Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 2, 2009ITY F L I EIGHT 590 40th Avenue N.E., Calumbia Heights, MN 55421-3$78 (763) ~06-3600 TDD (763) 706-3642 Visit Our Website at: www.ci.columbia-heights.mn.us MEMBEI2S: Marlaine Szurek, Chair IJonna Schroitt Rob Fiorendino Mike Peterson David 'T hompson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM TU~SDAY, NOVEIVIBER 3, 2009 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBEI2S 590 - 40~~" AVENUE NE 1. Roll Call Minutes (October 6, 2009 meeting) (October 20, 2009 Sp~cial Meeting) 2. Public Hearings: Case #2009-1101, Rezoning of 3701-OS Reservoir Bivd 3701-OS Reservoir Blvd. Fadia Sa(~;m 3. New Business 4. Other I3usiraess 5. Ad,journ The Responsibility of the Planning Commission is to: • Faithfully serve the public interest. • Represent e~istii~g ai~d futl~re residents, and b~se our decisioris and recomme~~dations on the Co~~~p~°ehe»sivc Plan and Zor~ing OrdinalicE. • Recog~~ize the rights of citizens t~o participate in planning decisio»s. • Protect tl~e natural enviro~~ment and the i~eritage of the b~iilt enviro~~ment. • Exercise fair, hoilest, and independent judgme-~t. • Abstain from participatioi~ whei~ they may directly or ii~directly benefit from a planni~lg decision. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF OISABILITY IN F_MP~OYMENT OR THE PROVIS~ON OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING AND ZONING COIVIMISSION MI1~IUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2009 7:00 PM The ineetin~; was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek. Cammission Members present- Thompson, I'iarendino, Schmitt, Peterson, aud Szurek. Also present were Gary Petersc,n (Council Liaison}, JefF Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary}. Motion by Schn~itt, seconded by Peterson, to ap~i^ove the »~inutes fi^on~ the n~eeting of Septernbe~~ 1, 2009. All aye s. MOTION P.~SSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2009-0901. APPLICANT: Salman Abu-Sara--Fit~ilah Restaurant LOCATION: 4301 Central Ave REQUEST: Site Plan Approval for Shared Parking INTRODUCTION Sargent explained that the owners af the Filfillah Restaurant, located at 4301 Cer7tral Avenue, and the adjaining ~enant space wauid Iike ta re-open the restaurant and use the adjaining tenan~ space zor a gracery. At this time, the applicaizt has received a pernlit in order to open ti~e restaurant as a carryout iestaurant only, which would ineet the required ainount of parking for the site. However, in the iuhue, the applicant would like to open the restaurant as a sit-down dining restaurant. T1lerefore, the required amount of parking needed by the propased full-service and grocery store is more than the numher of parking stalls currently on the property. Per Code Section 9.016 (L)(9), the City Council may approve the use of a required off-street parking area on an adjacent site ul ihe form of a site plan approval for shared parking. At this time, the applicant is requesting a site plan approval in order to sllare the adjacent business's parking area in arder to meet the iuinimum requiremellt for parking for the full-service i-estaurant and adjoining grocery store. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Commercial related activities. Allowing the shared use of parking facilities would enable the businesses ~o prosper, which would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Pla~z for commercially guided properties. ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9.106 (L)(9) of the Zoning Code outlines specific conditioi~s in order for the City Council to approve tlze use of shared parking. They are as follows: Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 6, 2009 The use for which the application for shared parking is bein~ made is located within 300 feet if the use providing the parking facilities. The p~~~posecl locafion for the sha~ed ~arking is on the property z~~mediately to the north, currently occupied by Lcaundny Wotld, locczted at 4315 Centr^al Avenue. 2. Subsections 9.106 (L)(9)(b) - 9.106 (L)(9}(d) relate to wilether the use in question is a nighttime, daytime ar Suilday use. In this case, botli uses are da5~tilne uses. The Code imposes restrictions on what percent of the shared parkin~ can be used for each type of use, with the assumption that each business anly has tl~e minimum amaunt af required parking. In this case, the Laundry World has a~7 excess amount of parkin~, in which ihe owner is wiiling to share with the applicant. This is coilsisfent with the Zoning Code. 3. Cont~~act. A legally binding instrume~~t for the shared use of off=street parking facilities sha11 be appraved by the City Attarney and filed witll the Anoka Caunty Recorder's Office within 60 days after approval of the shared parking use. The applicants have submitted a cont~°act between themselves and tlze awner of~Laundry World.far the shared use of the parking facilzties. The City Attorney Tnus~t app~°ove this cont~~act. PARKING. At this time, the proposed Filfillah RestauNant will have a maximum of 40 fixed seats, and a kitchen square footage of approxi~nately 300 square feet. Per City Code, the required amount of parking stalls is equal to 30% ofthe building occupancy capacity. Given this, the restaurant is required to have 12 parking stalls, plus 1 stall for the kitchen, for a total of 13. The proposed ~rocery store wi11 be 4,318 square feet in area. City Code requues 1 parking stall for each 300 square feet af gross floor area, which is derived by taking 90% of the overall square footage. Given this, the grocery store is required to have 13 parking stalls as well. In total, the applicant's businesses are required to ha~e 26 parking stalls. The site plail indicates that there are only 22 an-site parkin~ stalls. For this reason, the neighboring property would have to share 4 parking stalls in order for the applicant to ineet the minimum requirement for on-site parking. Laulidry ~Vorld is 4,125 square feet in area. City Cade requires 1 parking stall for each 300 squaie feet of gross floor area, which is derived by takin~ 90% of the overall square Footage. Given tllis, Laundry VVorid is required ta have 13 paxking stalls. Currently, there are 21 on-site parking stalls, giving them an excess of 8 parkiilg stalls. For this reason, Laundry World would be able to share 4 of its parking stalls and still meet the minimum requirement for parking. The site plan indicates an additiona125 parking stalls to be added to the Laundry World property as part of the agreement between Laundry World and the applicant. Although Laundry VJorld currei~tly has ample parking to suffice the ll~umum requirements of Filfillah and the grocery store, the applicant would like to construct the additional parking stalls to ensure that there wi11 functionally be enough parking to accommodate his busulesses. The applicant also does not want to impede on any existin~ parking that the Laundry World has. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 OCTOBER 6, 2009 As part of the plan, the applicailt will be required to install a 6-foot screeiung fence along the east property line ta screen the additional parking spaces from the residential properties to the east. FINDINGS OF FACT Site Plan Approvai Seetion 9.104 (MJ~ requi~es that t1~E ~"1ar~rir~g and Zox~ing Coir~rnission shall make each of the folla~wing findings before approving a site plan: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirer7zents of this article Tl~e pf°oposed site plan in~eets all requirefnents set f'orth in tl~e Zoning Code r~elated to shared parking. 2. The site plan is consistei7t witl~ the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive p1an. The Cofnprehensive Plan guides this crl~ea,f'or Coi~zmercial related activities. All~wing the shar~ed use of parkin~, facilities would enable the businesses to p~osper wl~zch would be consistent wzth the intent of the Co~r~pNehensive Pla~z fo~- camme~cially guided propertzes. 3. The site p1a11 is consistent wit11 any applicable area plan. Thei°e zs no applicable area plan for this area. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the i~nmediate vici~ity and the public right-of-way. The pro~osed site plan will alleviate parking conce~~n,s f~f° the buszr~esses in question. Measit~~es will be taken to ensure that neighbo~^in~- pro~erty owner^s will not be affected by c~dded pa~~kinb to t%e site (sc~^eeni~rg~fence). Since the site plai~ conforms to ali standards outiined in the Zo~g Code as it relates to shared parkin~, staff recommends approval of the site plan for the development located at 4301 Central Avel7ue with the conditions as noted. Questions fiom Members: Szurelc had faur concenzs: She wanted to see ihe layout of the ~ocery store space; She is upset about the mess behind the restaurant that has been that way for moi~ths; She wants to see designated parking spots for Lauildry World customers next to the building; She wants the inonument sign inoved because she thinks it is a traffic hazard. Sargent responded to her concerns. He told her the layout of the grocei-y space is not pertinent to the number of parking spots as it is based on the square foatage of the store that was included in tlle staff report. The mess out back will be cleaned up as part of the construction process. Staff put a stop work order on the construction until the proper permits and approvals were obtained. The new ovv~~ers have been cooperating with staff and have cleaned up the fiont area. As soon as coizstruction resumes, the back area will also be cleaned up. Sargent assiired Szurek that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until Planuing & Zo~lil~g Cotnmissiotl Millutes Page 4 Octobei- 6, 2009 everything is done asld cleaned up. In regards to the parking, Sargent said the commission could make desi~lated parking spots a condition of approval or ask that it be pa~-t of the contract language. He recommended having it as a part of the contract between the business owners, as it is something that affects their custonzers. Lastly, the monument sign was approved as part of tlle site plan last year and the placement does meet city code. Szurek asked if they would be takina down the extra pylon sign and Sargent i-espol~ded tl~at it has to be removed as it is i~on-confonning and there is a change of use occurring. Thompson said he would vo~e in favor of ~lus with n~ore information. He wanted to see a landscape design plan for the parking area, and also agreed with Szurek that designated spots should be allocated for customers of Laundry World. Sargent explained that a landscape design was not required hecause they are not using green space to add tl~e parking. He said t11ey will just be re-surfacing the existing lot and re- striping it to mark the additional parkii7g spots. Fiorendino was concerned abaut the traff c flow in tl~e parking lat area. He felt directional signs should be ulstalled to help the flow throughout the lot and ta lessen the impact on the resideilces adjacent to the property in the rear. Schinitt asked if the owner has any ofller businesses, or if he has any affiliation with the old owner. A representative of t11e owner, Alex Badwa, told members that the current owner used to own the J~rusalem Market and ~hat he has no affiliatian wit11 th~ old owners. Fiorendu~o asked if this agreement would go with the owner and the business, or if it would go with the property. Sargent said he wauld have to check with the attonley and it may depend on the contract language. ~iiE CiueSiivi2 vi LiSiii~ iiii; aii~j% f3iiCG it iS vieaici;u iZ~~ tvi aCv~SS iv ii2c Yaiiili~~ aaca i%JaS uavti~iii u~'i. .~saT'~22ii explained that is not a public alley and that it will be used for clelivery access oi~1y. Traffic will be directed through the parking lots in the front and to the north. Public Hearii~g Opened: Mr. Badwa respoi~ded to same of the concel-ns of the members. He stated that the contract between Laundry World a11d Filfillah owne~-s does requir•e designated paikiilg spots for the customers of Laundry World. He also said the existillg pylon sign would be removed as saon as possible as part of the constructio~z piocess. Michael Henry of 947 43rd Ave said he was coneerned with additional parki~Ig in the lot. He said tl~e neighbors experience trolible with people parking there now and the amount af gai-bage they discard. He also expressed his concei-n over the City's laclc of actioil regarding the open hole on the site. Public Hearin~ Closed. Sargent sug~ested adding four conditions to the approval from those originally noted due to the discussion that took place. Tlzey aie included ll1 the following motion. Planning & Zoning Conlmission Minutes Page 5 October 6, 2009 Mol~ion by Tl~ornpson, seconded by Fiorendino, t~hat the Planning Commissiorr ~^eco~nmef~~ds that the City Coun~cil approve the site plan fo~ a sha~^ed pa~~kii~g ar~~ange~nent for the pf°ope~~ty located at ~301 Cet~t~~al Avenue per Code Section 9.106 (L)(9) of the Ci-ry Code, subject to certain conditions of approval t1~c~t have heen found to be necessary to pt~otect the public interest ana' ensure c~mpliance with the provisions of the Zoning ar2d Developrnent Ordinance, including: 1. A legally binding instrument foY the sl~ared use of off-street parking faczlities shall be appr^oved by the City Attorney and fi.lec~ witlz th~ Anoka Cc~unty RecordeN's Office 1~~ithin 60 days after approval c~f the sr'aarecl pcz~~kin~ use. 2. The applicant s~hall inst~all a 6 foot screening fence as indicated on the approved szte plan. 3. E~~sur°e language is included in the cont~^act requi~inL; desigt~ated par^kzng spaces, fo~~ Laundry World. ~. That dzrectional signage is i~zstalled to c~irect t~affic flow of~arking area. S. Thc~t the 25 additional.spots be installed and ma~~ked~~~rior to openzng. 6. That t7~e pyl~n sign be Nei~7oved prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued All ayes. Szurek voted aye with noted r^eservat~ions. MC~TION PASSED. The follo~ving Resolution will ~a to the City Council Oetober 12, 2009. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XXX 12ESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR SHARED PARKING AT 4301 C~NTRAL AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUIVIBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2009-0901} has been subn~itted by Salman Abu-Sara to the Ci~y Council requesting a site plan approval from the City of Cohimbia Heights at the following site: All1~K~;SS: 4~t~1 C~entrai Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for shared parking per Code Section 9.106 (L)(9). WHEI~EAS, the Planning Conunissian 11as held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on October 6, 2009; WFIEREAS, the City Coul1ci111as cansidered the advice and recoininendations of the Plamung and Zonil~g Commission iegaiding the effect of the proposed site pla~1 upon the health, safety, and ~~elfare of the coinlnunity and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traftic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the sunaunding 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 followii~g fi7ldings: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this artiole, except si~na~e. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive pla~l. 3. The site plan is consis~ent with any applieable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse i~npacts on property in ihe irmnediate vicinity and the public i°ight-of-way. Plaiuling & Loning Comnussion Vlinutes Page 6 Octaber 6, 2009 FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, ai7d other information sha11 becoine part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not bee~l coinpleted within one ~) calenc~ai~ yeat~ after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: 1. A legally binding ulstrumen~ for the shared use of off-street parkin~ facilities sha11 be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the t~noka Caunty Recorder's Off ce within 60 days after appraval of the shared parlcing use. 2. The applicant shall install a 6-foot screening fe~nce as indicated on the approved site plan. 3. Ensure language is i~lcluded i~s the contract requiring designated parking spaces for Laundry World. 4. That directional signage is installed to direct traffic flow of parking area. 5. That the 25 additional spots be instalied and marked prior to opening. 6_ That the pylon sign be removed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. CASE NUIVIBER: 2009-1001 APPLICANT: Caroline Becker LOCATION: 3704 Tyler Street NE REQUEST: 4-foot ~~vidth variance for a detached garage INTRODUCTION Sargent expiainea the applrcant is requesTing a 4-iaof wiuih variance io cor~s~ruci d i~ew uctaclicu gdiage pei Code Section 9.106 (C}(1)(m). The City's Zaning Code requires that all new accessory structures be no less thalz 20' x 20' in size. The proposed plans indicate that the new detached garage will be 16' x 20'. For this reason, a 4-foot width variance is required. ZONING ORDINANCE The property at 3704 Tyler Street is zoned R-2A, One a~d Two Falnily Residential, as are all the properties in the surrounding area. The requii•en~ent for a 20' x 20' garage per City Code is to ensure that a11 i~ew garages would be capable of storing two (2} vehicles. The subject propel~ty currently does not have a garage and the applicailts would like ta add one foi thei~ use. Currently, the property has a si~,mificant grade differential fro~n the baclc of the lot to the froilt. There is also a mature tree in the general area ~~here a new detached garage would be located. Because of the ~rade change and the location of the free, the detached garage would have to be located at the minimuln setback distance of tluee (3) feet from the side and rear property lii~es. Given this location, the largest garage that could be constructed would be one measuring 16' x' 20'. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Pla~ guides this area as residential. A varial7ce to allow the consti-uction of a llew accessory structure would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area. Planning & Zoning Cammission Minutes Page 7 October 6, 2009 FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance} Section 9.104 {G) of t11e Zoning Ordinance outlines five findiilgs of fact that must be met in order for the Cit~ Council to grant a 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 i~lvolved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause undue hardship. The topobr~aphy of the property is the hardship in tliis case. T1~e~e is a small area adjaeent to the alley that sits un a plateau zn i~elatzora t~o the rest af the yarcl This area zs orzly lcz~~ge enoug~la ~o const~°uct a 16' x 20' garage without massive excavation and rega~~ding of tjie existing pro~et°ry. The applicants would c~lsc~ like to save c~ large t~~ature t~•ee, which the granting of tlze variarzce would allow. b} The conc~itions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within t11e salne zoizing classificatioiz. T7~e to~ography of ~the pr~oper~ty is unique and gene~aZly not applicable ta other p~^operties within the same zoning classifzcation. c) Tl1e 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 hardship was c~eated by the lay of the land and not Iry czny ~et°son cur~~ently having a legal interest~ in the property. d) The granting of the variailce is in hai°mony with the generat purpose and i~ltent of the coinprehensive plan. The C'omprehensive Plar~ guides this area as residential. A va~~icznce to allow tlze constl°uction of a new accessof y str~i.tctut~e would be consistent with the zntent af the Coinprehensive Plan ~uidi~~g of the area. e) The grallting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyn~ent, use, development or value of property or unprovements ii~ the vicinity. The grantzng of the variance would not be materially detrzniental; rather it would create inore value to tlze pf°operty, thus er~hayzcing the neighborhood. Plallning & Zaning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 6, 2009 Staff recoinmends approval of the 4-foot widtli variance far the constructian of a~ew detached ga~age located at 3704 Tyler Street because the hardship justi~ies the construction of an undersized structure. Questions fronl inembers: Scllmitt asked if the existing shed wauld be removed. The owner answered that yes, it would be. Fiorendino asked what the setback will be from the alley. Sar~ent explained that it would be three feet. He told Fiarendino it is important to maintain that setback for snaw renloval and garbage service. T12at is why tl~e variance on the width of the garage is needed. Public Hearin~0 ep ned: No one else wished to speak on this issue. Public Hearin~ Closed. Motion by Petel°son, secoy~ded by Scl~rnitt, that the Planning CoJnmis.sion ~~econ~mends t7~e City Council app~^ove th~e 4-foot~ wzdth varzance for tl7e constNZiction of a new detacl~ed gar^age per Code Section 9.106 (C)(1)(m) of the Ci.ry Code, subject to certain conditions of appro»al t1~at have been founc~ to be necessary to ~rotect the public interest and ~nsure co»~pliat~ce with the pr^ovisions of the Zonifzg and DeveZopment Ch^dinance, including: 1. All applica~~ion mate~°ials, maps, d~awings, a~id descrzptive infor^~nation submitted wzth the applzcatio~z shall become part of t1~e pe~~n~it. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building pe~mitprio~ to the const~•uction of tdae gai~age. 3. The garage shall be a~^cd~itecturally compatible ~-~itla the exzs~ting principal structure, inco~~oratzng szmila~ buildin~ rnater~ials and coloNS. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIAl~CEFROM CERTAIN CONDITI(}NS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR CAROLINE BECKER WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2~09-1001) has beeil subn~itted by Caroline Beclcer to tl~e City Council requestii~g a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoiiiiig Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 3704 Tyler Street NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Or1 file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: ~ A 4-foot width variance for the construction of a new detached garage per Code Section 9.106 (C}(1)(m). WHEREAS, the Planning Comizlission I~as held a public hearing as required by the City Zoniilg Code on October 6, 2009; Plarnzing & Zoning Colninission Minutes Page 9 October 6, 2009 WHEREAS, tl~e City Couneil has considered the advice a~~d reconlmendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effeet of the proposed variance upon the 17ealth, safety, and welfare of the communiry and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concen~ related to traffie, property values, li~ht, air, da~~qer of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surroufiding area; ~ NOVV, T~IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI) by the City Council of the City of Colu~nbia Heights t11at the City Couneil aecepts and adopts the following findings of the Plaiming Commission: 1. Because of the pai~ticular physical surroundings, or fl1e sl~ape, configuration, to~ography, or otl~er conditions of the specific parcel of lar~d involved, where strict adherence to the provisians of this Ordinance would cause undl-e hardship. 2. The conditions upon vvhich the v~rra~~ce is based are u~~ique to the specific pareel of land ii~voleecl ai~c! are generally not applicable to other pi-operties within tl~e same zoning classification. 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the pi-ovisions c~f this (7rdiilai~ce and has not been created by any persoll cLirrer~tly having legal interest iiz the property. 4. The granting of the variai~ce is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of tl~e Comprehensive Plan. 5. The grantifl~ of ti7e varianee will not be materially detrinlental to tl~e piiblic welfare or n~aterially injuriolis to the ei~joyment, use, develapment ar value of properiy or in~provements ir~ tt~e vieirlity. FURTHER, BE IT RESOL~ED, that the attached plans, maps, and other infarmation shall become part of this variance and appraval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance shall become nu11 and void if the project has not been c~oinpleted within one (1) caleizdar year after the appraval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATT~CHED: l. All application materials, inaps, drawings, and descriptive infonnation subinitted witl~ t11e application shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant sI1a11 obtain a building permit prior to the constructian of the garage. 3. The garage shall be arehitecturally compatible with the existing principal structure, incorporating similar building materials and colors. NEVV BUSINESS Saigent explained that Jiinmy John's has submitted plans to construct a buildulg on the old Jiffy Lube site at SOt~' and Central. They would like to nlove forward with tl~e project quickly and begin construction yet this fa11. Sargent said due to the size of the lot, the Architect has come up with several different site plails, but each one would i-equire a variance. Therefore, staff would like to set a special meeting for October 20, 2009, at 6:30 pm. for the conzmissioiz to consider the variance issues. Sargent said a special ineeting was necessary since legal notices must be done at least 10 days prior to the Ineetiilg, so it couldn't have been included on the agenda for this meeting. Sargent explained the lot is small, and they would like to llave a drive up wi~ldow i~leluded u1 the design. He said this is a proto type building they have recently started constructing to obtain their own identity. He told members the building will meet most of the desigu guidelines aud be a nice fit on this sniall piece of property. It would be difficult to find something else to ~o on this site aild would replace the vacailt building ctu-rently there. Planning & Zoning Coinmission Miilutes Page 10 October 6, 2009 Peterson voiced his cancem regarding the large number of fast foad restaurants and auta parts stores we have along the avenue. He thought the commission should maybe consider limiting the number of these businesses like we have smoke shops and secondhand stores. He wandered how many fast food restatuants tl~e city could support. The other members lelt that the market dictates that and that most af those businesses do maiket studies before deciding to build sorne~uhere. Sclullitt asked if there may be some enviranmental issues or contaminants on site. Sargent said tl~at hasn't yet been determined. It is possible, and would have to be dealt with in the constr~ctian process. Tile meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pin. Respectfully subinitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2009 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek. Commissian Members present- Thoinpson, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek. Members absent: Fiorendino Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Plamler), and Shelley Hanson ~(Secretary}. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER 2009-1002 APPLICANT: Jimmy John's Restaurant LOCATION: 4955 Central Avenue REQUEST: Site Plan Approval, Variances INTRODLTCTION Sargent explained that Jimmy John's Restaurant is requesting a Site Plan approval for the construction of a new restaurant located at 4955 Central Avenue. As part of the approval process, the applicant is also requesting three variances. They are as follows: l. A 2.7-foot rear yard parking setback variance per Code Section 9.110 (C). 2. A 2.5-foot side yard parking setback variance per Code Section 9.110 (C). 3. A 2-foot drive aisle width vai-ia~lee per Code Section 9.106 (L}(11}. ~A~u~rR~TrNn Jimmy John's Restaurant would like to locate a store within the City of Columbia Heights. Currently, they have signed a letter of intent to locate their restaurant at 4955 Central Avei~ue, home to the fornler Jiffy Lube. Jimmy John's has expressed interest in being able to start construction in 2009, and given how late in the construction season it is, Staff felt that holding a special meeting would be appropriate. He noted that the demolition permit has already been issued for the Jiffy Lube Building. COMPREHF.NSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for cominercial development that includes goals for commerciap and ecanamic development. These include preserving and enhancing the existir~g commercial areas within the conlmunity; advocating high quality developinent and redevelopment within the cominunity; and enhancing the economic viability of the community. The applicant's proposal is a commercial proposal, which replaces a run-down and old building with a new building that would meet the intent of the Design ~Guidelines established for the area. For this reason, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The Design Guidelu7es were adopted by the City Council to increase the visual appeal and pedestrian orientation of certain major street corridors within the city, thereby increasing the economic vitality Page 1 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 a number of new businesses that have located within the City. Even though the proposed plans subinitted by the applicant include two deviations frorn the Design Guidelines, the deviations are consistent with the intent of the Design Guidelines a11d contextually acceptable in the overall desigi~ of the project. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 4955 Central Avenue NE is zoned GB, General Business, as are the properties to the north, south and west. The properties to the east are zoned R-2A and R-2B, One and Twa Farnily Residential. The property is also located withiiz the Design Guideline Highway District and is subject to the regulations for such properties. Parking. Fast food restaurants with drive thru canvenience require six (6) parking stalls plus one (1) parking stall for each 40 square feet of service/dining area. The proposed restaurant will have 680 square feet of dining area. Therefore, the project requires 23 on-site parking stalls. The proposed site plan indicates 23 on-site parking stalls, two of which accommadate parallel parking. Drive-Thru Facilities. The Zoning Code requires a lninimum af six (6) stacking spaces per drive thru lane. The proposed plans indicate six (6) stacking spaces. The Zoning Code also requires a minimum drive aisle width for drive thru facilities at 12 feet, exclusive of a11y other required drive aisles. On the east side of the property, the applicant is proposing a one-way drive aisle for traffic exiting the property in the same generai location as the drive aisle for the drive-thru. The combined width of this area is required to be 24 feet. The proposal is for tlus area to be only 22 feet in width. For this reason, a 2-foot width variance is required. Sargent noted that entrance to the site will be from the Central Ave frontage raad and that vehicles will be able to exit onto the service road or onta S Ot~' Avenue. Lanc~seaping. The City Code requires landscape plails tliat ia~clude a minimum of ai~e tree for every 50 feet of street frontage or fraction thereof. Parking areas shall have a minimum of 100 square feet n~~ailc~SC~pe ~rP3 ~~~1 ~rtP ~tv~r-ctnrv trPP fnr r~~c~~ ~(a cr~rc~g np frart~nLn t1,PrPr~f µ~ ~,x~Pil, 4US5 r'Pntr~l Avenue has 250 feet of street frontage, and incorporates 23 parking spaces. This requires six (6) trees, one of which shall be an over-story tree, and 100 square feet of landscape area. The proposcd plan indicates a total of six (6) trees, a11 of which are over-story trees, and approximately 1,400 square feet of landscaped area, meeting the City's minimum requirements in both regards. Included i~1 the 1a11dscape plan for the project wi11 be 13 shrubs. Signage. The Sign Code allows the building to have 2 square feet of signage for each 1 foot of building frontage, ca~ped at 200 square feet. The proposed restaurant is located on the corner of 50~' Avenue and Centrai Avenue, and thus has a total of 92 feet of street frontage. For t11is reason, the building wo~ld be allowed u~ to 184 square f~et of signage. Tl1e sigii p~an indicates a total af '75 square feet of signage, meeting the maximum requireinents. The proposed plan also indicates the use of a monument sign, located 5 feet from the front and side property lines. City Code requires monument signs to be no greater than eight (8) feet in height, no larger than forty (40) square feet in area, and shall have a masonry base to match the principal structure. The monument sign is also subject to regulations regarding its illumination, as determined by the Design Guidelines. As the applicants do not yet have plans for the proposed monument signs, they sha11 be held to the City Code requirements and the final lnoni.uilent sign will be approved by the City Planner during the sign permit application process. Page 2 Stormwater Management. The subject parcel is around one-third of an acre and currently does not utilize any type of stormwater management system. Typically, the rainwater runoff would be collected from the site by the municipal utilities. However, the water draining from this property ulti~nately ends up in Sullivan I~ake, which is considered an i~npaired waterway by the DNR. For t~his reason, a stormwater management fee will be calculated and appiied to the project in arder to pay for the services needed to clean the rainwater runoff prior ta it entering Sullivan Lake. Design Guidelines. The project is lacated at 4955 Central Avenue, which is also located within the Design Overlay Highway District. Properties located in this district are subject to 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 coinpleted streetscape improvements to the Central Avenue business district. They were developed by consultants, and a Citizen Task Farce with representatives fram the City Council, Planning Cainmission, 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 permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the objective(s) of the design guideline(s) equally weli. The City may also waive any guideline when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make compliance more difficult or inappropriate. Saine Design Guideline elements that have been met are as follows: FRANCHISE ARCHITECTURE. Franchise architecture (building design that is trademarked or iden~ified with a particular chain or eorporation and is generic in nature} is proltibited unless it employs a traditional storefront cominercial style. The Jimmy John's building itself is IZOt shaped in a wa~r tha~F ~lictin~a~iic~~PC t~P hii~l~,linb ac a J2Tni?Z~r Tnh,2?'S ~PSt~u~~:"wl:t, ~P~ :~ ~~5~ P:'I?~~^~~S w tT~:~.t.~P~~ storefront cormnercial style. For this reason, the propased building meets the Design Guidelines pertaining to franchise architecture. DRIVE THRU FACILITIES. Drive-thru elements shall be placed to the side or rear af the principal building, and shaii not be located between any building fa~ade and Central Avenue. The proposed location of the drive-tliru elements is located on the north side of the building, behind the front face of the restaurant. The orientation of the building to Central Avenue is directiy related to the location of the drive-thru facilities. City Staff feels that it would be rnore desirable to have the drive-thru elements located correctly on the property than to have tl~e building oriented correctly. PRIMARIT FACADES. The base or ground floor of the building sha11 include elements that relate to the human scale, including texlure, projections, doors and windows, awnings, canopies or ornamentation. The Jimmy John's building design incorporates brick, windows, awnings and building projections, all achieving the intent of the Design Guidelines. Page 3 FIl'~DINGS OF FACT (Variances} The applicant is proposing two variances per Code Sectioi~ 9.110 (C) pertaining to parking setback requirements. The first is a 2.7-foot rear yard setback variance, and the second is a 2.5-foot side yard setback variance. The applicant is also proposing a 2-foat drive aisle width variance per Code Section 9.106 (L)(11). Section 1.104 (G) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the City Council make each of the following five (5) findings before approving a variance: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, coi7figuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions ~f this article would cause undue hardship. The subject prope~°ty is only 115 feet in width and 135 ,feet in depth. This small lot~ corifigr~ration ~nakes it exh^emely difficult to place a buildzn~g, drive aisles, ~arking stalls a~d landseaping withaut needing a variance 1o do so. The sha~~e of the property, therefore, drives the setback variance ~°equests for pa~°king and df•ive aisles. b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific pa~cel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classi~ication. This p~^o~erty is uniqi~e in that it is art extr~e~nely small comme~cial piece of pro~erty locaZed on a corner. Setback f equirements are more restrictive when applied to two separate r~ights- of-way instead ~f only one. There a1~e few other p~^operties along Centr~al Avenue where this is the case. c) The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created by any person currenily having a legal interest in the praperty. Thv 1»rnti~icins? s~~tl2p <'it3~ ('nrlv y2nZlir-pc S'r°~1~~ ~°lhw~~ ~l.r..'YI~Q?'f.~U ~G'Y y~F'~Zylb t1~Krf :.iJ~,!~l~ make development on this property very di~cuZt to ~nanage, zf not impossible due to the small Zot area that tl~e applica~~t Izas to work with. d) The granting of the variance is in IZarmany with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this p~~ope~~ty for^ com~nercial redevelopment. The granting of the variances would aide in fulfillzng t7~e g~als of the Cornprehensive Plan,for this area. e} The grantiiZg of t11e variai~ce wi21 not be i7laterially detrimerltal to the public ~velfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. The granZing of the vat iances would enable tlze develop»zent of a netiv rest~aurant and would remove an abandorzed and unutilized commercial building. The requested variances will not be detr~i~nental to the public welfare or arse ofp~°opei~ties in the vicinity. Page 4 FINDINGS OF FACT (Site Plan Appraval) Section 9.104 (N) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Planning Cammissian make each of the following four (4) findings before appraving a site plan: 1. The site plan confonns to ail applicable requirements of this article. As stated pNeviously, the project~ szte is located in the Design Overlay Hzghway Distr~ict. There are two proposed deviations fronz the Design Guidelines for the construction of the Jfinmy .Iohn's Restaurant buzlding as curr^ently p~~esented, They include th~e,followzng.• Building Placement. The Design Guidelines require the buildings t~o have a well-defined fi^ont fa~ade with prinzary ent~ances facing the street. Buildings should be aligned so that the do~ninant Zines of their facades parallel the line of the street and c~~eate a continuous edge, 7he Jimrny John's building has a well-defined~~ont fa~ade facing C'entNal Avenue, however, the c~ominant lines of the building do not face that directi~n. The dominant fa~ades are ~erpendicular to Central Avenue rather than parallel, which does not rneet the Design Guidelines criterion. Staff has determined that the pro~osed place»~ent of the building on the pro~erty is the only location that will adequately provide paYking stalls and drive aisle ~~Zacement-, while still providing the adequate space,far the building and di°ive-thNU.facilities. As stated previously, the o~^ientation of the building and the location of the drive-thru elements are directly relatec~ The applicant and staff agreed that locating the drive-thru ele»~ents co~^rectly had a greater visual impact than orienting the building correctly. Building Height All buildi~gs sh~all I~ave a mininZUrra cor•nice hezght of 22 feet in or~der to cr•eate an increase~ sense of enclosure an~d di~zinish the perceived width of the street. This also conveys a rnulti-story a~~pearance even if the buildi~~g has onZy one occupied floor. Given the width of the proposed building and the .size of the lot, a 22-foot heigl~t requirer~~ent tivould n~ake the stNUCture look dispropoYtional. Staff feels that a deviatzon fi°on~ tl~e Design Uuic~elines in ~his respect still »~eets the interat. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Coinprehensive Plan. The applicant's p~°oposal is a co~n~nercial building, and thel°efore consistent tivith the Co~npNehensive Plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. Cu~°r-ently, there is no area plan, for t~he proposed pr^oject area. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the irmnediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. The proposed plans are consistent with the Zoning Code in ~~egards to building setback and screening fi~om adjacent residentially zoned parcels. For this reason, the site plan mini~n~zzes and adverse in~pacts on property in the inzmediat~e vzcinity and public rights-of- way. Page 5 The construction of a new Jimmy John's Restaurant would give the City an opportiulity to replace an abandoned run-down commercial building with a new structure. Staff feels that the end product will be an asset to the community, and will aid in the effort to redevelop older portions of Central Avenue. For these reasons, staff recolnmends approval of the site plan and variances. Questions from Members: Thompson said he would defer ta Inembers of the task force that worked on the Design Guidelines and wanted to know what their intent was for the building height requirement. Szurek said the height requirement was put in as a guideline that would apply to most buildings along Central A~enue, but beca~use this building and site is ~nuch small~z_than others ~1ong Central, she feels the requirement should be flexible as it would make the building look odd. She said the slight deviation fram the height requirement is acceptable and still meets tlle intent of the guidelines. Thompson then questioned whether the parking spaces should be 20 feet in length instead of the propased 18 feet. He noted that some of tne 18-foot spaces abut the sidewalk area so vehicles will overhang onto the sidewalk. Sargent said an Ordinance change a few years back allows for 18 foot length spaces, even if they abut a curb ar sidewalk. The previaus Ordinance did require parking spaces to be 20 foat in length. He told lnembers that the application meets current policy, and therefore, does not require any variances. He aiso noted that the paraliel parking spaces are 24 foat in length for vehicles needing extra iength. If the commission wislles to change the requirements, it would require another policy change. Schnlitt asked how many patrons the restaurant wauld seat. John Patterson (Designer/Constractor) responded that the seating plan was not 100% complete yet, but that seating would be minimal. The majority of their patrons are take out, drive-thru, and delivery. Schmitt has concerns about customers conling in the wrong way off SOt" Avenue that is designated as exit only. She would like to see that access changed ta twa-way, even if it means giving up some of the parking spaces. Sargent state~ that Public Worl~s and MN Dot are also reviewing the plans, and thus far, feel the traffic flow '~i.^,i,`~3S~a.`~ `~T'i ~i2~ :iii~, iS iii~ ~i3C:Si Cii;SI~i2. ii~, ~c`iiu ii IS Siiiu~ai iv iiia~ uScu ai iiic iaCv i~}cii Si~`c. Peterson stated he went and looked at the site closely a11d has three coilcerns: l. The Plaiz as it stands is too close to 50`~' Avenue and makes the intersection seemed cramped. 2. Although the Design Guidelines say Drive-thrus can't face Central Avenue, he daesn't think they should face 50`h Avenue either. 3. If the north side is constructed as shown on the proposed plan, he thinks it is boring and not attractive to the residents in the area or to the traffic flow they are hoping to entice to the site. His first impression was that it was generally a good design, but after consideration, he feels the plan should be reversed. Peterson thought by reversing the plan, it would eliminate access and exit problems, make traffic flow on the site easier, that it would eliminate the need for a double traffic lane in drive-thru area and would enable the dumpster to be located in a better spot. Dan Vansteenburg, tile franchisee, agreed the narth wall on the proposed plan that was submitted was p1ai~1. He said they have already decided to add lnore windows, awnings, and signage to that side to inake it more aesthetically appealii~g. He also stated that they tried a design such as the one suggested by Comn7ission member Peterson, but that it didn't allow for a large enough kitchen to ensure a profitable business from an operatianal standpoint. He told members t11ey had worked on Page 6 eight different designs for the site and the only way they cauld meet parking requirements and most of the design guidelines was to construct the building as submitted. He explained they also put all the requirements into the CAD System and this layout for the site was the only one that came close to working. Peterson didn't understand IZOw parking would be affected by reversing the plan. He also expressed his concern that the project look as nice as possible to residents who live in the near by neighborhood. Sargent reminded members that the Design Guidelines for the downtown area which follow Urban Design practices, encourage buiidings to be placed as far forward as possible on the site. Even though, this site is located in the Highway District they are trying to incorporate as many of the guidelines as possible into their design. By locating the building forward to the carner, it makes the building look larger and more noticeable. He noted that the Jiffy Lube building was 2,200 sq. ft. and the proposed Jimmy John's building will be 1,900 sq. ft. He also stated that the new building would look nicer along both roadways than open parking spaces. Sargent told members that if the plan were reversed, the access points would need to be re-relocated and the parking setbacks would be different which would prevent them from meeting the required number, which makes the reverse plan not workable. Szurek also reminded members that their role is ta accept ar deny the plan submitted based on whetlzer it meets our current policies, ardinances, and laws. It is not the commission's role to re- design their project. They have already decided what will work best for them. Dan Vallsteenburg told nlembers this is his 20`~' Jimmy Johns in the metro area. He has been opening stores during the past eight years and this will be his first stand-alone huilding in the Twin Cities. He explained that there are ~ver 900 Jiinmy John's across the country and only 75 of those are stand- alone buildings. Jiinmy John's corporate offices look at every plan and have to approve the site design in arder for him to open a francluse locatian. Based on prior experience, ihey didn't accept the initial plan because of the traffic flow on the site. However, they have approved this site design. Peterson said he can accept the plan submitted, if there are no other options due to the size of the parcel. Szurek stated she thought this project would be much nicer looking than the empty Jiffy Lube building. Public Hearin~ Opened. Marv Sowada who owns property directly east of this property had concerns whether the existing fence wauld be replaced as part af the project. I~e said t~~e fence is in poar condition and is actuaily placed about two feet on his property. Mr. Patterson said they have had contact with Mr. Sowada and it is their intent to replace the fenee with a maintenance free type and that tlzey will relocate it onto their property. Mr. Sowada was also concerned about the lighting on the site, but after reviewing tlle plan, is satisfied with their plan not being intrusive onto the adjacent neighbors. He also is somewhat concerned about the traffic flow enteriilg and exiting the site, but understands their reasons for the proposed layout. Page 7 Public Hearing Closed. Sargent suggested adding a couple of additianal canditions for the appraval of the site plan based on some of the conversatioil regarding this issue. He suggested adding the foliowing: #12. That the fence located along the east property line be replaced with a maill~enance free type and tliat it be re-located within the property of 4955 Central Avenue. #13. That more windows, awnings and signage be added ta the narth side of the proposed building than what was indicated on the preliininary plans. Motzon by Thompson, seconded by Schmitt., to waive the r eading of Resolution No. 2009-PZ09, thet°e being ample copies available to the pzrblic. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. Motion by Tl~orytpson, seconded by Schmitt, to adopt Resolution No. 2009-PZ09, bei~~g a r^esoZutzon approving a site plan, for a Jzmmy John's ~°estaurant located at 4955 Central Avenue, subject to certain conditions of approval that have bee~~ found to be necessa~y to p~°otect the public interesZ~ and ensure coi~~pliance with t~he provisions of~the Zonzng and DeveZo~rnent Ordinance, including.• 1. Pr^ior to at the l~ir~ze of issuing a building permit, surety in the form of a Let~te~° of Cf°edit or~ cash escrotiv shall be ~r~~vided ta Public Works in the amvunt af $5, D00 fo~° erosian control & site restor^atzon in accorclance with the City stor^~n wate~^ rnanagement code. This will be s~eturned following completion of turf establishment. 2. A Zetter~ of credit (LOC) needs to be provided prior to at the time of issuii~g a building permit for• the public imp~°ovements and site lan~dscaping. Tlie calculalion of the LOC shall include ~ the ~~emovaZ and recons•tr~uction of the alley and con~plete site landscaping x 1. 25%. 3. For engineering site inspection, the DevelopeN shall provic~e $1, 500 to be deposzted in an G12gZY1BE1"Z11Q G'SCY'Qtii% [~'C,'('(3l,[Ylr {~pY nlt/7lIC' R~)W 7~r7"nllPYj?PT~tC~ vC7tP ~'Wppp /1Nl~ ~ItIZZfJI connections. All unused,f~unds a~-e retuf•ned to the Developer at project con~pletion. ~. T1ze site storm water managenzent n~eets City requirerr~ents for rate cont~NOl but only pa~~tially meets requirements for infiltration and water quality. A pa~°tial sto~^r~z tivater manage~7aent fee has been calculated and applied to the project; payable pYior to or at the tinze of issuing the buildin~g perrnit. S. To n~inzrrrize vehicle tr^c~cking, all const~°uction traffzc shall he directed through the vehicle tracking pads, as indicated on the plan. 6. All eNOSion control ineasures shalZ be installed and inspected by the City pr^ior to any site activities beginning. 7. The Site Plan should show locations of "Stop ", "Do Not Enter " signage as needed. 8. The Szte Plan needs to identzfy a concrete washout area on e~~osion control plans. Page 8 9. Any landscaping~laced withzn oi~ neai~ the Czty or State rights-of-way shall be instc~lled at tlze owner's risk. If any type of maintenance to the rights-of-~~ay is r°equired, the re~noval and ~~eplacement of said landscaping would be at the owne~^'s ex~ense. 1 D. The existing~ole for the pylon sign must be ~er~~oved. 11. The pi°opased monu~nent sign shall be no taller than eight (8) feet in height, no larger than forty (40) square feet per side, shall have a~nasonry base to ~natch the ~rincipal st~°uctu~°e, and shall be illuminat~ed as allo~~ed by the Design Guidelines. Final approval of the monurnent szgn shall be by the City Planne~, thr°ough the szgn pei~init ~~equirement. 12. That the fence Zacated along the eastproperty lzne be i°eplaced with a mazntenance,free type and t~hat~ it be re-located u~itl~in the proper°ty of =~955 Cenb~al Avenue. 13. That rrtore windows, awnings and signage be added to the north side of the ~roposed buzldzng than what was in~dicczted on the pNeliminary plans. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. ~llotion by Thompson, seconded by Schl~zitt, that t~he Planning Com~nission ~~ecommends that the City Council app~ove the 2.7 foot ~ear ya~c~ parking setback vaNiance, tlze 2.5 faot sicl'e yc~~^d parking variance and the 2 foot width variance for a drive aisZe for the property located at 49~5 Central Avenue subject to certain conditions of approvaZ that have been f'oi~nd to be necessar y to protect tl~e public interest aizd en~su~e compliance with ~he provisions of the Z~ning and Development Ordinc~nce, including: 1. All application ~naterials iracluding n~aps; drawings, an~d descriptive inforination submitted with the application shall become part~ of the per»zit. All Ayes. MOTION PASSED. RESOLUTION NO. 2Q09-PZ09 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR AS JIMMY JOHN'S RESTAURANT AT 4955 CENTRAL AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2009-1002} has been submitted by John Patterson, doing business for Jimmy John's Restaurant to tlle Plaluling and Zoning Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following si~e: ADDRESS: 4955 Ceilhal Avenue L~GAL DESCRIPTION: Q~1 file at City ~-Iall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan appl-oval for a new Jimmy John's restaurant located at 4955 Centrai Avenue VVHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a special public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on October 20, 2009; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice azld recominendations of fhe City staff regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the Page 9 community and its Comprehensive Plan, as we11 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, 8E IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zaning Commissian of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the propasal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The site plan conforms ta all applicable requirements of this article, except signage. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and t11e public ri ght-of-way. FURTI-~ER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other informatioil shall become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if tke project has nat been completed within one ~) calendar vear after the appraval date, subject ta petition for renewal af the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: l. Prior to at the time of issuing a building pennit, surety in the fonn af a Letter of Credit or cash escrow shall be provided to Public Works in the amount of $5,000 for erasion control & site restoration in accordance with the City storm water management code. This wiil be retunled following completion of turf establishmellt. 2. A letter of credit (LOC) needs to be provided prior to at the time of issuing a building pen~it for the public impravements and site landscaping. The calculation of the LOC shall include the reinaval and reconstruction of the a11ey and complete site landscaping x 1.25%. 3. For engineering site inspection, the Developer shall provide $1,500 to be deposited in an engineering escrow account for public ROW improvements, site SVVPPP and utility connections. All unused funds are retunled to ~he Developer at project completion. 4. The site storrn water mana~ement meets City requirements for rate cantrol but anly partially meets requirements for infiltration and water quality. A partial storm water management fee has bee C"a~i.iAiaiCCi aT'i~ aY~'iilctl iv ~ii2 yivj~C~, ~'iaj%avi~ j~iivi tv i~i a~ iiic il~'iIc vi iSSi.iii:i~ ilic tLiLii~luiii~ ~rciTiiii. 5. To minimize vehicle tracking, all construction traff'ic shall be directed through the vehicle tracking pads, as indicated on the plan. 6. All erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the City prior to any site activities begiruiing. 7. The Site Plan should show lacations of "Stop", "Do not Enter" signage as needed. 8. The Site Plan needs to identify a concrete washout area on erosion control plans. 9. Any landscaping placed within or near the City or State rights-of-way shail be installed at the owner's risk. If any type of maintenance to tlie rights-of-way is requued, the removal a~ld replacement of said landscaping would be at the owner's expense. 10. The eXisting pole for the pylon sign must be reinoved. 11. The proposed monument sign shall be ilo taller than eight (8) feet in height, no lal-ger than forty (40) square feet per side, shall have a masanry base to rnatch the principal structure, and shail be illuminated as allowed by the Design Guidelines. Finai approval of the monusnent sign shall be by the City Planner, through the sign permit requirement. 12. That the fence located along the east property line be replaced with a maintenance free type and that it be re-located within the property of 4955 Celltral Avenue. 13. That more windows, awnings and signage be added to the north side of the proposed building than what was indicated on the preliminary plans. Page 10 Passed this 20~' day of October, 2009, Offered by: Thompson Seconded by: Schmitt Roll Cali: All ayes CHAIR Marlaine Szurek Attest: SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson Approval is contingent upon e~ecution and return of this document to the City Planning Office. I have read and agree to the conditions of this resalution as outlined above. John Pattersan Date The following Resolutions will go to t17e City Council October 26, 2009. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-~;XX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE Ft3R JIMMY JOHN'S RESTAURANT W~iI~~Y.~~~ taa rii'vpvUU1 ~~ CP S 7~I~IR.r~(1(~ 1 ~~]C ~PPYI C~ ~I 1 1~ T 1~ tfo i1 7,, ~ F 1~~ r. r ` a.~.~v vif ~ 11uJ Vv~+tl J~..iV1i12ttV~tA lJ~'T JVlllpl ~Gtll4~JV~1 UVI12~ ~JtZJ1F1~JJ 1~1 Jimmy John's restaurant to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 4955 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at Ciry Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 2.7-foot rear yard parking setback variance and a 2.5-foot side yard setback variance per Code Section 9.110 (C). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a special public hearing as required by the City Zaning Code an Octaber 20, 2009; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and reconvnendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the conununity and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, daiiger 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 and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: Page 11 1. Because of the particular physical surraundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land invoived, 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 praperties within the same zoning classifica~ion. 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisians af this Ordinance and has not been created by any person currently having legal interest in the property. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmany with tlie general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The granting of the variance will i~ot be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyinent, use, development or value of property or improvements in fhe v'rciriity. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this variance and appraval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance sha11 become nu11 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 ATTACHED: 1. A11 application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive inforrnation submit~ed with tl~e application shall become part of the permit. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR JIMMY JOHN'S RESTAURANT WH~ff~AS, a proposal (Case # LUU~-IUU~) has been subinitted by Jo~u1 Pattersan doing business for Jiminy John's restaurant to the City Council requesting a~ariance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 4955 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Ha11. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 2-foot drive aisle width variance per Code Seetion 9.106 (L)(11). WHEREAS, the Planning Conlmission has held a speciai public hearing as required by tlze City Zoning Code on October 20, 2009; WHEREAS, the City Coiuicil has considered the advice and recoinmendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon tl~e health, safety, and welfare of the eommunity 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 surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coliunbia Heights that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: Page 12 1. Because of the particular physical surroundingg, or the shape, configuration, tapography, 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 geilerally not applicable to other properties within t11e same zoning classification. 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any person currently having legal interest in the property. 4. The granting of the variance is in harinony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The granting of the valiance will nat be materially detrimental to the public welfare ar materially injurious to the enjoyinent, use, developmcnt or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. ~~1RTHER, BE IT RESOLVEI3, that the attached ~lans, rria~s, and ather inforniation shall becorrie part af this variance and appraval; and in granting this varialice tlze city and the applicant agree that this variance sha11 become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) ealendar year after the approval date, subject ta petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITION.S ATTACHED: 1. All applicatian materials, nlaps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 1~IEW BUSINESS The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 pm. Respectfi.tlly submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary Page 13 CITY OF COI_UMBIA HEIGHTS PI.ANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2009-1101 DATE: November 3, 2009 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: Fadia Salem LOCATION: 3701-05 Reservoir Boulevard REQUEST: Rezoning af property fram GB to R-2A PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner BACKGROUND At this time, the applicant is in the process of purchasing the property at 3701-05 Reservoir Boulevard. Currently, the property is zoned GB, General Business. The previous use of the property was both single-family residential and commercial. The business was on the first floor and the residential component was on the second floor. The perspective buyers woufd like to use the structure as a single-family house an(y and do not have any plans on retaining the business. While the single-family aspect af the ~uiicii~ig was iri use, it v~ias cansid~r~~i i~g~iiy ~er~con~~~rriir~g ~~~~u~~ ~~t~ ~o~i~g C~d~ does not allow for single-family uses in the GB District. Because the property has been vacant for longer than one year, the single-family component may not be used unless the property is rezoned to accommodate it. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan currently guides the property for Low Density Residential. Rezoning the land to allow for a single-family use would be consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING ORDINANCE The subject property is currently zoned GB, General Business, as is the property to the north along Central Avenue. The properties to the north along Reservoir Blvd. are zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential and the properties to the east are zoned R-2A, One and Two Family Residential. The proposed zoning classification forthe subject property is also R-2A, which would be consistent with the zoning classification in the area. Rezoning the City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission November 3, 2009 Fadia Salem, 3701 Reservoir Blvd. Case # 2009-1101 property would also be consistent with the historic use of the property as a single-family house. The structure in question is functionally a single-family house. If the property were to remain commercial, extensive remodeling of the building would need to occur to accommodate any type of business that would move in. The prospective buyer would like to buy the house and use it as a residence without pursuing the business portion. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following findings before approving a zoning amendment: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan currently guides the property for Low Density Residential. Rezoning the land to allow for a single-family use would be consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. Although the proposed rezoning of the property at 3701 Reservoir Blvd. is via request from a single property owner, fhe benefit of the property being rezoned is to the public. Without the rezoning, the house would sit vacant indefinifely, or until a prospective developer would purchase the land for redevelopment. Staff recommends rezoning the parcel to enable the historic use of the property to cantinue. 3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. A portion of the previous use of the property was a single-family house. The proposed zoning classification is consistent with the zoning classification in the general area, and the proposed use of the property is consistent with the historic use of the property. 4. Where the amendment is to change the zaning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning classification. The property was zoned GB, General Business, to stay consistent with the zoning classifications of properties that front Central Avenue. Although this property Page 2 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission November 3, 2009 Fadia Salem, 3701 Reservoir Blvd. Case # 2009-1101 technically fronts on Central Avenue, it's located on the corner of a five-way intersection and is pushed back a considerable distance frorn Central Avenue. With this said, fhe use of the property is more conducive to a residential setting than a commercial one. RECOMMENDATION Motion: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning of the property located at 3701-05 Reservoir Boulevard from GB, Generat Business to R-2A, One and Two Family Residential. Attachments Location Map Zoning Map Draft Rezoning Ordinance Page 3 ORDINANCE XXXX CITY OF COLUMI3IA H~IGHTS, MINNESOTA BEING AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT OI2DINANCE NO. 1428, P~RTAINING TO THE REZONING OF A CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3'701-OS RESERVOIR BOULEVARD NE SECTION 1: WHEREAS, the current zoning classificafion of the properiy dc~es not allow a single-fainily use as a pennitted used; and WHEREAS, the historic use of the property has been single-family occu~~a~~cy, which caus~d the use to be legally nonconfol°ming under the cureent zoning classi~ficatio~~; and WHEREAS, the previous si~~gle-tarnily use was discontinued for more than c~ne year, c~using the legal nonco~~forming status to terminatc. WHER~AS, --ezoning the subject parce] from GB, Gener~l ~3usiness to R-2A, One and Two Family Residerltial provides the re-occupancy of the subject parcel to its I~istoric l~se; a~~d WHEKEAS, the rezoning is consistent with tl~e Gity Gomprehensive Plai~, and is in the public interest aild noi solely foi° t~l~e benefit of a single property owner; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning classificat~ion of the property is compatible with the surrou~~ding zoning classi~fications a~nd uses, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PIail~ling Commission has reviewecl and recom~nends appcoval of the proposed rezoning from GB, General Business Dish-ict to R-2A, One and Two Family Residel2tial. c~~rriniv ~; This ordii~ance shall be in full force and effect ti-o~7~ and after 30 days after its passage. Fiisf Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary Peterso~~, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, City Clerk 3701 RESERVOIR B~VD _ _ 3942 3943 3938 3939 3932 _ 3934 3935 3939 3930 3931 3928 3922 3923 3924 3918 ' 3918 3914 ' 3915 3912 3919 ~ 3911 3910 [Miw~esor~, 7 3906 ~n ° a, - - 1 3900 a , c~ ~ 3900 • 3901 f5 I I ~5 I ns ~~ 101 I ~ z ~ m Q ~ ~ ~ ~ M d' ~~4J`J 3940 W~ o 0 0 ~ ~ ____ ~ 9 ~~ ~8 o ~~ "~9 0 7~ "~9 ' O ~ 1~ 9~ 6 ~ ~,9~ ~ ~ 3900 ~ .2 3 9TH 3859 1100 3853 ~ 940 950 3850 ~8~ 3851 _ `~8A2 JQ ~~ps9 S _ 3847 3827 ~,8 ~BAO ~3~ ~~ ~~~'s 3841 3p ~ ~ 3837 ~,838<'8 ~'~~,SS`r ~~ ~~~'cP 20 ~'d, ~'~, "'O 3825 ~ 87~ ~~~~`~9 ~8 8~,? ~' W 80~ ~'838?~ ~' ~~~~ o Z ~~ ~~O W ~'8~~75 `~8~0 u'`~`~~.~ ~ "s7i~-i 3- , ~9 ./~ v'~.+~?~ , 80 ~0 ~ ~ st~ Q J~~ ,~~A~ S 3T~?s ~, ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o ~~ ~ z ~~ ~~ `~`~ ~~;'~ ~~~~s ~`~~i U ~ ~ ?~ ~~ A°8~ ~~ ~~~ ?`~ ~ ~~ A'o 3701 ,~~ 961 ~~~3701 ~~^ 3702 Location Map " W ~Pr E Y.~, s Zoning Map Changes GB, General Business District ~ R-2A, One and Two Family Residential ~ R-2B, One and Two Family Residential ~'~; R-3, Multiple Family Residential CBD, Central Business District N W~Q~E d S ~ ~ Z W ~ ~ m z > ~ ~ z w ~ ~ m z >