HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 6, 2006
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
September 6, 2006
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson Szurek.
Roll Call:
Commission Members present-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek.
Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Planner), Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), and Shelley Hanson
(Secretary).
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutesji'om the meeting of August 8,
2006. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Sargent opened his presentation by reviewing the role of the Commission. He told the members and the
audience that the Plmming & Zoning Commission's responsibility is to uphold and follow the
Comprehensive Plan including the Design Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance, which have bccn
adopted by the City Council. He f,niher explained that the Design Guidelines were established by a
committee of residents, business owners, and leaders in the community, who desire to improve the
aesthetics of our business corridors of 40th Avenue and 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 Plan/Variance
Border Foods, Inc. ("applicant") submitted a plan for a new Taco Bell and Starbucks restaurmlt to be
located at the corner of 49[h Avenue and Central Avenue to the Planning Commission on August 8,
2006. This plan required a total of three (3) variance requests mld thirteen (13) deviations from the
Design Guidelines established for Central Avenue. At the August 8, 2006 Plmming Commission
meeting, the applicant requested that his applicant be continued to the September 6,2006 meeting.
At this time, the applicant has not submitted any new plans to the City of Columbia Heights ("City")
regarding this application. The applicant is working to secure a driveway access from the property
owner to the north in order to be able to redesign the site layout for the two buildings. The applicant has
also stated that the Taco Bell and Starbucks corporate entities have been informed on the Design
Standards that the City has, and that changes to the originally proposed plans would need to be made in
order for the project to be approved.
No new plans have been submitted, and at this time, the applicant wishes to pursue the originally
proposed plans.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
Border Foods, Inc. is representing both Taco Bell and Starbucks in an effort to redevelop the land
located at 4900 Central Avenue mId 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 Plm 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 9.106
(L)(7)(a).
4. A 2-foot parking stall length variance for the Starbucks parcel per Code Section 9.1 06
(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)(12)(b)(I).
6. The project will also require 13 deviations from the Highway District Design Guidelines.
Backl!:round
For approximately the last four years, Border Foods, Inc. has attempted to acquire 14 feet of the
southerly portion of the property occupied by Dave's Car Wash, for the purpose of building a new Taco
Bell at the existing location. On February 7, 2006, Border Foods acquired this property in its entirety.
After the acquisition, the applicmt contacted the City of Columbia Heights ("City"), indicating their
desire to redevelop the site to include a new Taco Bell restaurmt md a Starbucks Coffee Shop. During
many meetings, it became apparent that the Border Foods proposal would require variances 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 prepared by the community and approved by the City Council. It
establishes the future vision for Columbia Heights over a 10 - year period mId best represents the public
interest. The Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations, Building Code and Design Guidelines are
standards created to ensure the Comprehensive Plan is implemented. The primary function of the
Plalllling Commission is to ensure the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial development and includes goals for
commercial and economic development. These include strengthening the image of the community as a
desirable place to live and work; providing opportunities and mechanisms for successful redevelopment
of targeted areas; preserving and enhancing the existing commercial areas within the community;
advocating high quality development ffild redevelopment within the community; md enhancing the
economic viability of the community. The applicant's proposal is a commercial proposal and therefore
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that regard.
The applicant's proposal also requires 13 waivers from the City's Design Guidelines. These Guidelines
were adopted by the City Council after one year of preparation 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 conidors within the city, thereby
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 3
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
increasing the economic vitality of these corridors, and supporting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
The guidelines represent the minimum standards for design quality and have been implemented by
Discount Tire, Advanced Auto Parts, and Grand Central Lofts, all on Central Avenue. Ryland Homes,
Inc. and Schafer Richardson havc also used the guidelines in the redevelopment of the Industrial Parle.
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 Avenue. The
properties to the nOl1h and east are also zoned GB, General Business. The properties to the west are
zoned R2-A and R2-B, One and Two Family Residential Districts. The property to the south is zoned
commercial mld is in the City of Hilltop.
Landscalle Plan
For all new construction, the City's Zoning Code requires a landscape plan meeting minimum standards
as outlined in the Code. Thc proposed landscape plan effectively screens the proposed parking m'eas
while creating a pedestrian-fi'iendly atmosphere. The existing fen,cing 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.
Storm water Management
According to the City Engineer, the Taco BclllStarbucks 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
dischm'ging from the site in accordance with the Stormwater Management Ordinance and the City's
BMP'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 bnsiness district. They were developed by consultants, and a Citizen Task Force with
representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, area business owners and landowners, and
interested citizens, and are mandatory.
It is assumed 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 pennit alternative approaches
that, in its determination, meet the objective(s) of the design guideline(s) equally well. The City may
also waive mlY guideline when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make
compliance more difficult or inappropriate.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
FINDINGS OF FACT
Site Plan
Section 9.413, subd. 4 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Plarming Commission
make each of the following four (4) findings before approving a site plan:
I. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of the Ordinance.
As stated previously, the project site is located in the Design Guideline Corridor 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-dejined front
fa9ade 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.
1. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell building does not have a well-d~fined fi'ont fa9ade facing
Central Avenue. The main fa9ade with accompanying front entrance face the south, into
the parking lot, which does not meet the Design Guidelines criterion.
2. Starbucks. The Starbucks building does not have a well-dejined 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 occupiedjioor.
3. 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.
4. Starbucks. The plans for the Starbucks 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).
5. 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 entry is
not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
6. Starbucks. The primary entrance for the Starbucks building does not face Central Avenue;
rather itfaces north, towards the parking lot. The proposed location of the main ently 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 5
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
7. 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 fi.anchise 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 buildingfafade and Central Avenue.
8. 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 fafade of the building and Central
Avenue. The placement of these elements is not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Freestanding Sign age. Ground or monument signs are encouraged rather than pylon signs.
9. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell project is proposing to utilize a 25100t pylon sign for their
fi'eestanding 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.
10. Starbucks. The Starbucks project is proposing to utilize a 25-foot pylon sign for their
fi'eestanding 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.
11. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell project is proposing to use an internally lit pylon sign. which is
not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
12. Starbucks. The Star bucks project is proposing to use an internally lit pylon sign, which is
not consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Illuminated Wall Sign age. 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.
13. Taco Bell. The Taco Bell building proposes the use of a box sign logo, which is internally
illuminated. This type of signage must be externalZv lit per the Design Guidelines. For this
reason, the proposed is not consistent with the requirement.
2. The site plan 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 planfor the proposed project area.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 6
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
The proposed plans are consistent with the Zoning Code in regards to building setback and
screening ji-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.
Variances
Section 9.407, subd. 6 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission
make each of the following five (5) findings before approving a variance.
Taco Be1l2-foot Oal'king stall length Variance reauest:
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 hat'dship.
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. 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 are based are unique to the specific parcel ofland
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties 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 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 property.
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 parking 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 7
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general pnrpose 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. Granting this variance request
would allow for the placement ofa 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 injnrious 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 Staffreconunends that the Plamling 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 ~uare foot m'ea variance for wall signa~:
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, confignration, 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 eaeh fi'ontfoot of building or structure.
Because of the proposed orientation of the building, the applicant has been limited with the
amount of sign age desired for the huilding. If the building were oriented in a way consistent
with the Design Guidelines for the area, there would be an adequate amount of fi'ont footage
to obtain the desired amount of signage. For this reason, the applicant's design has caused
the necessity of the variance and no hardl'hip 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 prope1iies 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 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 8
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
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.
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 thefillure vision for Columbia Heights
over a 10 - year period and best represent the public interest. The 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 enjoyment, 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 StajJrecommends 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.
Starbucks 2-foot narking stall length variance:
I. Because ofthe particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other
conditions ofthe specific parcel of land 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 parking 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 are based are unique to the specific parcel ofland
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 9
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by thc 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 di./Jerently on the property, the 2-foot parking stall length
variance for Starbuck~ 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 variances is in harmony with the general purpose and intent ofthe
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. 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 accommodate pedestrians by providing more parking stalls
on site.
City Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend 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 Plan.
CONCLUSION
The Taco Bell/Starbucks proposal does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines for a new
commercial development along Central A venue. With some modifications to the site plan and building
plans, the applicant could present a plan that eliminates all variance requests and is more consistent with
the types of developments that the City of Columbia Heights has worked hard to obtain along its most
important major thoroughfare. City Staff understands that the applicant is willing to work with the City
to achieve the desired goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan, however the proposed development plans
do not meet the minimum standards.
The proposed site plan did not meet the requirements of City Code section 9.609 - Stonnwater
Management and 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 Ordinance and the City's BMP's.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 10
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
Ouestions from Members:
The members had no further questions since nothing had changed since the August 8th meeting.
:The Public Hearing was opened:
Jim Erickson, the representative from Border Foods, confirmed that Smgent's report was correct. He
explained they have considered alternative options, but since the Planning & Zoning Commission is not
a governing body, they will go to the City Council and work with them, as they are the decision making
body.
Mr. Erickson felt they had been close to coming to an agreement, but since the last meeting, have moved
further apmt on the issues. He thought the original plans submitted were in the best interest of Border's
Foods and the City of Columbia Heights for safety and functionality of the site. He briefly discussed the
reasons why they submitted plans that did not conform to the City's Design Guidelines. I-Ie stated that
they require a site with 40,000 sf in order to have a drive through. While this site meets that
requirement, MnDot will not allow any curb cuts off Central A venue so they are working around that the
best they can. He pointed out that they are investing about $3.5 million dollars to develop the two
business sites. They want to improve the avenue with their development. He stated that they cannot
meet all the requirements 100% and make it work. Since they bought the extra piece of property, they
had hoped to add the second business to provide an additional option to the residents, and to utilize the
site to the utmost.
Erickson stated that they wish to continue the process and will take this issue to the City Council to see
which points me the most important, as they are the ultimate decision making body.
Szurek stated the Commission's role is to go by staffs recommendation and to ensure that the guidelines
that have been established by community input are followed. She doubts that the City Cowlcil will
disregard the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines as it would set
precedence and would make all the effort that went into establishing these guidelines meaningless. She
stated that I or 2 vmiances could have been overlooked or compromised on, but 13 deviations that are
not caused by hardships is impossible to overlook. She listed the height of the building, the location of
the drive through, no storm drainage plan, and the location of the building itself as just a few of the
deviations that are not caused by hardship.
Erickson responded that there is a hardship because there is no access off Central Ave, and that
customers will need to use 49th Avenue as the access to these businesses. He stated he is working with
Mr. Streetar and the owner of Udupi for an additional access off Central. He felt they are making every
'attempt to work within the parameters and again stated they could meet many ofthe requirements, but
not all of them.
The Public Hearing was closed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 11
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, that the Planning Commission deny the site plan approval
for the Taco Bell located at 4910 Central Avenue and Starbucks at 4900 Central Avenue, because the
site plan does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and no stormwater management plan was
included. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Firoendino, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council deny the 2-foot parking stall length variance for Taco Bell, located at 4910 Central Avenue and
Starbucks at 4900 Central Avenue, because of the lack of ajustifiable hardship and because granting
the variance would not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council deny the 31.24 square foot area variancefor wall signagefor the Taco Bell building located at
4910 Central Avenue for lack of a justifiable hardship and because granting the variance would not
meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The following Resolutions of Denial will go before the City Council at the meeting of September II,
2006.
Erickson stated he would call to formally request that this be delayed till a later date than the September
II tII meeting. Sargent explained to the commission members that the City Council canl10t act oq new
plans. If anything new is submitted it will need to go tlll'ough the entire process just as these original
plans did. The Council can only make decisions on the policics in place and whether to chal1ge them or
not.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-I'ZXX
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR A SITE
PLAN FOR TACO BELL WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2006-0604) has been submitted by Border Foods, Inc. to the Planning
and Zoning Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the
following site:
ADDRESS: 4910 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approvalfor an addition in
the GB, General Business District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code
on September 6, 2006;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considcred 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
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 12
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pla11l1ing and Zoning Commission of the City of
Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission does accept
and adopt the following findings:
I. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this mticle.
The site plan does not conform to the Design Guidelines established for Central Aveuue,
as the site plan calls fOl' 13 deviations from the minimum requirements,
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
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 miuimum
stand31'ds of the City Code,
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 propelty in the immediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
The proposed plans are consistent with the Zoning Code in regards to building setback and
screening from 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.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that said site plan is denied based on the following:
1. There are 13 deviations ji'om the Design Guidelines in conjunction with the Site Plan request.
2. The site plan is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Passed this 6th day of September 2006,
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Nays:
CHAIR Marlaine Szurek
Attest:
SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 13
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE
FOR BORDER FOODS, INC.
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2006-0604) has been submitted by Border Foods, Inc. to the City
Council requesting a varimlcc from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4910 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS TI-IE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 2-foot parking stalllcngth variance
per Code Section 9.106 (L)(7)(a); and a 31.24 square foot area variance for wall signage per
Code Section 9.106 (P)(12)(b)(1).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code
on September 6, 2006;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and reconU11endations of the Plmming
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community mld its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, propcrty 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 Colnmbia Heights that
the City Council does accept and shall adopt the following findings of the Planning Commission:
I. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel ofland involved, where strict adhercnce to the
provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship.
The applicant's design has caused thc neccssity of the vadances and no hardship is
prcsent.
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.
Thc applicant has crcated the hardship by pnrchasing a piece of propcrty and
attempting to place a commercialnse on the property, which requires more land to
meet the City's minimum reqnirements. There are no uniquc circumstances
surrounding the parccl 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 legal interest in the property.
The owner of the propcrty has caused the statcd hardship being used to justify the
variancc requests. The variance request is a dircct rcsult of the proposcd oricntation of
the building, which the applicant has decidcd on.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 14
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
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 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 val'iance would not be materially detrimental to the publie welfare. The
parking stall length variance would help accommodate pedestrians by providing more
parking stalls on site.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that said variance requests are denied based on the following:
1. Other site layout options would enable the parking stalls to comply with City Code. Therefore,
there is no hardship to justifY the variance.
2. Reorienting the building would allow more signage on the building. Therefore, the applicant has
caused the hardship and would not justify warranting the variance.
Passed this _ day of September, 2006
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 15
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-I'ZXX
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR A SITE
PLAN FOR STARBUCKS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGl-ITS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2006-0605) has been submitted by Border Foods, Inc. to the Planning
and Zoning Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the
following site:
ADDRESS: 4900 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for an addition in
the GB, General Business District.
WHEREAS, the Plmming Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code
on September 6, 2006;
WHEREAS, the Plmming and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and reconnnendations 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 RESOL VEn by the Planning and Zoning Connnission of the City of
Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Conmlission does accept
and adopt the following findings:
I. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article.
The site plan does not conform to the Design Guidelines established f01' Central Avenue,
as the site plan calls for 13 deviations from the minimum requirements.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
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 of the City Code.
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 innnediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
The proposed plans are consistent with the Zoning Code in regards to building setback and
screening from 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 16
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that said site plan is denied based on the following:
1. There are 13 deviations pom the Design Guidelines in conjunction with the Site Plan request.
2. The site plan is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Passed this 6th day of September 2006,
Offered by:
Seconded by:
RollCall:
Ayes:
Nays:
CHAIR Marlaine Szurek
Attest:
SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE
FOR BORDER FOODS, INC.
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2006-0605) has been submitted by Border Foods, Inc. to the City
Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4900 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 2-foot parking stall length variance
per Code Section 9.106 (L)(7)(a).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code
on September 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, propelty values, light,
air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area;
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 17
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that
the City Council does accept and shall adopt thc following findings of the Planning Commission:
I. 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.
The applicant's design has causcd thc neccssity of thc variances and no hardship is
prescnt.
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 propeliies within the same zoning
classification.
The applicant has ueated the hardship by purchasing a piece of property and
attempting to place a commercial use on the pl'operty, which rcquircs more land to
mect the City's minimum requirements. There are no unique circumstances
snrrounding thc parcel that differentiatc themselvcs fl'om other propertics 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 propeliy.
The owner of the propcrty has cansed the stated hardship being used to justify thc
variance requests. The vaJ'iance 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.
Granting this vaJ'iance 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.
S. 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.
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.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that said variance rcquests are denied based on the following:
1. Other site layout options would enable the parking stalls to comply with City Code. Therefore,
there is no hardship to warrant the variance.
Passed this _ day of September, 2006
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
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0901
])arren Farwell, Savers
4849 Central Avenue
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage
At this time, Darren Farwell ("applicant") d/b/a Savers, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
allow outdoor storage at the property located at 4849 Central Avenue. The present use of the property is
a strip mall, with Savers store as a tenant. Currently, Savers is utilizing a large storage container as well
as a semi trailer to house excess materials that cannot be stored in the building. These outdoor
enclosures are considered to be outdoor storage for the business mld would need to comply with the
Zoning Code. The Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage would enable the applicant to continue
using the storage containers as long as the containers are placed in a fenced in area meeting the
requirements for outdoor storage in the City of Columbia Heights ("City").
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Transit Oriented Development. The current use of
the property is consistent with those uses found in transit-oriented developments. Therefore, the
proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning Ordinance
The property located at 4849 Central Avenue is zoned MXD, Mixed-Use Development, as are the
properties to the south and east. The properties to the north are zoned commercial and residential, and
the properties to the west are located in the City of Hilltop. The Zoning Code at Section 9.112 (D)(2)
states that all conditional uses allowed in the commercially zoned parcels of the City are also allowed in
the MXD District. Code Section 9,110 (E)(3)(h) allows for outdoor storage as a Conditional Use in the
GB, General Business District. The Specific Development Standards at Section 9.107 state the criteria
in which the outdoor storage shall be used. These standards state the following:
a) The outdoor storage area shall be accessory to a commercial or industrial use.
The storage area will be accessory to Savers, which is a commercial use.
b) Outdoor storage within the public right-of-way is prohibited.
The proposed location for the outdoor storage is located fully within the property
boundaries. A condition will be implemented prohibiting storage on the public right-ofway.
c) All outdoor storage areas shall meet the setback requirements for a principal structure in the
zoning district in which the use is located.
The Zoning Code states that the setback requirements shall maintain and enhance the
character of the neighborhood in which the development is located. In this case, staff feels
that it is appropriate to require the development to meet the same setback requirements for
the GB, General Business District. The setback requirements for the GB District are as
follows:
Front yard: 15 feet
Side yard: 0 feet
Corner side yard: 15 feet
Rear yard: 20 feet The site plan accompanying the CUP application
indicates that these setback requirements would be met.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 19
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
d) Qutdoor storage areas shall be located in rear yards or in the side yard behind the front
building line ofthe principal structure.
The site plan accompanying the CUP application indicates that the outdoor storage area
will be located in the rear yard.
e) The storage area shall be fenced and screened from adjacent uses and the public right-of-
way. Required screening shall consist of a fence, wall, earth benning and/or vegetation no
less than six (6) feet in height and no less than 80% opaque on a year round basis.
The site plan accompanying the CUP application indicates that a 6-foot tall privacy
fence will be erected around the perimeter of outdoor storage area. The fence will he required
to be tall enough to screen all the materials to be stored.
1) All goods, materials and equipment shall be stored on an impervious surface.
The area in which the outdoor storage area will be located is current hard sUljaced. A
condition of approval will be included indicating that at all times, the outdoor storage materials
shall be stored on an impervious sUljace.
g) All goods, materials and equipment shall be stored in an orderly fashion, with access aisles of
sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicles as needed.
h) The height of materials stored, excluding operable vehicles and equipment, shall not exceed
the height of the screening provided.
In this case, it appears as if the storage containers would exceed the 6foot tall fence that
is proposedfor the CUP. The applicant would have to erect afence that was tall enough to
screen the storage containers.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (H) ofthe 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 property is
located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Outdoor storage is specifically listed as a Conditional Use in GB, General Business District
in the City of Columbia Heights. The J'vlXD District allows all Conditional Uses that are
listed within each commercially zoned district.
(b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is met in this case. The land is designated for Transit-
Oriented Development. This type of commercial use is consistent with the types of
commercial uses in a transit-oriented development.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 20
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
(c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
The outdoor storage is required for the business to operate. At no time shall any of the
outdoor storage materials be hazardous or injurious in nature to the public welfare. A
condition will be added to this effect.
(d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
The required setbacks for outdoor storage for the proposed CUP would help ensure that the
uses of properties in the immediate vicinity would not be diminished in any capacity.
(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.
Outdoor storage in a commercially zoned area would be consistent with the character of the
surrounding area.
(1) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public
facilities and services.
The property located at 4849 Central Avenue meets this criterion.
(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 oftraffic.
The nature of outdoor storage does not and will not generate an excess of traffic, and will not
create traffic congestion. Measures will be taken to ensure that on-site circulation is
provided.
(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.
Being that outdoor storage is allowed in the General Business District with a CUP, it is
assumed that there would be no negative cumulative effect of the proposed use on other uses
in the immediate vicinity.
(i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located.
The proposed use will comply with all other applicable regulations for the district.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
Conditional Use Permitfor outdoor storage for the property located at 4849 Central Avenue, subject to
conditions of approval outlined below.
Questions from members:
David Van Buckle, the District Mgr. for the MN stores was present to answer questions. Schmitt asked
how many containers would be on site. Van Buckle responded there would be a permanent storage
container and I semi trailer that is changed out every 3-7 days.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 21
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
Peterson questioned whether this was the best loeation for the storage eontainers, as it abuts a residential
area and there is a drastic change in elevation on this side of the Saver's site. He felt this location
would require a high fence to sereen the eontainers from the residences. He asked about using the
south side of the building for this use. I-Ie was told that there isn't enough room on the south side
and that setback requirements eould not be met.
Thompson asked if there would be any drainage issues since some of the curb and gutter would be
removed. If so, this will need to be dealt with. And he thought that a briek or block wall
constructed around the eontainers would look nieer than fencing.
Fiorendino questioned how high the fence would be. He was told that the [eneing would need to screen
the storage eontainers and that the eontainers cannot be higher than the fencing or sereening.
The Pub lie Hearing was Opened.
No one wished to eomment.
The Publie Hearing was closed.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded bySchmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage, 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. The outdoor storage shall be located within the setback requirements of the GB, General
Business District.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials located on the public right-of-way.
3. There shall be no storage of hazardous materials or other materials that may be injurious to the
general welfare of the public.
4. The area used for outdoor storage shall be swiaced with a hard swface material at all times, as
approved by the City Engineer.
5. Any type of fence allowed by City Ordinance, no less than 6 feet high and 80% opaque shall
screen the outdoor storage area.
6. All goods, materials and equipment shall be stored in an orderly fashion, with access aisles of
sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicles as needed.
The height of materials stored, excluding operable vehicles and equipment, shall not exceed the
height of the screening provided.
Ayes-Thompson, Fiorendino, Szurek, Schmitt
Nay-Peterson. MOTION PASSED.
The following Resolution will go to the City Couneil at the meeting of September 11,2006.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 22
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
SAVERS
WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2006-0901) has been submitted by Darren Farwell of Savers to the City
Council requesting a conditional use permit from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4849 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: A Conditional Use Permit per Code
Section 9.112 (D)(2), to allow outdoor storage in the MXD, Mixed-Use District. --
WHEREAS, the Plmming Connnission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code
on September 6, 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 community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility
of uses, traffic, propelty 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
Commission:
1. 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 ofpropelty 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.
7. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets
mId 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 23
SEPTMBER 6, 2006
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 pcrmit 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 ofthe permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
I. The outdoor storage shall be located within the setback requirements of tilC G13, Gcneral
Business District.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials located on the public right-of-way.
3. There shall be no storage of hazardous materials or other materials that may be injurious to the
general welfare of thc public.
4. The area used for outdoor storage shall be surfaced with a hard surface material at all times, as
approved by the City Engineer.
5. Any type of fence allowed by City Ordinance, no less than 6 feet high and 80% opaque shall
screen the outdoor storage area.
6. All goods, materials and equipment shall be stored in an orderly fashion, with access aisles of
sufficient width to accommodate emergcncy vehicles as needed.
. 7. The height of materials stored, excluding operable. vehicles and cquipment, shall not exceed the
height of the screening provided.
Passed this _ day of September 200_
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Aycs: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 24
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
2006-0902
MAT Properties
5101 Univel'sity Avenue
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage
At this time, James Trapp d/b/a MAT Properties is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow
outdoor storage for his property located at 510 I University Avenue. The present use of the property is a
mechanics shop, requiring the need for storage of vehicle-related items. The current tenant currently
stores the excess vehicles patis, such as batteries, engine blocks, tires, car frames, and the like in the
open towards the side and rear of the property. The proposed CUP would allow the tenant to store the
materials needed for the business behind a privacy fence and out of public view.
This propeliy has had numerous City Code violations in the past several years. The City has received
many complaints regarding the general upkeep of the property, including the storage of outdoor
materials, junk vehicles and other items on the site. The proposed CUP would be a positive step in
trying to make the property a more aesthetically appealing piece of land.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as medium density residential. The property, however,
is zoned GB, General Business. The proposal is consistent with the intent ofthe City's Comprehensive
Plan for commercially zoned properties.
Zoning Ordinance
The property located at 510 I University Avenue is zoned GB, General Business as are the properties to
the nOlih and south. The propeliies to the east are zoned R-2A, One and Two Fatnily Residential, and
the properties to the west are located in the City of Fridley. The Zoning Code at Section 9.11 0 (E)(3)
allows for outdoor storage as a Conditional Use. The Specific Development Standards at Section 9.107
state the criteria in which the outdoor storage shall be used. These standards state the following:
a) The outdoor storage area shall be accessory to a commercial or industrial use.
The storage area will be accessOlY to AAs Automotive, Inc." which is a commercial use.
b) Outdoor storage within the public right-of-way is prohibited.
The proposed location for the outdoor storage is located fully within the property boundaries. A
condition will be implemented prohibiting storage on the public right-of-way.
c) All outdoor storage areas shall meet the setback requirements for a principal structure in the
zoning district in which the use is located.
The setback requirements for the GB District are as follows:
Front yard: I 5 feet
Side yard: 0 feet
Corner side yard: 15 feet
Rear yard: 20 feet
The site plan accompanying the CUP application indicates that these setback requirements
would be met.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 25
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
d) Outdoor storage areas shall be located in rear yards or in the side yard behind the front building
line of the principal structure.
The site plan accompanying the CUP application indicates that the outdoor storage area will be
located in the side and rear yards.
e) The storage area shall be fenced and screened from adjacent uses and the public right-of-way.
Required screening shall consist of a fence, wall, earth benl1ing and/or vegetation no less than
six (6) feet in height and no less than 80% opaque on a year round basis.
The site plan accompanying the CUP application indicates that a 6-100t tall privacy fence will be
erected around the perimeter of outdoor storage area.
f) All goods, materials and equipment shall be stored on an impervious surface.
171e area in which the outdoor storage area will be located is current hard sUlfaced. A condition
of approval will be included indicating that at all times, the outdoor storage materials shall be
stored on an impervious sUlface.
g) All goods, materials and equipment .shall be stored in an orderly fashion, with access aisles of
sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicles as needed.
h) The height of materials stored, excluding operable vehicles and equipment, shall not exceed the
height of the screening provided.
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 propeliy is
located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Outdoor storage is specifically listed as a Conditional Use in GB, General Business District
in the City of Columbia Heights.
(b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote a consistent usage of land with what is
currently provided. Although the Comprehensive Plan guides this area for medium density
residential, the underlying zoning is for a cOlnmercial use. Outdoor storage is a permitted
conditional use in the GB District, causing the use to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
(c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
The outdoor storage is required for the business to operate. The nature of the business requires
some of the outdoor storage materials to be compatible with a mechanics shop. At no time
shall any of the outdoor storage material be hazardous or injurious in nature to the public
welfare. A condition will be added to this effect.
(d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
The required setbacks for outdoor storage for the proposed CUP would help ensure that the uses
of properties in the immediate vicinity would not be diminished in any capacity.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 26
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
(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 of the surrounding area.
Outdoor storage in a commercially zoned area would be consistent with the character of the
surrounding area, which is zoned commercial to the north and south.
(f) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public
facilities and services.
The property located at 5101 Uaiversity Avenue meets this criterion.
(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 oftraffic.
The nature of outdoor storage does not and will not generate an excess of traffic, and will not
create traffic congestion. Measures will be taken to ensure that on-site circulation is
provided.
(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.
Being that outdoor storage is allowed in the General Business District with a CUP, it is assumed
that there would be no negative cumulative effect of the proposed use on other uses in the
immediate vicinity.
(i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located.
The proposed use will comply with all other applicable regulations for the district.
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage for the property located at 5101 University Avenue, subject
to conditions of approval outlined in the motion included in the agenda packets.
Ouestions by Members:
Peterson wanted clarification as to who the applicant is-the owner, or the tenant? Sargent explained
that the tenant is asking for the Conditional Use Permit with the owners knowledge and support due to
the number of complaints that have been received on this property.
Peterson questioned whether there would be two fences on the east side of the propeliy along the alley
since there is already one that runs the entire length of the alley. Sargent stated the fencing
requirement is for a fence that is a minimum height of 6 ft. around the perimeter of the hard surface
storage area, not necessarily to the propeliy line and is not sure whether it would be tied into the existing
one or if it would be a separate fence. Peterson thought it should be a condition that two fences not be
allowed as it would be a catch all of garbage and weeds between the two.
Peterson was also concerned that if the fencing were approved, that more unsightly storage items might
be added to the site. He didn't think the fencing was adequate to screen the storage items from the
neighbors in the apartment building next door. Sargent responded that the fencing does meet the
minimum requirements of the Conditional Use Permit being requested as it screens from Public view the
items being stored. He went on to explain that public view is what is seen from 51 st Avenue and from
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 27
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
University Avenue, not the 3rd floor of an apartment next door. I-Ic remindcd the mcmbers that ifthc
conditions listed aren't met, the CUP is violated. He believes the tenant/owners are making an attempt
to clean up the sight and this is a step in the right direction. He also explained that the property owners
have rights to use their property, and that those rights cannot be obstructed.
Fiorendino asked why autos are not included in the "storage cannot exceed the height of the fence".
Sargent explained that many trucks or vehicles that may be having work done on thcm would be higher
than 6 feet. But the fencing would screen most of the vehicles and the miscellaneous storage kept on
sitc.
Thompson questioned whether the plan to remove ill1 existing retaining wall had been reviewed by the
City Engineer. Sargent stated it had been rcviewed by the City Engineer, the Bldg. Official ill1d the Fire
Dept. and no one had an issue with it.
Scl11l1itt asked what would prohibit this from being used as a junk yard? Sargent explained that the
materials that are stored on site would have to be useful to an auto repair business. If other items are
stored, it would violate the CUP and it would be revoked. Sargent also stated he thought it would be a
good idea to add the wording "open storage" to condition #4, which would mean all tires have to be in
an enclosed container or cage. It was noted that the storage and/or containers cannot exceed the height
of the fencing.
The Public I-Iearing was opened.
Jim Trapp and Glenn Miske, owners of the property for 25 years were present. Trapp told the members
he would like to use cedar fcncing all the way around the perimeter as submitted. He will make it
whatever height the City wants and he will see that the tires are enclosed in an 8 foot storage container.
They are anxious to get thc site cleaned up and back into compliance. It is their hope that sometime in
the future they may get a license for auto sales again. He also informed members that the present fence
along the alley runs the cntire block and is for safety so no one steps off thc high bank.
Peterson questioned what the height limit was for non-residential fences. Sargent stated the fencing
Cilll't be more than 8 ft in height per the Zoning Code. And any fencing over 6 ft in height would
require a building permit. If that is the case, then the type of fencing and its location would need to be
approved by staff before the permit could be issued.
Mitchell Watson, of 5056 4th St. has concerns about this request. He brought in pictures of the site that
were taken 9/3/2006. Although, he's happy the current tenants want to improve the property, he has
several issues he'd like addressed.
I. It has been unsightly for quite some time, and the fencing will only encourage them to add
items to be stored and thus, would make it worse.
2. I-Ie opposes it for safcty reasons. Anyone gctting into the area, including children, could get
hurt.
3. He has environmental concerns due to hazardous substances that may be stored there such as:
gas, oil, grease, solvents, batteries, tires, etc. I-Ie believes these contaminants will get into the
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 28
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
ground water, the storm sewer system, and soil. How will they be contained? And he believes
the conditions fail to define what can or Calmot be stored there. And he wondered who would be
responsible for policing it.
4. He believes the lack of concern for how the property has looked for years is testimony of how
the outdoor storage will be handled in the future.
He asked the commission to deny the request.
David Soberg, of 51 00 4th St. stated he has been mowing alld trimming along that alley fence for
years since no one maintains it from the property in question. He is concerned as to who will
maintain additional fencing on the property if it is added.
Donna Running of 5048 4th St agrees with Mr. Watson. She says it has been a neighborhood eyesore
for years and wants something done to clean it up. She wondered why it has taken so long.
Jay Barta, the current tenant, said he is making every effort to clean up the sight. The old tenant left
behind about 25 vehicles he has had to deal with. He has taken care of any hazardous materials and they
are no longer stored outside. He will make sure the tires are stored in containers. He assured the
members that the Police come through the site about once a week and have issued him 10-20 citations
thus far.
Balia stated he wanted to install the north and south fence that would connect to the current alley fence.
Sargent said that if the pictures and measurements supplied by Mr. Watson were correct, and the fence is
only 5 feet in height, that Mr. Batia would need to replace that fencing also. The requirement is to have
a minimum fence height of 6 feet alld that it is a consistent height around the perimeter.
Barta questioned whether the fence is the City's or the property owners along the alley. This will be
checked out before the section along the alley is replaced.
Peterson would like more information on the fencing before making a decision. He was concerned with
how the site will be used if the fencing is approved. He doesn't want to make the situation worse for the
neighbors. He knows it is the commission's responsibility to uphold the code, but there are some gray
areas on how to interpret the code, in his opinion.
Szurek stated the request does meet the conditions that have been set in place by the governing body. If
the conditions meet the requirements, then there is no reason to deny. The members camlot decide if
they like the business or not, or if they necessarily approve of the use. They must make their decision
based on whether it meets the guidelines in place, and vote accordingly. Fiorendino agreed that if the
conditions are met, it should be approved. In order to deny the request there must be grounds.
Sargent reminded the members that if the conditions are not upheld, the CUP can be revoked.
Peterson then clarified that if residents had concerns they should go to the City Council who is the
governing body. The City Council is the body that sets or changes policies.
The Public Hearing was closed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 29
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Fiorendino, that 17Je Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage, 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. The outdoor storage shall be located within the setback requirements of the GB, General
Business District.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials located on the public right-ofway.
3. There shall be no storage of hazardous materials or other materials that may be injurious to the
general welfare of the public.
4. There shall he no open outdoor storage of vehicle tires on site.
5. There shall be no cars for sale on the property, and customers shal/ not buy vehicles pam the
site, unless a Conditional Use Permit is granted in the future to aI/ow this.
6. The area used for outdoor storage shall be surfaced with a hard surface material at all times, as
approved by the City Engineer.
7. Any type of fence allowed by City Ordinance, no less than 6. feet high and 80% opaque shall
screen the outdoor storage area.
8. All goods, materials and equipment shall be stored in an orderly fashion, with access aisles of
sufficient width to accommodate' emergency vehicles as needed.
The height of materials stored, excluding operable vehicles and equipment, shal/ not exceed the
height of the screeningprovided.
Ayes-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Szurek Nays-Peterson. kfOTION PASSED.
The attached Resolution will go bcfore the City Council at the Scptember 11, 2006 meeting.
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MAT PROPERTIES, INC.
WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2006-0902) has been submitted by Jamcs Trapp of MAT Properties to
the City Council requesting a conditional use permit from the City of Columbia Hcights at thc following
site:
ADDRESS: 5101 University Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 16, Block 5, Roslyn Parle.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: A Conditional Use Permit per Code
Section 9.110 (E)(3)(h), to aI/ow outdoor storage in the GB, General Business District.
WHEREAS, the Plmming Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code
on September 6, 2006;
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 30
SEPTEMBER 6, 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 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:
1. 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.
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 pati 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 (]) calendar
vear after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. The outdoor storage shall be located within the setback requirements of the GB, General
Business District.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials located on the public right-of-way.
3. There shall be no storage of hazardous materials or other materials that may be injurious to the
general welfare ofthe public.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicle tires on site.
5. There shall be no cars for sale on the propeliy, and customers shall not buy vehicles from the
site, unless a Conditional Use Pennit is granted in the future to allow this.
6. The area used for outdoor storage shall be surfaced with a hard surface material at all times, as
approved by the City Engineer.
7. Any type of fence allowed by City Ordinance, no less than 6 feet high and 80% opaque shall
screen the outdoor storage area.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 31
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
8. All goods, materials and equipment shall be stored in an orderly fashion, with access aisles of
suf1icicnt width to accommodate emergency vehicles as needed.
9. The height of materials stored, excluding operable vehicles and equipment, shall not exceed the
height of the screening provided.
Passed this _ day of September 200_
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:
2006-0903
Bonnie Stanley
3900 Main Street
5-foot side yard setback variance, 17.5-foot corncr side yard
setback variance
At this time, Bonnie Stanley is requesting two (2) variances too facilitate the construction of a new deck
for her home located at 3900 Main Street. The first is a 5-foot side yard setback variance per Code
Section 9.109 (C), and the second is a 17.5-foot corner side yard setback variance per Code Section
9.109 (C).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area towards Low Density Residential, and the current use is a
single-family residence. The use is consistent with the types of uses founcl in Low Density
classifications. The proposal will include the construction of cleek for the home, which is also consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 32
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
ZONING CODE
The propelty is zoned R-3, Limited Multiple Family Residential District, as are the properties to the
north, east, and south. The propelties to the west are zoned I, Industrial. The R-3 District requires the
following minimum setback requirements:
Front yard: 30 feet
Side yard: 20 feet
Corner side yard: 30 feet
Rear yard: 25 feet
The applicant's lot is located on the corner on 9th Avenue NE and Main Street and is 50 feet in width.
Any improvement to the property would have to meet the minimum side yard setback of 20 feet and the
minimum corner side yard setback of 30 feet. Given this, the current setback requirements would make
it impossible for the applicant to building anything on her property without first obtaining a variance to
do so.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following are required findings that the City Council must make before approving a variance
request in the City of Columbia Heights:
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, corifiguration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of
this article would cause undue hardship.
The hardship for this property is that the property is not wide enough to accommodate any type
of new construction. The minimum setback requirements imposed by the Zoning Code disallow
the applicant to construct anything on the propelty. For this reason, the applicant is unable to use
her land in the same maImer as other residents in the R-3 District.
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.
The subject parcel is a corner lot on 50-foot wide lot. The conditions upon which the variance is
based are unique to all corner lots of this dimension in the R-3 District.
3. 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 property.
The provisions of the Zoning Code require setback standards that are too extreme for this
particular piece of propelty. The applicant has not created the hardship being used to justifY the
granting of the variance requests.
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 for this area is to promote Low Density Residential
housing. Improvements on a preexisting low-density residence are completely consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 33
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
5. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development 01' value of property or improvements
in the vicinity.
Granting these variance requests would support the type of housing that the Comprehensive Plan
is gearing towards. The addition of a deck to the residence located at 3900 Main Street would
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare in any way.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing this variance application, Staff has come to the conclusion that the setback requirements
for the R-3 District pertaining to one and two family dwellings may be too restrictive. Staff will be
reviewing the setback requirements and conducting a survey of all the R-3 zoned parcels within the City.
Staff will focus on the single and two family uses tln'oughout the R-3 District to determine if a change in
the Zoning Code will be necessary. Granting the applicant's variance requests would allow the applicant
to use her property in the same fashion as any other single-family dwelling owners can utilize theirs.
Staff will recommend approval of the variance requests for these reasons.
Questions ii'mn Members: '
Fiorendino asked for the definition of a side yard. Sargent explained this and how the current setbacks
affect all comer lots that are 40' -50' in width in the R3 district. He said it is something that will need to
be changed when the Zoning Code is amended, as it makes it impossible to build on these lots under the
current requirements.
The Public I-Iearing was o]Jened.
No one wished to conunent.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by 1I1Ompson, that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve 5-100t side yard setback variance and the 17.5-100t cornel' side yard setback variance
for the construction of a deck located at 3900 Main Street with the following condition:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings and other 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 on September 11, 2006.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 34
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE
FOR THE STANLEY RESIDENCE
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2006-0903) has been submitted by BOlmie Stanley to the City Council
requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 3800 Main Street
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14, Block 73, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A S-foot side yard setback variance
per Code Section 9.109 (C), and a 17.S-foot corner side 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 September 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 sUll'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 of the Plmming Conmlission:
1. Because of the particular physical sUJ'l'oundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other
conditions of the specific parcel ofland 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 propeliies 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 cUJ'l'ently 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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 35
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
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 proj ect has not been completed within one (l)
calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS:
I. All application materials, maps, drawings and other descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become part of the permit.
Passed this _ day of September 2006
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary 1. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
NEW BUSINESS
None
MISCELLANEOUS
None
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 pm.
Respectf11lly submitted,
,s:z1 \~.HtL~/ ctu'MCIY\.
Shelley Hanson
Secretary