sense of enclosure and diminish the perceived width of the street. This also
conveys a multi-story appearance even if the building has only one occupied floor.
. Taco Bell. The plans for the Taco Bell building indicate a height of 18 feet 3 inches to the
parapet wall. The proposed height is not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
. Starbucks. The plans for the Star bucks building indicate a height of 18 feet 4 inches to the
top of the cornice. The proposed height is not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Entries. Primary building entrances on all buildings shall face the primary abutting street or
walkway (Central Avenue).
. Taco Bell. The primary entrance for the Taco Bell building does not face Central Avenue;
rather it faces south, towards the parking lot. The proposed location of the main entlY is
not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
. Starbucks. The primary entrance for the Starbucks building does notface Central Avenue;
rather it faces north. towards the parlring lot. The proposed location of the main entry is
not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Franchise Architecture. Franchise architecture (building design that is trademarked or
identified with a particular chain or corporation and is generic in nature) is generally
discouraged unless it employs a traditional storefi'ont commercial style. This is to encourage
new building design that is supportive of the urban design goals of the City, and that responds to
its context.
. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell stand-alone building is a prototype to be used in other locations
as well. The architectural detailing on the building, including, but not limited to the
"flying arch" is indicative of a Taco Bell fi'anchise building. For this reason the design
does not meet the Design Guidelines in regards to franchise architecture.
Drive-through Facilities. Drive through elements shall be placed to the side or rear of the
principal building, and shall not be located between any buildingfa9ade and Central Avenue.
. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell plans indicate that the preview board, menu board, and the bulk
of the queuing line will be placed between the fi'ont fa9ade of the building and Central
Avenue. The placement of these elements is not consistent with the Design Guidelines
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 5
AUGUST 8, 2006
Freestanding Sign age. Ground or monument signs are encouraged rather than pylon signs.
. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell project is proposing to utilize a 25-foot pylon sign for their
freestanding signage. This is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, as the guidelines
require the use of monument signs, at a maximum height of 8 feet.
. Starbucks. The Star bucks project is proposing to utilize a 25-foot pylon sign for their
freestanding signage. This is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, as the guidelines
require the use of monument signs, at a maximum height of 8 feet.
Sign Illumination. External illumination of signs is required. Internally box signs and awning
are not permitted with the exception of theatre marquees.
. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell project is proposing to use an internally lit pylon sign, which is
not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
. Starbucks. The Starbucks project is proposing to use an internally lit pylon sign, which is
not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Illuminated Wall Signage. External illumination of signs is permitted by incandescent, metal
halide or fluorescent light that emits a continuous white light. Internally lit box signs and
awnings are not permitted.
. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell building proposes the use of a box sign logo, which is internally
illuminated. This type of signage must be externally lit per the Design Guidelines. For this
reason, the proposed is not consistent with the requirement.
2. The site plml is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
As stated previously, the site plan is not consistent with the applicable provisions of the
City's Comprehensive Plan because it fails to create a project that meets the minimum
standards.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
Currently, there is no area plan for the proposed project area.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the illlinediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
The proposed plans are consistent with the Zoning Code in regards to building setback and
screening fi.om adjacent residentially zoned parcels. For this reason, the site plan minimizes
and adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and public rights-of-way.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 6
AUGUST 8, 2006
Variances
Section 9.407, subd. 6 ofthe Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the PlalUling Commission
make each of the following five (5) findings before approving a variance.
Taco Be1l2-foot narldnll stalllenll1h Variance request:
I. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions ofthe specific pal'cel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of
this Ordinallce would canse undue hardship.
The proposed orientation of the building decreases the amount of land available to meet
setback requirements for the parking lot, while maintaining adequate parking stall lengths
and drive aisle widths. rrthe building was oriented differently on the property, adequate
space could be achieved to meet the City Code requirements for the parking stall lengths.
For this reason, the applicant's design has caused the necessity of the variance and no
hardship is present.
2. The conditions upon which the vaJ"iallCeS are based al'e unique to the specific parcel ofland
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the Salne zoning
classification.
The applicant has created the hardship by purchasing a piece of property and attempting to
place a commercial use on the property, which requires more land to meet the City's
minimum requirements. There are no unique circumstances surrounding the parcel that
differentiate themselves from 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 a legal interest in the propeliy.
The owner of the property has caused the stated hardship being used to justifY the variance
requests. By reorienting the building differently on the property, the 2-foot parldng stall
length variance for Taco Bell could be eliminated. The variance request is a direct result of
the proposed orientation of the building, which the applicant has decided on.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the future vision for Columbia Heights
over a 10 - year period and best represent the public interest. Granting this variance request
would allow for the placement of a building that is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines,
which in turn are established to implement the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason,
granting the variance would not be harmonious with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 7
AUGUST 8, 2006
5. The granting ofthe 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.
Granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The parking
stall length variance would help accommodate pedestrians by providing more parking stalls
on site.
City Staff reconunends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the 2-foot parking stall
length variance for the Taco Bell building because of an insufficient hardship and because granting the
variance request would not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Taco Bell 31.24 SQuare foot area variance for wall sig:nag:e:
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.
The Sign Code states that total wall signage for buildings in the GB, General Business
District shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each front foot of building or structure.
Because of the proposed orientation of the building, the applicant has been limited with the
amount of signage desired for the building. If the building were oriented in a way consistent
with the Design Guidelines for the area, there would be an adequate amount of Font footage
to obtain the desired amount of sign age. For this reason, the applicant's design has caused
the necessity of the variance and no hardship is present.
2. The conditions upon which the variances are based are unique to the specific parcel ofland
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zarling
classification.
The applicant has created the hardship by purchasing a piece of property and attempting to
place a commercial use on the property, which requires more land to meet the City's
minimum requirements. There are no unique circumstances surrounding the parcel that
differentiate themselves fi'om 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 a legal interest in the property.
The owner of the property has caused the stated hardship justifying the variance requests.
By reorienting the building differently on the property, 31.24 square foot area variance for
the wall signage on the Taco Bell building could be eliminated. The variance request is a
direct result of the proposed orientation of the building, which the applicant has decided on.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 8
AUGUST 8, 2006
4. The granting of the variances is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the future visionfor Columbia Heights
over a 10 - year period and best represent the public interest. 171e necessity of this variance
request is due to the orientation of the Taco Bell building, which is inconsistent with the
Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines, in turn, are established to implement the
Comprehensive Plan. For this reason, granting the variance would not be harmonious with
the 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 el,\joyment, use, development, or value of property or
improvements in the vicinity.
The granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare.
City Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the 31.24 square foot area
variance for wall signage on the Taco Bell building because of an insufficient hardship, and because
granting the variance request would not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Starbuclcs 2-foot oarlcinll stalllencth Variallce:
I. Because of the particulal' physical sunoundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other
conditions ofille specific pmcel ofland involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this
Ordinance would cause undue hardship.
The proposed orientation of the building decreases the amount of land available to meet
setback requirements for the parldng lot, while maintaining adequate parking stall lengths
and drive aisle widths. If the building was oriented differently on the property, adequate
space could be achieved to meet the City Code requirements for the parking stall lengths.
For this reason, the applicant's design has caused the necessity of the variance and no
hardship is present.
2. The conditions upon which the variances al'e based are unique to the specific parcel ofland
involved and are generally not applicable to other propeliies within the same zoning
classification.
The applicant has created the hardship by purchasing a piece of property and attempting to
place a commercial use on the land that requires more land than what is provided. There
are no unique circumstances surrounding the parcel that differentiate themselves from 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 cunently having a legal interest in the property.
The owner of the property has caused the stated hardship justifYing the variance requests.
By reorienting the building differently on the property, the 2-foot parking stall length
variance for Starbucks could be eliminated. The variance request is a direct result of the
proposed orientation of the building, which the applicant has decided on.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 9
AUGUST 8, 2006
4. The granting of the variances is in harmony with the general pU11Jose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the future vision for Columbia Heights
over a 10 - year period and best represent the public interest. Granting this variance request
would allow for the placement of a building that is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines,
which in turn are established to implement the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason,
granting the variance would not be harmonious with the 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.
Granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The parking
stall length variance would help acconmlodate pedestrians by providing more parking stalls
on site.
City Staff recommends that the Plalming Commission recOlmnend denial of the 2-foot parking stall
length variance for the Starbucks building because of an insufficient hardship, and because granting the
variance request would not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plall.
CONCLUSION
The Taco Bell/Starbucks proposal does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines for a new
commercial development along Central Avenue. With some modifications to the site plall alld building
plans, the appliCallt could present a plall that eliminates all VariallCe requests alld is more consistent with
the types of developments that the City of Columbia Heights has worked hard to obtain along its most
impOltant major thoroughfare. City Staffunderstallds that the appliCallt is willing to work with the City
to achieve the desired goals stated in the Comprchensive Plan, however the proposed development plans
do not meet the minimum stalldards. Sargent explained that by approving the site plan alld variallces as
presented, precedence would be set for making "exceptions" for allY future developments proposed in
the city.
The proposed site plan did not meet the requirements of City Code section 9.609 - Stonnwater
Mallagement alld the City's NPDES permit requirements either. The plan set did not include any type of
provisions for treating the surface water prior discharging from the site in accordance with the
Stormwater Management Ordinallce alld the City's BMP's.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconmlends the COlmnission deny the site plall approval, the 2-f1. parking stall length variances
for 4900 & 4910 Central Avenue and the 31.24 sq. f1. variance for wall signage for Taco Bell at 4910
Central A venue as presented.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 10
AUGUST 8, 2006
Ouestions from Commissioners:
Szurek asked Mr. Erickson from Border Foods if he would like to withdraw his request since it does not
comply with the Design Guidelines and they can only act on the plans they have been presented with in
the agenda packets.
Mr. Erickson stated he didn't want to withdraw his request, but instead to arrive at a compromise so that
it is not denied. He stated he thought the plans were close to staff approval, except for two issues-the
height of the building and the branding or corporate design of the building. He wanted to share their
new ideas so that the request could be approved.
Szurek explained they cannot review any new plans that he may have, as staff would need to review
them first. She then stated that it is their job to uphold the Comprehensive Plan and staffs
recOlllinendation. They are a reconunending board to the City Council, who is the governing board.
Therefore, any reconunendation must be done on what has been submitted, not on "possible changes" in
order to gain approval.
Bob Streetar, COlllillUllity Development Director, stated the members should question whether the
proposal meets the guidelines. Ifit does, approve the request, and ifit doesn't, deny it. If Mr. Erickson
wants the policy or guidelines chmlged he will have to go before the City Council to make that request.
Thompson stated he reviews the requests as they are submitted. This process occasionally talces several
days, so ifthe applicant wishes to change the design, he should re-submit it so it Cffil be reviewed by all
pmiies thoroughly.
Peterson asked the applicant ifhe was aware of the Comprehensive Plml mld Design Guidelines before
he submitted the plmls. He responded that he was. Peterson then asked why the guidelines were
disregarded as the plans don't meet the requirements. Again, the applicmlt was told that 111e
Conmlission does not set the policy nor can they change it.
Mr. Erickson stated he did not have an alternative plan at this time. I-Ie is reluctmlt to withdraw the
request, and would rather have it tabled until September so some mnendments could be agreed upon. He
was hoping he would get some feedback on options at this meeting. Szurek stated the orientation of the
buildings may be another possible issue that needs to change. She cited other Taco Bell buildings in
Woodbury, Plymouth and Tamarack Village that would meet the Design we're looking for. So she was
somewhat confused why they would submit something that would most likely be denied.
Fiorendino asked if Mr. Erickson thought the staff report was inaccurate in any way. He replied that he
found it to be accurate. Fiorendino then stated that he would give Mr. Erickson the feedback he
requested. He said he would uphold the Design Guidelines because so mmlY members of the
cOlllinUllity had input into establishing them, and it is what the residents and business owners want to see
enforced to improve the overall appearance of the city.
Streetar explained that Mr. Erickson would need to submit a written request for an extension that would
allow him up to 60 days to re-submit plmls. Mr. Erickson said he would supply a written request and
that he would try to re-submit the plans for the September meeting.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 11
AUGUST 8, 2006
The Commission members stated they would wait for the revised plans and the new staff report, and that
the decision will be based on what is submitted at the next meeting.
Schmitt asked if there was a reason they didn't orientate the buildings differently. I-Ie said there was a
reason and that will be addressed at the next meeting.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Noone wished to speak on this matter.
The Public Hearing was Closed.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission table consideration of the
site plan/variances for the Taco Bell located at 4910 Central Avenue (Case #06-0604), until the
September meeting. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission table consideration of the
site plan/variances for Starbuck's Coffee at 4900 Central Avenue (Case #06-0605), lU1til the September
meeting. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0801
Jack Hansen
1853 39th Avenne
Lot Split and Variance
At tlus time, Mr. Hansen is requesting a minor subdivision (lot split) to create two lots (Parcel A and B),
located at 1853 - 39th Avenue NE. In association with the lot split, the applicant is also requesting tlu-ee
(3) variances. The first is a 13-foot front yard setback variance per Zoning Code Section 9.109 (C). The
second is a 2.8-foot side yard setback variffilce per ZOlung Code Section 9.109 (C). The last is a lA-foot
rear yard setback variance per Zoning Code Section 9.109 (C).
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area toward Low Density Residential. The proposed lot split
will recreate two parcels that meet the City's minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the One
ffild Two Family Residential District. For this reason, the proposed action would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 12
AUGUST 8, 2006
Zoning Ordinance
The property at 1853 - 39th Avenue NE is zoned R-2A, One and Two Family Residential, as aTe all the
properties in the surrounding area. 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-2A District or sin le- ami! dwellin s is 6500 s uare eet in
area. The /Jro/Josed lot s/JIit will create two separate lots. Parcel A and Parcel B. The /Jro/Josed Parcel
A will have a lot area of 7,147.8 square feet, which meets the minimum lot size standards. Pro/Josed
Parcel B will have a lot area of8, 823. 4 square feet, also meetinz the minimum lot area standards.
Lot Width. The minimum lot width in the R-2A District is 60 feet. Parcel A will have a /Ji"O/Josed lot
width of60.00 feet and Parcel B will have a /Ji"O/Josed lot width of74.12 feet. Both ofthese widths meet
the minimum lot width standard for the district.
Setbacks. The minimum setbacks in the R-2A District are as follows:
Front yard:
Side Yard:
Corner Side Yard:
Real' Yard:
25 feet
5 feet
10 feet
20% of lot depth
At this time, the applicant has submitted a plan indicating a possible building pad for the new house
proposed for Parcel A. The proposed site would meet the City's standards for setback purposes. Thc
proposed lot split, however, will cause the existing house on Parcel B to become non-conforming for
setback purposes. The existing house will have the following setbacks when the lot split is complete:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Corner Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
10.0 feet (existing, but requires a 13-foot variance)
2.2 feet (requires a 2.8-foot variance)
33.0 feet
22.5 (existing, but requires a l.4-foot variance)
It should be noted that the requirements for the front yard and rear yard setback variances are due to the
reorientation of the lot when the lot split is completed. Previously, the propeliy containing the house
was oriented north and south, with the front lot line abutting 3 9tl1 Avenue. With the proposed lot split,
the lot containing the house will be reoriented, with the front lot line abutting Atihur Street. This
changes the western property line from a side lot line to a rear lot line as well. The reorientation of the
lot causes setback issues, even though the existing house will not be moved.
The proposed Parcel A currently has a pool, deck and storage shed on it, for the use of the existing
house. When the lot split is complete, the applicant will be required to either move these structures into
setback compliance on Parcel B, or remove them entirely from the propeliy.
Park Dedication. The park dedication fee for Parcel A will be $4,157.28, to be paid upon final approval
of the lot split.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 13
AUGUST 8, 2006
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 of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements.
No existing easements will be vacated as a result of this subdivision.
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 propelty is located.
When complete, the two properties will comply cOl?form to lot area and width requirements
establishedfor the R-2A zoning district.
d) The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose
of gaining access to the propClty.
No public rights-ofway will be dedicatedfor the purpose of gaining access to the property.
e) The propelty has not previously been divided tln'ough 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.
This is an accurate statement.
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.
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 13-foot front yard setback variance, response (2) will be for the 2.8-foot side yard setback
variance, and response (3) will be for the l.4-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 article would cause undue hardship.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 14
AUGUST 8, 2006
(1) The current property is oriented north and south, with the front lot line abutting 39th
Avenue. With the proposed lot split, the lot containing the house will be reoriented, with
the fi'ont lot line abutting Arthur Street. This changes the eastern property line from a
corner side lot line to a fi'ont lot line. 711e change in classification results in the
requirement to meet stricter setbacks. The existing house will not be moved from its
current location on the property, so the land use action causes the needfor the front yard
setback variance.
(2) 1n order for the applicant to maintain a 60-foot lot width for Parcel A, the new proposed
lot line was placed 2.2 feetfi'om the existing house on Parcel B. The required side yard
setback for the existing house on Parcel B is 5 feet. For this reason, a 2. 8-foot side yard
setback variance is required.
(3) The current property is oriented north and south, with the rear lot line abutting the
property to the north. With the proposed lot split, the lot containing the house will be
reoriented, with the rear lot line abutting the property to the west. This changes the
western property line .Ii'om a side lot line to a rear lot line. The change in classification
results in the requirement to meet stricter setbacks. The existing house will not be moved
fi'om its current location on the property, so the land use action causes the need for the
rear yard setback variance.
b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific paTcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the smne zoning
classification.
All three variance requests are generated because of the placement of the existing house
on Parcel B. if the house were not on the property, the applicant would not require any
variance requests in association with the lot split proposal. There could be other
situations of this happening throughout the city.
c) The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created
by mw person cUlTently having a legal interest in the propelty.
(1) The hardship is caused by the reorientation of the property, based on definitions of the
City's Zoning Code.
(2) The house was placed on the property prior to the applicant having legal interest in the
property.
(3) The hardship is caused by the reorientation of the property, based on definitions of the
City's Zoning Code.
d) The granting of the varim1ce IS in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
comprehensive plan.
The granting of all three 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
PAGE 15
AUGUST 8, 2006
e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare 01'
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of propelty or
improvements in the vicinity,
The existing house will remain in its current location. The applicant's intentions are to
reside in the newly constructed house to the north All three variance requests will not be
materially detrimental to any party because the existing house is located on a corner lot,
and the applicant will occupy the newly constructed house,
RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends the Planning Commission reconunend that the City
Council approve the lot split with the following conditions:
1, All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with tillS
application shall become palt of the permit.
2, The applicant shall pay a pmk dedication fee in the amount of $4,157,28, due at the time of
final approval by the City Council, and prior to any permits issued for the propelty,
3, The applicant shall move the deck, pool and storage shed located on Parcel A into setback
compliance on Parcel B, or remove them entirely from the property prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the new house on Parcel A.
City Staffreconunends the Planning COlllinission recommend that the City COllilcil approve the 13-foot
front yard setback vmiallce for Parcel B, the 2,8-foot side yard setback variance for Parcel B and the 1.4-
foot real' Yal'd setback val'iance for Parcel B with the following conditions:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become part of the permit.
Ouestions by Commission Members:
Peterson asked if the lotsplit would result in two marketable lots that would meet minimum size
requirements, Sargent stated it would,
Fiorendino asked if the structme were destroyed by fire, if it could be re-built in exact size and location,
Sargent explained that approval of the vmiance would make it conforming with om code, so yes, a
structure could be re-built.
Mr. Hansen, the applicant, stated he will be building a new rambler style house on the vacant piece and
will be selling the existing residence.
The Public I-Ieming was Opened:
Noone wished to speak on this matter.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 16
AUGUST g" 2006
The Public hearing was Closed.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, to recommend that 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 a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,157.28, due at the time of final
approval by the City Council, and prior to any permits issued for the property.
3. The applicant shall move the deck, pool and storage shed located on Parcel A into setback
compliance on Parcel B, or remove them entirely from the property prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the new house on Parcel A.
This Resolution will go to the City COlmcil August 14, 2006.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR JACK HANSEN
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case No. 2006-0801) has been submitted by Jack Hansen to the City Council
requesting a subdivision from the City of Columbia Heights Subdivision Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 1853 - 39th Avenue NE
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 2 and 3, combined, Auditor's Subdivision of
Walton's Sunny Acres 3rd Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the west 180.00 feet
thereof, and also excepting the north 75.00 feet of said Lot 2.
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall
THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Plmming
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed subdivision upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
commm1ity 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 August 8, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Colmnbia Heights after
reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts at1d adopts the following findings of the Plam1ing
Commission:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 17
AUGUST 8, 2006
I. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more tilall three lots.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements.
3. All lots to be created by tile proposed subdivision conform to lot mea a11d 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 property.
5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this
aliicle.
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 09.114.
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 applicallt shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,157.28, due at tile time of final
approval by the City Council, and prior to any permits issued for the property.
3. The applicant shall move the deck, pool and storage shed located on Parcel A into setback
compliallce on Parcel B, or remove them entirely from the propeliy prior to the issuance of a
building pennit for the new house on Parcel A.
Passed this _ day of August 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
PAGE 18
AUGUST 8, 2006
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the 13-foot front yard setback variance for Parcel B, the 2.8-foot side yard setback
variance for Parcel B and the l.4-foot rear yard setback variance for Parcel B 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 following Resolution will go to the City Council August 14, 2006.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A V AlliANCE
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE
FOR JACK HANSEN
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2006-0801) has been submitted by Jack Hansen to the City Council
requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 1853 - 39ti1 Avenue NE.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 2 and 3, combined, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Sunny
Acres 3rd Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the west 180,00 feet thereof, and also
excepting the north 75.00 feet of said Lot 2.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 13-foot front yard setback variance
per Code Section 9.109 (C), a 2.8-foot side yard setback variance per Code Section 9.109 (C),
and a 1.4- foot rear yard setback variance per Code Section 9.109 (C).
WHEREAS, the Planning Conmlission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code
on August 8, 2006;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and reconnnendations of the Plmming
COlllillission regarding the effect of the proposed vm'iance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
comlllunity and its Comprehensive Plml, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light,
air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that
the City Council accepts mld adopts the following findings of the 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 sanle zoning
classification.
3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance mld has not been created
by any person currently having legal interest in the property.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 19
AUGUST 8, 2006
4. The granting of the VariallCe IS 111 harmony with the general pmpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The granting of the vmiance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfal'e 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 pmt of this variance and approval; alld in grallting this val'iance 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.
CONDITIONS:
I. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with the
application shall become palt of the permit.
Passed tlus _ day of August, 2006
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary 1. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0802
Helen Nwameme (Erenas Ine)
4025 University Avenne
Conditional Use Permit for Assisted Living Facility
INTRODUCTION
The propelty located at 4025 University Avenue has been the site of a daycare facility for the past
several years. Recently, the daycare center has vacated the building, leaving the building vacant for the
past several mon111s. At this time, Helen Nwanleme is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
convelt the daycare center into all assisted living facility for the elderly per Code Section 9.109
(G)(3)(i).
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 20
AUGUST 8, 2006
Erenas, Inc, will be providing the services for the assisted living facility. They will provide the residents
with: Three meals a day served in a common dining area, Housekeeping services, Transportation
services, Assistance with eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, and walking, Access to health and medical
services, 24-hour staff availability, Emergency call system for each resident, Medication management,
Personal laundry services, Social mld recreational activities, and Case mmlagement.
The majority ofthe facility's clientele will be the elderly, and people with medical needs. Tllis would
include people with physical and mental hmldicaps and people needing assistance with other medical
needs. The facility will not be a refuge for sex offenders or people with severe psychological problems.
There will be two full time staff members and two part time members at the site at all times with 3-4
shifts.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan guides this m-ea towards Transit Oriented Mixed-Use Development. This
classification focuses on the commuting needs of Columbia Heights residents, combining a high
percentage of service-oriented cOlwnerciallretail development wit high-density residential development.
The assisted living facility is a high-density residential use, and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan for the area.
Zoning Ordinance
The property is zoned R-3, Multiple Fmnily Residential, as are the propeliies to the north, east and west.
The property to the south is zoned GB, General Business, as is the location of the Marathon Gas Station
located on the corner of University Avenue mld 40th Avenue NE. The R-3 District allows assisted living
facilities as a Conditional Use.
PARKING. The Code requires I parking stall for every 2 housing units for an assisted living facility.
The proposed plans indicate that there would be no more than six (6) residents living in the building,
with six (6) bedrooms. The Code also requires one (I) parking stall for every 300 square feet of office
space provided. The plans indicate 270 square feet of office space, requiring one (I) parking stall. In
total, four (4) pm-king stalls would need to be provided. The applicant indicates that there will be 14
parking stalls on site.
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 wllich the propeliy is
located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
The proposed use is specifically mentioned as an allowable Conditional Use in the R-3,
Multiple Family Residential District.
(b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plml.
The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 21
AUGUST 8, 2006
( c) The use will not impose hazards or distmbing influences on neighboring properties.
The use will be located in an existing building along University Avenue. The assisted living
facility would house elderly people in need of care, who typically do not have disturbing
influences on neighboring properties.
(d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the ilmnediate vicinity.
There are no proposed additions to the existing structure. This should not diminish the use
of 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 oftlle smrounding area.
Erenas, Inc. will be conducting the business at this location. They have assured staff that
they will run the facility in a manner that is compatible with the appearance of the existing
character of the surrounding area.
(1) The use and propeliy upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public
facilities and services.
The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public
facilities and services.
(g) Adequate measmes have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public
streets and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and did not have any issues with traffic
congestion. Typically, this type of use does not generate an excess amount of trajJic in the
area.
(h) The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the
cumulative effect of other uses is the ilmnediate vicinity.
The proposed assisted living facility is permitted as a Conditional Use in the District it is
located. It is intended that the use will not cause a negative cumulative effect on the
immediate vicinity.
(i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located.
The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
Conditional Use Permit for an assisted livingfacility, subject to conditions listed in the recommended
motion.
Ouestions bv COlmnission Members:
Szurek questioned whether one bathroom for 4 people on 2nd floor was adequate. Sargent stated he
would check again with the Building Official before taking this to the City Council, but that it had
already been reviewed by him once.
PLANNING & ONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 22
AUGUST 8, 2006
Thompson pointed out that the motion states it must meet all codes, so if it is not adequate, they would
be responsible for making whatever changes necessary to meet the code.
The owner of the building (Anthony Mayer) stated there are 6 bathrooms, but not all are full batln-ooms.
The applicants also stated there will be some remodeling done before it can be used as an Assisted
Living Facility. Sargent explained that a site plan is not required, but building permits for the
remodeling work would be necessary.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Mr. Bill Bums of 4039 University Ave. thought it was a bad idea to use the property in this manner. He
didn't think 4 employees for 6 residents would be enough. And he was concerned that sometime in
the future the type of resident that may live at the property could change from what is being
proposed at the present time. Sargent stated that the type of resident is not included as one of the
listed conditions, but that staff would go by the definition of residents allowed in Assisted Living
Facilities according to the State.
Gary Peterson asked whether we conld put conditions on this permit by specifying the type of resident
that would be allowed at the facility. Sargent thought it best to check with the City Attorney and
that approved language could be added to the Conditional Use Permit when it goes before the City
Council. The commission members supported that idea for the welfare of the neighborhood and the
city in general. Helen Nwameme, the applicant, was not opposed to language being added
regarding this. She stated it is their intent to house elderly patients who are usually in need of
medical care, or who are unable to care for themselves any longer in their homes.
Fiorendino asked how long residents typically stay. The applicant stated that is an unknown, but would
be similar timeframes to any other Assisted Living/Nursing Home residents. He also questioned if
the Conditional Use Permit is granted, how long it is good for? Sargent explained it goes with the
land, so if in the futtJre the use is discontinued for a period of time, it could be re-opened as this use
without another application or approval being done.
Schmitt asked about the number of bedrooms available and how they would accommodate patients
. getting from one floor to another. The applicant stated that a lift will be added and that patients
will be taken to the larger batln-oom as necessary.
Mrs. Burns from 4039 University asked what Transit Oriented Property meant. Sargent explained that it
usually is a mix of properties that are related to transit or traffic use. He briefly reviewed
Conditional Use Permits and allowed uses of properties in certain zoning districts.
Vue Lee of 4037 University Ave is the propelty owner next door to this facility. He expressed concern
that this is a 24 hour use of the property and he was used to it being a daytime business. He is
concerned about it being disruptive to the neighborhood. He also claimed he didn't receive a notice
about this meeting. Sargent explained that mailings are done and legal notices are put in the paper.
Sometimes notices are returned, but every attempt is made to notify affected residents in the area.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 23
AUGUST 8, 2006
He also went on to explain this is a Conditional Use Permit, not a variance request. As long as they
meet the requirements, there is no reason to deny the request. He didn't feel the proposed use of
this building would be disruptive. These types of facilities tend to be quiet and add very little
traffic in the area.
THE PUBLIC HEATING WAS CLOSED.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Conunission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living facility located at 4025 University
A venue, 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 mld Development Ordinmlce,
including:
1. All required state and local codes will be met and in full compliance.
2. All required state and local licenses will be obtained prior to the operation of the business.
3. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become pmi of the permit.
4. No more than six (6) residents shall reside at the premises at any given time.
All Ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The following Resolution will go to the City Council August 14,2006.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TEMI INVESTMENTS, INC.
WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2006-0802) has been submitted by Helen Nwameme of Erenas, Inc. to
the City Council requesting a conditional use permit from the City of Columbia Heights at the following
site:
ADDRESS: 4025 University Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: A Conditional Use Permit pel' Code
Section 9.109 (G)(3)(i), to allow an assisted living facility in the R-3, Limited Multiple-Family
Residential District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code
on Augnst 8, 2006;
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 24
AUGUST 8, 2006
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed conditional use permit upon the health, safety, and
welfare of the conununity 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 Plmming
COlmnission:
I. The use is one of the conditional uses listed for the zOlung district in which the propelty is
located, or is a substantially similar use as detennined by the Zoning Administrator.
2. The use is in harmony Witil 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 ilmnediate vicinity.
5. The use will be designed, constlUcted, operated mId maintained in a manner that is compatible
with the appem'ance ofthe existing or intended chm'acter ofthe surrounding area.
6. The use and propelty upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public
facilities mId services.
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 tile
cumulative effect of other uses in the inmlediate 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 ofthis permit mId approval; and in granting tllis pClmit 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 year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the pernlit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. All required state and local codes will be met and in full compliance.
2. All required state and local licenses will be obtained prior to the operation of the bnsiness.
3. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become part of the permit.
4. No more than six (6) residents shall reside at the premises at any given time.
Passed this _ day of August 200_
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Mnscovitz, CMC
Deputy City ClerldCOll11cil Secretary
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 25
AUGUST 8, 2006
NEW BUSINESS
None
MISCELLANEOUS
None
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 9: 15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ fuM~
Secretary