HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-041. Rall Call
Minutes (March 2, 2010 meeting)
(A~~ril 6, 2010 Meetir~g Cancelled}
2. Public Hearings:
Case #2010-OS01 Site Plan Apprc~val (Loadiilg Dock Additioi2)
4849 Central Avenue
Jeff Ag~nes / Savers Store
Case #2010-0502 Zoning A~nendme~lt (C?utd~or Seating)
City Wide
City of Columbia F-Ieight~s
3. New h3usin~ss
4. Other I3usiness
5. Acli~ut-a~
The Responsibility of the Planning Commission is to:
• Faithfully serve the pl~blic interest.
• Represent existing and futlire residents, and base our decisions and recommendatio~~s
on t11e Corr~preherisive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
• Recognize the rigl~ts of citizens to participate in p1al~ni~~g decisions.
• Protect tt7e »a~tural environment a~1d t11e heritage of tl~le built e~lvironir~ent.
• Exercise fair, honest, and independent judgment.
• Abstain i'ro~n p2rticipation when tlley ma~y directly or i-~directly l~enetit fro~n a plai~ning
decision.
THF_ GTY OF COLUMBIA HFIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABI~ITY W F_MPLOYMENT OR THE PROVi510N dP ScRVICE:S
EG]UAL OPPORTUNITY EMP~OYER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIQN
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETI1~iG
MARCH 2, 2010
7:QQ PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek.
Commission Members present- Thompson, ~`iarendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek
Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), Scott Clark (Community
T)e~~~l~ni?~?11t nir~ctprl; C'ni~n~il me~riher RrticP N~wrncki, a~rl ~hPllev TTancnn (~Pr_,rPtaryl.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Peterson, to approve th~e rrainutes, fi~om the tneetings of.Ianuary S, 2010.
~i ll ayes. M~TION ~'.~ SSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (The cases were heard out of number sequence}.
CASE 1~tUMBER: 2010-0301.
APPLICANT: Linders Greenhouses
L4CATION: 4300 Central Ave
REQ~.TEST: ~nterirn ~Jse Permit (O~tc~oar Seasonal Sales}
INT~2QDU~'I'IOl`d
Linder's Greenll~uses has applied for an Interim Use Permit for the operatic~n of a seasonal mini-garden
~ent~r fo~• flowerin~ plans and retail sal~s. The City Qf Cal~zmbia H~ights has recent~y amencied the
ordinance regarding outdoor seasanal sales in a11 zoning districts, and no~~ requires an Interim Use Permit
rather thalz a Conditional Use Pennit. The specific development standards for an outdoor sales/display
establishment are fou~nd at Section 9.107 (C}(28}, and wilt be added as conditions of approval far this
permit. The wi11 be the ~,i~~der's 21St vear c~perating a temparary greenht~use at this Iocatic~n in ~olumbia
Heights.
Tne site plan and configuratia~~ retnains unchanged fra~n previous years. A ience wi11 enclose the patia ar~d
c~nn~ct t~ ~ac~ structure. Th~ gre~nl~~'asP str~ctures ~ui?? be t?Ze s~me as ~revious years ~~ith f~ur, si~-f~at
doors remaining open at all times during business hours. There will be at least faur fire extinguishers in the
Flower Mart and aI1 smokir~g wil~ be prahibited. The p~incipal uses c~f the subjee~ parcel are pree~isting
and camply with za~ling reguiatians. The two structures and patio will displace approximately 30 parking
spaces and a drive aisle.
C~MPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprellensive Plan designates the property for commerciai use, inciuding retaii saies, offices and
service businesses. The proposal is co~~sistent with the intent of tlie City's Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The zoning classification far this property located at 4300 Central Avenue is GB, General Business
District. Retail uses are allowed in this zoning district.
Existii~g parku~g exceeds zonitZg require~~ients. Section 9.106 (L}(10) of the Zaning Orduiarfce requu~es tl~at
cornmercial uses provide 1 parking space for each 300 square feet of use. Therefore, the existing 144,900-
square foot cominercial building is required ~o have 483 parking spaces. After using the 30 parking spaces
for the greenhouses, the site stiil has 598 parking spaces. Furthernlore, with the location of the display area
Planning & Zonin; Commission Vlinutes
Page 2
March 2, 2010
on the oppasite side of the parking lot as the store entrances, the operatian should not llave any effect on
vehicular aceess for the site.
Piease note that the Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and has no concerns regarding it.
FINDINGS OF FACT
~lP,(_.~l(lil 9,1 f~4 (Nl nf tha 7(lYitYt~ ~Yl~~1~'1~µ~YS~~P ~lµt~ynPv .civ.7~titi f7i'til~' iii~.ci vaf faa.avi i?i~af m»ct hn mAf in ~r~Ar ~nr t~n
lt~ UU{. VV 111V1 11L Vltl~l 1V1 tll~
City to grant an interim use permit. '1'hey are as follows:
1. The use is one of the interim uses Iisted for the zoning district in which the property is Iacated, or is
a substantially similar use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Outdoor sales/display establishments are an Interi~n Us•e zn the G13, Gene~°al Business Dzstrict., and
are considered retazl sales~, which are permitted.
2. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent af the Camprehensive Plan.
The Conzprehensive Plcrn guides the subject prrope~^ty for~ co~rznrercial u,~e. Dutdoor sales/display
uses af•e allowed as eonditional uses in all r~eside~tial dist~ict.s.
3. The use wiil not impose hazards or disturhing infTuences on neighbaring properties.
Th~ cl,osest Nes~idential pro~e~ty to the south i~ ove~ 300 feet.from the pr~oposed tem~orc~~y use. In
addztion, the amoun~t of space dedicated for the greer~house sales is NeZativeZy srnall ~rt
approxim~ately 1,000 squcz~e fezt. Th~refa~^e, the p~^o~osed tempo~°a~y use should faot have ay~y
detr^in~ental i~npc~ct on~ n~ei~hbo~ing~roperties.
4_ The use wi]1 n~t sub~tar~tially diminish the use af praperty in the i~nrnediate vicinity.
TI~£' bLIT^p°ayt CG't2tat^ wS~??^~1n,~SG~~3 rh~Z~~ ~:~~° IZC) l;:~ynur~'t i)vd ~~° Z,t.;L' ~~~'~'~~jw~C'7'~~ ~"~'YL'~:e~ ~t2."~,
5. i ize use wili be ciesigned, constructed, apel-ateci and mai~ztaineci in a manner that is eompatible with
the appearance of the existing ar intended character of the surrounding area.
Lirzdea~'s has ~eer~ in ~~~r^ati~n f~r~ 2~ yec~f~~ at t~hi~ lvccztrt~n, ~with the ~`ity experiencing ~z~
cornplailzt.s. The pr~apased ga~den cente~ should not negatively im~aact the existing eha~act~er of the
vicis2ity.
6. Adequate measures have been ar wili be taken ta minimize traffic congestion on the public streets
and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
The h~affic generated by the garden~ centet~ wzll not sigrai, ficantly ineNease the tNaffic on the public
st~~eets, and the szte is lai°ge enough t~o handle additional interior tr~af~ fic.
7. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect oi1 other uses in the iminediate vicinity.
As indicated by pr~io~~ desc~iptions, the garden cente~^ should not have a negative in~pact on other uses
in the imrr~ediate vicinity, which ar^e zoned for residenfial and commerczal uses.
Staff recommends that the Planning Cc~mmission approve the Interin~ Use Permit for seasonal agrieultural
sales subjeet to conditions of approval outlined below.
PLANNING 8~ ZONING MINUTES
PAGE 3
MARCH 2, 2010
Questions frorn members:
Schmitt asked if any other businesses had made a similar request yet. Sargent responded that there haven't
been any other requests to date.
Fiorendino asked if they were making any changes in the setup ar layout of the space. Sargent told him it
would be the same as they IZave done in years past.
Public Hearing O ep ned:
No ane wished to speak on this matter.
Public Hearin~ Closed.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Thon~pson, that the Planning Con~mission app~~oves the Inte~im Use
Pern~it, f"o~ seasonal agNZCUltural sales at =~300 Centt°al Avenue NE fr^am ~4pr-il 1 S through July I5, 2010,
subject to certailz eandztians of a~proval that have been found to be necessar^y to pr~otect the publac znterest
crnd ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development O~~dinance, including:
1. C?utdoor~ agricultural/produce sales located withzn the p~sblic righl~-of=~lay are pr~ahibitec~
2. All goods shall be displayed in an orc~erly fashion, with access aisles provided as r~eeded.
3. Music or afnplifiec~ sounds shalZ not be au~'ible, f'i~om adjacent resic~enticzl ~ro~~er~ties.
~. Sigr~age shaZl be li~nited tv (2) pYOfessionally made signs ~er str~ucture, not exceec~ing thir~ty-ttvo
(32) squul°e feet per sigrz.
5. 7'he oi~tdaor storage shall be Zocated as indicated on the site plan.
6. A$500 deposit shall be submitted to the Co~nmunity Development Depa~tment prio~° to
instaZlatzor2 of the st~uctures on the site. The de~~~srt sh~rll be ~efunc~ed after the Conc~itionul ~Jse
~~Y.YlZ'i °.~Y'r1"iii~2 i ui~Zi.i ~ii2 JL'i~ lZt~.7 Cl3G~~ C~EC~~ELG [t[l.
7. Tlie pt-oposed fence must be 20, feet fron~ the retain~ing wall far safety vehzcula~ access.
~il ayes. Iv1~1101v 1~AS~~`~17.
S6DL(1'I'~~I~T ~~. 2010-~~~I
RESOLUTION OF THE PL ING ZQl`~1ING C~1t~IMISSION FROVIN~ AN ~'E12I1i%I LTSE
£L`.d\li'SlA .S d7SO d~ll\~d:iS9~ 4~ ~3'.1V~.1~lJSE'.~g ~ VWi~ 1'V 111L` ~~1 Y~~ l.~L~V~~%~ 11L' i17~i1~~.7y
1Vlil\1\L` JV l~
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2010-0301) has been submitted by Linder's Greenhouses to the Planning and Zoning
Cominission requesting a~1 Intei-im Use Permit approval from the City of Coluinbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4300 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOV~ING PERMIT: Interim Use Permit for outdoor seasonal
sales from April 15, 2010 to July 15, 2010.
WHEREAS, the Plamling Commissiori has held a public hearillg as required by the city Zoning Code on March 2,
Zola>
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Con~mission has considered the advice and recommendations of the City staff
regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its
Comprehensive Plan, as weil as alry concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffie, property values, light, air,
danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
MARCH 2, 2010
NOVV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planni~lg and Zoni~zg Commission of til~e City of Calumbia
Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Ptanning and Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following
findings:
1. The use is one of tl~e interim uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is a
substantially similar use, as detennined by the Zoiling Administrator.
2. The use is in hannony with fhe general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The use will not inlpose hazards or disturbi~lg inflaences on neighboriilg properties.
~ Thc ~tca will n~t ~,uh~~µn«u;i`y' uliiiiiiiSii iilc USc vi (~ivi3Gii3% iii `t'I18 1IT1111eC118ie VlCltllTy'.
S. The use wiIl be desi~~ed, constructed, operated aud maintained in a lnanner that is compatible with the
appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area.
6. Adequate measures have been ar ~vill be taken to minimize traffic congestion on tl~e pubic streets and to
provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traf~c.
7. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the curnulative
effect of other uses in the imn~ediate vicinity.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that tI~e attached conditions, maps, and o~her infonn~tion sl~all
become part of this perrnit and approval; and in grantu~g this permit the city and the applicant agree that t11is ~er~nit
shail become null and void if the project has not been completed within orze (I) cale~daN veaN after the approval date,
subject ta ~etition for renewal of tl~e permit.
CONDITIONS A'TTACHED:
1.. Outdoor agric~iltural/prod~ice sales located ~vithin ~he public right-of-way are prohibited.
2. All goods shatl be displayed in a~l orderly fasIlion, with aec~ess aisles pravided as needed.
3. Music ar arnplified sounds sha11 not be audible from adjac~nt r~sidential propertiPs.
4. Signage shall be limited to (2) professionally made siglls per structure, not eXCeeding thirty-two (32} square
feet per sign.
5. The outdoor stoi-age shall be focated as indicated ou the site plan.
6. A$SOQ deposit ~h~ll be submitted ta ~he Co~nYnurrity Development T)epart~nent pr~or to ir~stallatiogt of tP~e
s~ruciutes on ihe siTe. i he cte~osit shaii be reYunded at`ter the Interim Use Pzrmit expires and the site has been
cleaned up.
"1. The proposed fence must be 24 feet fro~n tl~e retainin~ wall for safety vel~ic~Iar access.
PassP~ t11is 2°~ dag~ of~"/Iarci12010,
~ffered by: Petersc~~1
Seca~lded by: `I`hompso~7
Roll Call: All ayes
Attest:
SECRETARY, Sl~elley Hanson
CH!lIR Arlartaine Sz~rek
Approval is coiltiz~ge~~t upon executioiz and return of this dacument to ~he City Planninb Oftice.
I have read and ab~ree to the conditions of tlris resotution as oiltliized above.
Ciao Cella Date
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 5
MARCH 2, 2010
CASE NUMBER 2010-0304
APPLICANT: Randy Yeary
LOCATION: 4048 Central Avenue
REQUEST: Site Plan Appraval for Siding
INTRODUCTION
Sargent stated that Randy Yeary is requesting a site plan approval for new siding on the building he owns at
4048 Central Avenue. Mr. Yeary purchased tl~e nrnpP,-ty w;th thP ;ntP~~t ~n ;~;~t~~ns ~u~~~ i; 1~„~y~iil~ii~s iil
order to liave apartment tenants move into the upstairs. The proposed new siding for the building requires a
site plan approval because the property is lacated within the Design Overlay Downtown Distriet. Sargent
revieE~ed pietures of wnat ~he buil~ing look~d like '~efore the remodeiing and of what it currently looks like
since he started the remodel.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Camprehensive Plan guides this area far Cammerciai related activities. {~ne of t11e goals of the
Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the image and viability of tlle Central Avenue corridar. One way to
accomplish this gaal is for the businesses alonb Central Avenue to confonn to the Design Guidelines for
commercial-related activity. Tl~e proposed site plar~ meets the intent of the Com~rehensive ~Ian.
Z~1~I1~G ~RI)~1~~1~C'E
The ~ra~~rty is located i~~ tl~e CBD, ~'entral Business District, as are ~he properties to the north, south and
east. The properties to the west are zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. TI7e subject parcel is also
located within the Design Overlay Dou~ntown I~istrict, and is subject the regulaticns for such properties.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
BUILDING MATERIALS. The Design Guidelines specify tne types of building materials required for a11
btzildin~s along Central Aven~e. A Iist of ac~ept~c~ ~r;r~?ary mat~°r~als in~ii~~es: ~r~~~, ~at~ru~ s~c~~~, stuc~~
and precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that surfaces are molded, serrated ar treated with a
r~xtured materia~ Fn ~r~Er t~ ~iv~ th~ ~%a~~ sut=f~ce a three-dimensianal character. A list of prc~hibited
mate~ials include: unadc~rned ~lain or pair~~ted concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, pr~-fabricated steei or
sh~et r~~t~l pa~?e~s, altamin~.zm, ~~ir.yl, ~a~erglass, aspralt e~r ~i~erb~ard (~z~asor~it~ j siding.
E~riginally, the appi~cant praposed t~ install vinyl siding on tlle t~p half af the entir~ building, as he was
unaware that tl~e ~ity had I3esign Guidelines gover~ling the type of building materials that he may use.
Ollce informed of the Design Guidelines, the applicant agreed to place a combination of stone and stucco
on the front of the building, but contended that he would not be able to afford to cover the entire building
with sueh materials. The applicant had a specific budget for upgrading the building prior to buying it, and
discov~~ed r~~any more corrections that the building needed after purchasing it, which depleted his budget.
Mr. Yeary's proposal is to cover the entire front of the building with a combination of stone and stucco, and
wrap those materials around the corners for 1-2 feet. From there, he would side the remainder af the
building with a heavy gau~e (0.046") thick vinyi siding, usulg Earth-tone colors.
Tn this case, staff feels that the deviation fram the Design Guidelines can be justified. This is an existin~,
old building in dire need af repair arld upkeep. The north side of this buiiding is located approximately 4
feet from the neighboring structure, and passersby wouid have difficulty seeing any type of siding on that
walL The south side of this building is visible froin Central Avenue, but not entirely. The west side (backj
of the building abuts residential zoning and residential uses to the west across the alley. Being that vinyl
siding is typical in a residential context, staff feels that the building would fit i~to the surrounding area.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSI4N MINUTES
PAGE 6
MARCH 2, 2010
FINDINGS OF FACT
Site Plan Approval
Section 9.104 (M) requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make each of the following
findings before approving a site plan:
l. The site plan confornzs to all applicable requirements of this article
T74o nr~nnnar~rl~~~y r,1~.~ ~~`~~~ uii i~i2 i2.ii"ii vi.iiGiciiiic~ Siuiiuui"u~ vi" uiiiiuiii"" iiiuie~[ui~ UGIi t`ilC
1~, ..y~..,.,~,~ y ~ J ~ ~
applicant is ~^equesting a deviation from the guidelines for a po~tion of the building.
2. The site plan is cansistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
The proposed site plan is consistent tivith the Comprehensive Plan~ zn that the proposal will upgYade
an existirrg commercial business and will enhance the amage and viability of the C'entral Avenue
cor~°idor.
3. The site plan is eonsistent with any applicable area plan.
Thei~e is no applicable aNea plan.for this area.
4. The site plan ~ninirr$izes any adverse irnpacts on praperty in th~ i~smediat~ vic~nity arzd tl~~ public
right-of-way.
The pf~op~sed site plan ~t~zll upg~°adc the ifnc~g~ of the surr^aunding c~i~ea tren~endausl~. 772e
proposed deviation , fYOfn the Design~ Guidelines will also fit inPo the chat-acte~ of the surrounding
~roperties as it ir~eorpa~ates ~'esign eletnerrts eorn~~~only seerc ir~ ~°esiden~iic~l dist~°icts.
Staff recolnmends approval of tlie propased site plan with the prapased deviations from the Design
Guidelines, as it is cansistent with the Compiehensive Plan and will severely upgrade the appearance of ti~e
~jt~t'_~t~it2a~ ~nharZ~.is~cs t~~P ~r~ab~ nft}~~ C~`P,iir~i At~~l`:~.~P ~~T~1~~,'~.
r~ r
11U~3i1011S TTE}121 221eT11t7~P3:
Fiorend~r~c~ asked if eor~structic~r~ had d~ready staried. S~rgeri~ sa~d he has done s~me interi~r work ana
replaced tl~e windows. He also relnoved the old stucca to replace rotted wood. His origuzal plan was ta
re~lac~ the ~tueec~/br~ck with vinyl siding tsn the entire bttildin~, bt~t when he came in for the building
pennit, staff told lziin that wasn't possible since the building falls under the Design Guidelines.
Schmitt asked if he would be using stucco ai~d stone on the front. Mr. Yeary said he would be using the
stone on the entire front of the building and wrapping it arotu~d the sides. He shawed the znembei-s samples
of the stoile and alsa of` the vinyl he will use. He toid members he would be using either the Sandstone,
C1ay ar Khaki coiar for the vinyl.
Szurek thought the stone laoked very nice. She then asked how maily ullits he would be renting in the
upper level. Yeary said there would be four (1 BR) units, the sarne as before. He told members he has
completely remodeled the inside by installing new windows, sheetrock, appliances, plumbing, electrical,
etc.
Fiorendino asked how long it had been since someone lived in the l.uuts. Yeary said it's been at least 15
years.
PLANNING & ZONiNG COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 7
MARCH 2, 2010
Peterson thought his choice of stone will look nice on the building, He suggested wrapping it around the
windows on the sides of the building to tie the front and sides tagether. Yeary said he would consider it as
an option once the work coinmences.
Pu~blic Hearin~ Opened:
No one wished to speak on this issue.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mation by Schmitt, secon~'ed l~y Peterson, to waive the reading af Resolution No. 2010-PZ02, there being
ample copies cn~ailable t~o the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Schm~it~t. secon~'ed hy Peter^son, to adopt Resolution 1Ua Z~JIO-P202, being a r^esolut~on
a~pr~vi~tg a site pla~ f~y~ new s°idin~- f~r~ the auila'in~ local~ecl at 40=~~ Cerz~rc~l Avenue. ~ill ayes. MOTICIN
1'ASSED.
SOLUTION i~TO. 2010-PZ02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANI~TING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR
NEW SIDING FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILI3ING LOCATED AT 4048 CENTRAL AVENN~TTE WITHIN
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MIN~NESOTA
WHER~AS, a proposai (Case #2010-0304} has been subTnitted by Ral~dy Yeary, to the Plal~nin~ ar~d Zoi~ing
~~i;~i~ii~si~,i icqu~siiiig a siic ~tan a~~~°vval iie~rri t'r-c i iiy ~f i c~iuln'r~ia ~-iei~ilfs ai ihe ioliowing siie:
ADDRESS: 4048 Cent~•al Avenue
L,~GAL I~~S~~lt 1 i0I~1: ~n ttle at City 1-IalI.
THE AP~LICANT SEEKS THE FOi,LOWINEi PERMiT: Site Plan a~provat for new sidiit~ for tl~e
~c~tz~mPrcial bui~d:ng ~oeateci at 404~ ~er~tr~l ~v~ntte.
~'~IE~AS, the I'Iallning Commission has held a public heari~lg as required by the city Zc~ning Cod~ c~n March 2,
2Q 10;
WHEREAS, the Plat7niitg a~id Zoning Commissioll has considered the advice and reeommendations of the City staff
regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its
Comprehensive Plan, as well as any coilcerns related to compatibility af uses, t~•affie, property values, Iight, air,
danger of fire, and risk to pubiic safety in tl~e surrounding areas; and
1`10W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pianning and Zoning Commission of tl~e City of Colum6ia
Heiglits after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning ai~d Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following
findings:
L The site plan confornis to all applicable requirements of this article, except sigl~age.
2. T1~e site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions ofthe eity's comprehensive plan.
3. The site plaii is consistent with any applicable area plan.
4. The site plan minimizes ariy adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-
way.
PLANNING ~ ZOI~IING CcJMMIS~ION 1VIII~UTES
PAGE 8
MARCH 2, 2010
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that fhe attached conditions, inaps, and other information shall
become part of this permit a11d approval; ai~d in granting this pennit the city and the applicant agree tnat this permit
shall beco~ne 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 pennit.
Passed this 2°" day of March, 2010,
Offered by: Schmitt
Seconded by: Peterson
Rolf Call: All ayes
CHA1R Marlaine Szurek
Attest.•
SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson
Approval is contiilgent upon execution and retunl of this documellt to the City Pianning O~ce.
I have read and agree to the conditious of this resolution as outlined above.
t` t`11~~ j~ VPU~:'j~ ~2$°v
~~s~ ~~T~~~~. ~o~~-a~a~
APPLICAl~i'I'e Grand Centrai Apartments, David ~Iaeber, ~Tr.
~ CAZ`IONa 47f~ Avenu~ ~r~~d r~v~nu~
RE(~UEST: IVlinor Subdivision, Site Plan A~prova~
INTRODUCTION
~a~°gent stated th~fi the applicant is requesting iwo (2} land use actions. They are as follows:
A minor subdivision per Code Section 9.104 (K) to split off a portion of existing "Outlot A" as
described in the Grand Central Lofts plat. The newly created parcel will then be grouped with
existing Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 af the Grand Central Lofts plat to assemble land needed for the
constructian of two 100-unit apartment buildings.
2. A Site Plan Approval per Code Section 9.104 (N) for the constructiozz of two 100-unit apai-1711ent
buildings at the northeast corner of 47`~' Avenue and Grand Avenue in the City of Columbia
Heights.
PLANNII~CF & ZO?~TIN+~ CrJMMISSIOIV ~.~INLITES
PAGE 9
MARCH 2, 2010
BACKGROUND
In August 2004, the City Council approved the Final Plat for the Grand Central Lofts. The proposai
included the construction of 218 total t.uuts of housing, consisting of three 66-unit condominium buildings
and 20 townhomes. Per the executed Development Agreement, the project was to take four yeai-s to
coiripieie. To da~e, i u oz tne 2G townnomes ha~e neen constructed, as weii as one ot tne tilree bb-unit
condominium buildings.
Since the original approval of the Final Plat, David Kloeber has purchased the Grand Central Lofts project
and has expressed the desire to continue its development. Mr. Klaeber is proposing to construct two 100-
unit apartment buildings, wllich would repiace the two 66-unit condoininium buildings yet to be built.
Once constructed, the Grand Centrai Apartmei~t project wiii be a completely separate entity from the Grand
Central Lafts praject with site madificatians, and for fhis reason a new site plan appraval for the propased
develapment is required. It shauld be noted that the City's Ecanomic Development Authority (EDA)
would still be required to amend the original Developmellt Agreement allowing far the canstruction of the
200-unit apartlnent complex. "I'his approvai by the EDA has not yet been made.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plaa~ guides this area for Transit C?riented Developmei~t. Specifically, tl~e
Comprehensive Plan states that these areas "will focus on the commuting needs af Columbia Heights
residents. As a result, a higher percentage af service-oriented commercial/retail development wi11 be
necessary with high-density residential development providing the balance of the developinent. Mixed-Use
pedestrian-oriented development near transit nodes will provide opportunities for high-density residential
a~~d i~eighborhaad commercial develc~plnetit. Redevelopznent of these areas will also pravide the
c~pp~rtunity far pedestrian iinkages To oTher paris or th~ eammunity and improvement ot tlze overali non-
inotorized circulatioi~ systein within the cominunity that will help improve the image of Calumbia
I Ieights."
`I`he propased p~an com~iies with tl~e Coznprehensive Pian designation for the following reasons:
^ The development is located along a~a e~isting transit raute,
^ 1`~1ew residents will be able to co~nrnute to work via the existing transit routes;
^ The development will be a high-density residential development, including a coininuiuty building
for its residents. These residents will also be able to patronize any business along Central
Avenue via transit, and;
^ The development will provide pedestrian connectiai~s to and through the subject properties.
~ONING ORDINANCE
The subject properly is zoned MXD, Mixed Use Development District. The uztent of this district is to
ei~courage a flexible high-quality design strategy for development and/or redevelopment of specific areas
within the communiry. Careful analysis of the site plan revealed elements of the proposal that are
consistent with the type of developments sought in the MXD District.
There are tllree developinent district types within the MXD District. They include: tlle Transit Oriented
Mixed-Use, the Cominunity Center Mixed-Use and the Transitionai Mixed Use. Due to the underlying
Comprehensive Plan Land Use guidance of this area, the proposed project would fall tulder the Transir
Oriented Mixed-Use type. According to the Zoning Code, the puipose of the Transit Oriented Mixed Use
PLANNING & ZONING CJMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 10
MARCH 2, 2010
type is to "promate development and redevelopment that facilitates linkages and interaction of transit
services, housing and neighborhood services. The focus of land use within this district is to ensure a
pedestrian-friendly environment and pedestrian connections to and from residential development and transit
iacitiiies. ine mix oi iand use shaii ne iiexinie io heip faciiitate a successtui deveiapment (1L t.uzits%acre
minimum)."
In the MXD, building setbacks shall be regulated hy the final site plan and Planning Agreement approved
by the City Cauncil, based an the following findings:
1. The setbacks provide adequate distances from uses in adjacent districts.
2. The setbacks maintain and enhance the character of the neighborhood in which tl~e mixed-use
developinent is located.
Althaugh the se~backs for the buildings are flexible, there ar-e ather elements of the proposed develapinent,
which require adherellce to the Zoning Code. Tl~ey are as follaws:
Parking. Sargent explained that the legal ad stated there would be a variance request regarding the parking
requirelnents. I~awever, since that notice was published, tlle Develaper has chamged the plan so the
variance is na longer required. The City's Zoning requires a ininimtun of one enclosed parking stall for
every bedroom (up t~o t~vo bedrooms~ in a multi-family residential building. The propased piazls indicate
that each 100-unit structure will have 67 one-bedrooin units and 33 two-bedroom units. Therefore, each
I00-unit building will have 133 bedrooms, which requires 133 enclosed parking stalis. The plans indicate
two levels of underground parkii~g. The first Ievel of parkir~g vv~11 include130 parking stalls and the second
ievei of` parking wiii inciude i4u parking siaiis, iar a totai of ~7~i stails. in addition ta the uncierground
parking, the applicai~t is proposing 20 on-site parking stalls used far visitors af t11e tetlazZfs.
I3~aasa~y. In the MXD II:)istrict, the `I'ransit ~riented Mixed-Us~ type requires a Izlizlimures c~f 12 ~z~its per
acre. ~`he maxin~um density allowed in the district is 20 units per acre. Per code, maximum densities may
be zncr~ased by up to 50°/a at t1~e sole discretion of tl~e City Cau~ncil i~ at least SO% ~f ~~e requir~d par~~in~
is pravided by undergrotuzd parking or parking in ramps. The propased plans indicate that 100% of the
required parking will be located underground. For this reason, the maximum density lnay be increased to
30 units per acre.
~Uhen complete, the development as a whale will include 20 townhomes, 66 condominiuins and 200
apartments, for a total of 286 units. To meet the 30 units per acre requirei7lent, ~hese units would have to be
placed on 9.5 acres of land. The total development is approximately ll acres, meeting the inulimum
requirements far density.
Landseaping. The City Code requires landscape plai~s that include a minimum of one tree for every 50
feet of street frontage or fraction thereof. Parking areas s11a11 have a minimum of one aver-stary tree far
eac17 20 spaces or fraction thereaf as well. The praperty at 4707 Centrai Avenue has approximately I,aaa
feet af street frontage along Grand Avenue and 47`~' Avenue, and incorporates 20 above-grade parking
stalls. This requires 21 trees. The proposed plans indicate a totai of 116 trees and 523 shrubs, meeting the
minimum requirements.
I'L:4NNII~G & ZDI~TI?VG CO~rIMISSI~3N MINUTES
PAGE 11
MARCH 2, 2010
Stormwater Management. The stonnwater retention pond built in conjunction of the first phase of the
condominium project, lacated just north of the community center buildiilg far the candominiums was sized
appropriately to accommodate the caustruction af the two 100-unit apartment buildings. No other ai1-site
ponds have been proposed in association with the project.
Park Dedication. Park dedication fees will be negotiated as part of the Planning Contract, which will be
app~~veu ai a iater cia~e. To be consistent with fees coiiecied Tor ti~e tirst phase ot tlle Ciranci l;entra'1 "Loits
Condominium project, the park dedication will he $750 per unit.
KMART REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN
When ariginally approved, the Grand Central Lofts Site Plan had been designed in accardance with the
goals and objectives of the Kmart Redevelapment Cancept Plan develaped by the Kmart Advisory Group
under t1~e guidance af the City Council. In May 2Q03, the City of Calulnbia Heights initiated a planning
process for the Kinart Site for the purpose of creating a redeveloplnent plan for the outdated aild mastly
vacant retail center. Gaals of the plan include inore employment apportunities within the City, new
housing option previously not available in the City, increased opportunities for transit use, ainenities to
promate waiking and biking, and improving the image and vitality af Central Avenue. A City Council-
estab~ished citizen actvisory graup and ti~e Develaper worked closely to create the Cance~t Plan to meet the
needs of bath the community and the Develaper.
Although the property has changed ownership and the use of the buildings has changed, staff feels that tlle
spirit and inten~ of the Kmart Redevelopment Coi~cept P1an should still be met.
Residential Goai. The Grand Central Apartments site plan ineets the stated goal for residential
development, which is to "provide the City of Colunlbia Heights a variety af housing ~ypes, styles ar~d
c`r~c~ices ~~ ~ee~~ ~he neeas oi ine cominunity." Tne projecr meets the stated gaais because it:
^ Pravides a diversit~ of housing choiees that u~~ll satisfy ~~ston~er prefer~nees fo~ this lacatio~. ~4 key
factr~~ is thc~t the p~~~osed apartrnent eomplex ~ill offe~° a praee point cznc~ ~rmenity~ackcage in a~~acr'uet
th~at Coli,~rnbia Heights does ~zot yet hctve.
^ Supports apprapriate urban hausing densities alang with perfonnance standards to create financial
value and achieve strong purchasing power to support neighborhood service husinesses.
^ Promotes a redevelapinent concept that creates an attractive urban neighborhood that includes housing
ainenities such as decks, open spaces, gathering areas, recreational amenities, pedestrian ways,
landscaping and ~;reen spaces to ensure a safe fiznctional ai~d desirable livin~ environment.
^ Requires l~igh quality community design and construction standards.
DESIGN GUIDELINES HIGHWAY DISTRICT
The Columbia Heights Design Guidelines were created to guide developers and businesses in the design af
expansians, renovations or new canstruction af buildings or parking within the Central Avenue and 40t1'
Aveizue calnmercial corridors, and to assist City of~icials and staff in reviewing developinei~t pioposals.
The guidelines are mandatory, but the City may pernlit alternative approaches that meet the objectives of
tne design guidelines. The design district that is applied to the Grand Central Apartinents is the Higllway
District.
PL:4N?~.TII~.TC'i c4z ZONIN.r'i ~'D~VIMISSI~'1°: I~/III~IUTE~
PAGE 12
MARCH 2, 2010
BUILDING PLACEMENT. Residential buildings may be oriented taward Central Avenue or toward
internal streets or courts, with side fa~ade parallel to Central Avenue. Fa~ades parallel to Central Avenue
should be well detailed and service areas sl~ould i~ot be located along the Central Aver~ue frontage. The
frontage should be appropriately landscaped.
The deveiopmeni meezs tnis oejective. 1 ne resicl"ent~ial developnzent is separated from Ce~tr^czl
~tvenue by exist~zng comn~ercial devela~ment. Th~ r~esidential development is also focused toward
inte~^naI courtyaNds. The ~~crr fa~ades of the westeYn nzost apartment building is parallel to Cenf~ral
Avenue and is architecturally detailed. A~~propric~te landscaping is also provided.
BUILDING MATERIALS. To ensure that high-quality, durable and authentic building materials should be
used in residential constructiai~. A11 buildings should be constructed of high-quality materials, including
the folla~~vin~: brick; natural stane; precast cancrete units and cancre~e block, provided that the surfaces are
malded, serrated or treated with a textured material in order to give the wail surface a three-dimensional
cllaracter; stucco; junlbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any fa~ade, provided that it is used only
on the Iower third of the buildin~ wa11; wood, consisting of horizontal lap siding with an expos~re na
greater than 5 inches or waad shakes (surfaces must be painted); s~nthetic woad (fiber cement} siding
resembling horizontal lap siding.
The p~o~osed apartments will be constructed of brick ai~d EIFS and wzll be accented with cemen~t
ftber panel sidzng and ~~r~essed stone wi~~dow headzngs. FinaZ ~uiZding plans shaZZ be subject to the
~~eview and approval of" the City Staff to ensure t~hat tlie building mate~^ials and desig~~ meet the
requiren~ents of the Design Guic~elines, for the Hzghway Disti^ict.
r~TiJli,BiT~iG ~i1LGFc. i o ensure that builciing coiars are aesthetica`lly pleasing and eompatible with their
surroundings, building colors should accent, blend ~~vitl~, or colnplelnent surrounciin~s. ~'rincipa~ btzildin~
col~rs shauld consist c~f subtle, neutral or muted colors with ~aw re~l~ctar~ce. War~n-toned co~ars are
ei~eouraged. Na ~Zt~re thara tv~a principal calors a~ay be used on a facade. Brig~~t oz- pri~nary c:c~lcars should
be used anly as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent ofbuildiz~g fa~adeso
The pYOposed apai^tment buildings will inco~^po~^ate a color pcrlate a~td arclzit~ectural detailing thc~t is
consistent with and will coTnplement the existing Grand Centr~al Lofts condo~~iniu~n buildi~zg.
BUILDING HEIGHT. Two and tlsree story buildings are strongly encouraged in the Highway District. All
buildings shall have a minimum cori~ice height of 22 feet.
The height of the apartment buildings wilZ be consistent with the p~reviously approved height of t1~e
condominium buildings for the Grand Cent~^al Lofts pt~oject~. Both a~ar^tnzent huildings will be 4
st~o~°ies in hezght, with two levels of unde~ground parking.
FINDINGS QF FACT (Minor Subdivisian}
Section 9.104 (J} of the Zoning Ordinance outtines eight conditiai~s that ~~ZUSt be met in arder for ~he City to
grant a minor subdivision. They are as follows:
(a} The praposed suhdivision of land will not result in mare than three lots.
The p~~oposed subdivision will be dividif~g existing Outlot A into two ~arcels.
PLANl~.Tl~R1G & ~~JNING CC3MMISSI~N I~~INUTE~
PAGE 13
MA1~CH 2, 2010
(b) The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacatian of existing easements.
The subdivision wiZl not involve the vacation of existing easements.
(c) A11 lots to be created by the proposed subdivision confarm to lot area and width requirements
established for the zoning district in which the property is located.
The lot created will not be a buildable ~arcel and will not h~ave to confoi°m to the mini~r~u~n lot
a~e ayzd iot wzatn requi~ements.
(d) The praposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-af-way for the
purpose of gaining access to the property.
This is a tr~ue state~nent.
(e) The property has not previausly been divided thraugh the minor subdivision provisions af this
article.
Thzs zs a true state~nent.
(~) I'he praposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land.
This is a t~ue staternent.
(g} The prapased subdivisian does not hinder the making af assessmei~ts or the keeping af records
related ta assessments.
This i,s a true statemeyzt.
(h) The propased subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in Section 9.114.
Section ,911~ r°efers to the subc~iuisic~n ~egulations set.forth irz the Ciry's Zonin~- Code. 7'he
pro~~osed sundivision m~ets ail of tize aesign st~ndar~s s~aec faed in this sectiora.
FIN~ING~ E~F ~'~~'~' (Si~e I'lan ~~~~~val)
~ection 9.014 (1V1} csf the ~~~umbia Heights ~c~r~in~ ~ode requires tl~at the P1ax~nin~ ~otnr~~issi~n rrzal~~
each of the following four (41 tindings before appraving a site plan:
1. The site plan eanfonns to all applicable requireme~lts c~f this articl~.
The site plan conforrns to all setback requi~^efl~ents, parking requiremei~ts, landscape requiren~ents
and all requirements outlined in the Design Guideline Highway Dish^ict.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Compr~l~ensive Plan.
The p~^oposed~lan is consistent with the guidance of this ar~ea as a Transit Oi°iented Development
District.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
The site ~lan is coyzsistent with the Kma~°t Redevelopment C"oncept Plan.
4. The site pian minimizes any adverse impaets on praperty in the iminediate vicinity and tl~e public
rigl~t-af-way.
The p~~oposed plan zs consistent with a previ~usly approved plan.for the Grand Cent~^al Lofts in
relation t~o building size, bulk, place~nent and heights. For Chis r^eason, the plan nzini~nizes adverse
i~rrpacts on pro~e~ty in the imrnediate vicinity.
PL~~Tr~m.T~ ~ ~oN~v~ c~r,~r~~ssz~rl r,~r~vu~rEs
PAGE 14
MARCH 2, 2010
Because the site plan meets all the minimum requireinents af the City Code, staff recommends approval of
the minor subdivision and site plan for two l 00-unit apartment buildin~s to be constructed at ~he northeast
corner af 47th Avenue and Grand Avenue.
~
~uestlons rrom tnembersiYUbiic riearin~ U~ened:
The members ~~anted to hear from the public and use tilat format to address questions/answers that may
arise. Sargent then introduced Jack Boarnlan, Gretchei~ Camp, ar~d John Gould from BKV Group and
Clark Gassen who were present to answer questioizs.
Szurek rerninded members and the public that the Cominission's role is to see if the plan brought before
them meets the criteria of the Comprel~ensive Plan and 2oning Ordinance. It is not their role to decide if
the pi-oject will be approved or not. That is done by the City CaunciL The Public Hearin~ bei~g held at
this meeting gives the Public a forum in which to express their opinions about the praject. These will be
passed on to ~he City Council when they consider the matter.
Jolm Gould stated the two buildings would hold 100 units each campared to the originally plani~~d condo
buildings af 66 units. He said tl~e faotprints of the building wauld relnain ~he same, it's just that the units
would be smaller. They would inciude studio apartments with about 700 sf, same 1- BR apartinents, and
some 2- BR apartments with about 1200 st.
Schmitt asked why they are not offering 3 bedroom units. Gould explained they are trying to cater to
younger professional residents that war~t quality hausing, without the upkeep, and ~hat g~nerally have
disposai~ie income versus ~amilies. ~-Ie said this is a market that so far is not being afferec~ in ~olumbia
Heiahts, but has been very successful in other areas af the Twin Cities. Schmitt asked if the lc~t split would
create an ~utlot for p~ssibte r~sale at a Iater t~m~. The I~eveloper stated tl~e (?ut~ot wou~d be used to
provsde access tc~ the b~ilding~.
Sch~riitt asked how t1~e qua~ity of consti-EZeti~n w~u~d cornpare ta that csf the c~ndo's. T17e ~}evelr~~er stated
it ~,~ould be midc~le to middie high quality on the interior. The units would have ~va~d floors, st~inless
appliances, and some wouid have grai2ite countertops. It will be very similar to the condo building units so
that the building could be converted to condos at a later time if that market iinproves,
Peterson asked how many uiuts are sold in t11e eondo buildin~, Clark stated that 29 of t1~e 67 units a~e sald,
but only 22 of the units are occupied sillce one owner has seven units. Peterson had concerns about
whether the proposed parking would be adequate. Gretchen Camp, from BKV, stated that tlie number of
underground parking spaces for the residents is more than required and they have proposed to have 20
spaces at grade spaces for visitors, similar to the condo building. He had a concern that in the future, if the
commercial space is ever developed, some customers would use the residential/visitor parking spaces.
Clark said the commercial development will not happen as previously planned. He said any future
development there wi1l probably be a ane le~el development and wili not iilcarparate a parking ramp inta
the design. Sargent said the grade difference between the residential site and ~he colr~merciai piece is quite
drastic, and therefare, didn't feel that crossover parking would be an issue.
PLAI~INING & ZONING COMn~1ISSICN MINUTES
PAGE 15
MARCH 2, 2010
Gould stated they have room for up to 49 outside parking spaccs if it is warranted at a later date. They
were trying to balance the outside parking with additionai green space around the buildings.
Peterson asked about the amenity package included with these rental buildings. Gould said enhanced green
space around the buildings, a community building that would include a workout room, communi~y room
witiz a kitci~en, and possibiy a small business center. Peterson asked abaut the price points of the studio, 1
bedrooin , and 2 bedraom units. Gassen stated that wi1l depend on the results of the market study, but is
estimating that the Studio apartments could be rented for $700-$750/manth, lap to two bedraan~ ~.~s~its ~eing
rented for $1,400-$1,500/montll.
Sargent then reviewed the access to the site and the interior street layout and campared it to the ori~inal
plan for the conda buildin~s. The Develaper has changed t1~e design ta improve traffic circulation and
reduce cangestion, while adding ~reen space. He explained they deeided that fhe street along the sau~h side
of the buiidings will not go through to Grand Ave. That ~vould have created a large, cangested intersectian
just inside the site off 4~tj' Avenue and Public Works Staff felt it ivauld be a dangerous situation. There
will be an emergei~cy, break-away access on t~~ southwest corner of that building for fire trucks. I~ will be
plowed during the winter and n~ay include signs "for einergency vehicles onl~". Cia~k said it will be pa~t
of the Develapment/l~Zanagement Agreeinent.
Karen Karkula-4858 Grandview Court-has lived in ane of the townhomes far abaut twa years. Sl~e doesn't
think the units are sellil~g up there because there hasn't been much effort in marketing the units in this
devel~pment. She said she gets the impression, they have given up and they don't even have a sales office
like they used to. Karen went on to say she doesn't think that having rental next ta tl~e condo building is a
good tlzi~-~g. She is e~neer~~~d t11at their condo association f~es are very hig1~ because of the li~nited i~utnbe~
oi owners on ti~e site, and they will remain lugh if the rental buildings are b~zilt as they wi11 be under
separate management. Sl~e said ii is the l~urden of the few owners ther~ ar~ g~ ~~;~t~&~~ ~t~~ ~~~~~;~~~y
cente~- and all the e~penses ~f th~ site. Karen thinks the c~riginal plan should be Izonorea fcsr t~e sake ~f
tl~€~se wlzo alre~dy ~wn tllere.
Sar~er~t said that tl~e ~ity needs tc~ separate its~lf fr~rza the ~evelc~per and private market decisions sir~ce we
do nat have control a~-er the site. T1~e City canl~ot tell thesn l~o~t to ananage tlleir property, ar w~a~ they ean
or cannot charge for association fees, The ov~nler is coming forth with a plan to build somethin~ he thinks
will succeed. The Commission needs to decide if it meets the established requirements, or not.
Jerry Nordstroin-4843 Grand Avenue-Wanted to kz~ow ho~~~ long this rental pl~n has been cante~r~plated.
Clark responded that they first approached the City with this concept about 4-5 months ago. When he
purchased his townhouse, the Realtor representing the owner told him that additional conda buildings and
townhouses were going to be built. Had he know there would be 200 rental iuiits, he wouldil't have bought
his townhouse. Without the additional condo units, it will increase their costs to nlaintain their associatian,
as there will be fewer owners to share the burden. And with the high association fees, he will never be able
to sell the unit he has. He also is cancerned abaut whether the rental buildings w~ill face the same
circumstances as the condo buildings, in that they can't fill them. WhaY will happen after three or four
years-will they decide then to turn it into a subsidized reiital situatioil, just to fill the building.
pLn~rr~v~N~ & z~Nr~v~ c~~r.~ISS1oN r~ur~t~TLs
Pa~E 16, za 10
MARCH 2, 2010
Nordstrom alsa didn't like the road access going by the cominunity center and only having 20 parking
spaces. He didn't feel thaf was azl adequate amaunt. Thompson said he agrees that 20 spaces won't be
enough.
riorendino asiceci nim now that wa~ld be dif~erent than if the two condo buildings were built. He said the
traffic wauld be the same. Nordstrom said there would be more because there are additional units in the
rental buildings. He then asked how they expect to rent out 200 units when they can't even rent out the
condo units.
Clark explained that the EDA has an agreement with the Develaper and that there is a cavenant that
prohibits the condo u~iits from being sold to someone for the purpose of renting.
Lee Stauch-1155 Khyber Lane-asked if the condo units were sold to a second owner, could they then be
rented? Clark answered, yes. Stauch stated ne feels the awners have misrepresented the praperties and that
the Caminission made a mistake approving the project ir~ th~ frst ~lac~.
Szurek said the Planning Cominission only decides if it ineets the crit~ria set farth in the City Ordinances.
It is then passed on to the City Council for appraval.
Andy Smoka-1206 Khyber Lane-asked the Developer wlzat other projects they have built. Boarman
stated they designed the Silver Lake Village Condo, Apartments, arid re~ail space in St. Anthaizy-Idle
City, near Loring Park-Heritage Landings-The Blue, near Aldrich and Lake St-and Maii~ Street in
I~tew Brighton. Sinol~a doesn't think the a1-ea ~vt.ll draw a~~y yaung professiolaals with disp~sable inca~ne, as
tne i:ity I~as natning to draw thern i~ere. ~-le questioned wliy someane would invest in this type af
speculative project, that lie believes wi11 be a~vhite elepl~tant. Just because the original plan did~z't wark,
they wan~ tc~ change pla~~s and try something else, that he d~esn't think will wc~rk.
Szurek stated there is a marl~et far this type of rental units. The fact that St. A.r~thany's buildaalgs are a~mcts~
f~~~ proves that. She went on t€~ state that sc~me~iine~ ~eve~~pers and Cities ~~~ed ta change ccrurse becau5e
of market demands, econolnic times, and ather factars that change ho~asing chaices. Is it best to try t~
move aliead with the residential portion of this project and hope the commercial will follaw, or wait and do
nothin~ until the cammercial site is developed aild then add the housing component. She believes the City
needs to mave forward and try to make impi-ovements rather than sitting back and doing nothing. Szurek
again stated that the Commission can nat de~ay ~ 1_ot split if ~t ~neets the criteria. This lot split wil~ separate
1a11d from the coi~do site fo~- the rental site. It is not up to the Planni~lg Commission to decide if it wi11 work
or not. No one knov~~s that anymore than they lcnew the market would collapse after the first pllase was
completed on tlus site. It is up to the Developer to do the market study aild decide if it will support their
investn~ent.
Smoka alsa stated he didn't think 20 parking spaces wauld be enough. Fiorendino asked hiin haw maliy he
tl~ou~ht there should be. Smoka a~iswered about 1/3 of the total units which wauid require about 66 outside
spaees. But putting in that many parking spaces would take away tao i7luch green space for his liking also.
Pr.A~~rrrnT~ ~ zQr~l~v~ co~r.~lss~or.r r,~~~T~s
PAGE 17
MARCH 2, 2010
Ralph Johnson-1156 Borealis Lane-asked if the sewers are in place to handle these buildings. Clark told
him that the Central Avenue sewer is at capacity. It was part of the ariginal Development Agreement that
tne i~eveioper wouici be responsible tar a sewer expansion to accommadate the rest of the praject. The
City has just approved an ameildment to that Agreement to trade off TIF funds that would have gone to the
Developer for the City taking over the sewer improvement. The net result of this amendment ~~~ll sa~=e thP
City inore than $200,000. The sewer expansion will be done this year regardless of whether this project
inoves forward or not. It would be required in order to do any mare constructian on this site for either
residential or commercial development.
Johnson then asked what this d~velopment wauld da for the city. Szurek said it would add tax base ta the
City. Clark said he recognizes that in 2004, no one could foresee the callapse of the rnaxket. He stated the
City needs to stay focused oi~ our objectives aizd that is to imprave neighborhoods. He felt tlais area cauld
use a jurnp start. He said tl~e objecfive af th~ proposed project is to keep it compatible with thz existing
building, and to attract a different resident type that may hav~ a hi~her disposable inc~ine s~ that it spurs
other changes and improves the environment of the area.
Thompson said he was disappointed that the market study hadn't been done yet and thought the Plannin6
~an~missian should have seen it. V
The Market Study will help determine the price points and the City Coui~cil wi11 look at that information
when maki~~g their decision about this project,
Nordstrom said he is most concerned abc~ut the affect this may have on th~ ~ss~c,iat;~n ~??s, a~d 1~is tnarkvt
value. ~I~ thinks it will adversely ~ffect both ~f those itegns, and he feels th~ ~'~inmission sl~c~'u1~ takv that
inta consideration.
Fior~ndina asked hin~ i~ he th~tzgl~t it wauld bc bett~r tt~ c~a nothing a~1d Iea~ve ~the site as is. ~Ie questioned
whether the City, and the eurrent a~uzZers on tha~ site, w~uld be ~etter o~f if ~he site is finis~~d and som~
cominercial development is eventually built. He said that option could actually raise the property values. It
was agreed, there are no guarantees, either way.
Thompson asked how much differe~~t the association fees would be if the condc~ buildings were built
instead. No one knew that answer. They are approximately $375/month now with the ovvner paying about
25% of the izlaintenance fees for the site.
Deb Johnson---4626 Pierce St-has lived ii1 the city far 40 years. She said she understai~ds the role of the
Coinmission, but often fmds that the City Council uses the fact that if the Cainmission approves something,
t11en they are baund by that recommendation to approve it alsa. She said it is passing the blame hack and
forth between the City's various entities. She went on to say she is torn about this project. She doesn't iike
the empty site, but she doesn't want to look at empty buildings either. She tald the Developer that she went
on the tour and agrees the buildings were high quality, although, nat always to her liking. She is hoping
that if the project moves forward that they would stay with a more traditianal finishing style that will last
over time, rather than something trendy that goes out of style in a few years.
PLA14,?I~7ING & ZOI~TING ~OI`~IT~ISSICN IvIINUTES
PAGE 18
MARCH 2, 2010
Bruce Nawrocki-1255 Polk Place-He wanted to know how the garages would be accessed now that the
parking arrangeinents had been revised. Sargent explained ~/2 would access off Grand and '/z would aecess
off the east street. Grand Ave is the only Public Road an the site. The rest are private roads. Nawrocki
asked who would be responsible for maintaining them since you would have a condo association and the
rental management company bath involved. The Developer said that would be a shared responsibility and
would be addressed in a Joint Agreement between the two entities. He wanted to know if the renters would
,
ne chargeci exzra for the maintenance (similar to an association fee) and for their interior parking spaces.
Gassen responded that those costs are assessed each year, and rents are established aruzually, similar to any
other rental complex. There would not be additionai association fees. These casts ar~ in~~rporate~ ~nto thP
rent estimates that were already discussed.
Nawrocki then stated that a lot of time and effort went into the original plan and tl~at we should wait until
tl~e market improves and stick with the original plan. He feels owner occupied housing is the best option
and that oumers tei~d ta care for their properties better t17an renters. He thinks chaz~ging the plan now wauld
da a disservice to those who already ovv~1 on this site and that it would be taking a step backwards.
Fiorendino asked him haw long he thought it wauld take to fill the condo buildings. Nawracki said it will
take years, but it could take years ta fill the rentai buiidings als~, :n his c~pinioi~. He thinks we should give
the origina~ plan more time.
Peterson cammented that he understands and sympathizes with the eurrent residents in the Grand Central
Lafts locatian. He said it is impossible for atlyone to have a cr~~stal ball or to guarantee anything anymore.
AII anyone can do is make the best decision they can with the infonnation they have to wark with, He also
understands the role of the commission. The decision to be made by the Council at this point is whether to
do nothing or to do something, hoping that it helps the development itself and the City as a whale.
Schnuii askeci it both buildings would be built at the sa~ne time, or if one building would be built at a tiine.
Gretchen responded that they wc~ul~ build the west building fzrst. Scl~z~zitt sai~ sh~ w~~,~r~ ~~~~ r~ ~~~ ~
similar number of un~ts in the ~-~ntal buildir~gs as there are in the c~an~o buil_ding, ii~ case they are ~ver
co~lverted. She alsc~ sugaested ~-e-des~gnii~g the prajec~ te~ add townhc~uses to the south side af the project.
F~orend~no asked haw they a~-rived at 20 c~utspde ~a~-kii~g spaces. ~Ie warldered ~vhat the code required.
Sargent stated that our code dc~es nat address visitt~r parking. It only requires one parking space for each
bedroom, which would make a total of 266 spaccs. They have designed the inside, two level parking, to
accommodate 270 spaces, so they exceed the requirements. Gretchen said they are proposing 20 spaces at
grade in arder to balance the greeil space around the buildings. She said t11e nornz is to provide guest
parking at 5% of the number c~f ~~nits. This pr~posal is pra~,~iding lfl% guest parking. Fi~rendii3o asked if
there would be any parking along Grand Ave. Sargent stated there are rto parking spaces pla~~~ed aloilg
Grand Ave.
Thompsoil said he could not vote in favor of the twa requests even though they meet the criteria. He
doesn't think tl~e proposal is in the best interest of the community without seeing a market study to prove
otherwise. He also commented that he receives his packet too late to check into these cases properly.
Szurek stated that i7larket studies ase expensive to do. If ~he City wasn't interested in the proposal, or if the
Plamzing Commission denied their Lot Sp1it and Site Plan, they didn't want to have one done. If the project
is a possibility, they will go ahead with the market study so the City Council can use it in making tl~eir
decision.
PLAN?vING & ZQIe~TINCs CC~1l~IhZISSI~N I`~FINUTE~
PAGE 19
MARCH 2, 2010
Clark stated this matter was discussed with the EDA. The consensus was to bring this before the Planning
Commission first, then if approved, the limited market study would be done and submitted to the City
Council as they are the actual deciding body. Then the EDA wauld be responsihle for approving an
amendment to the Developinent Agreeinent.
Public Hearin~ Closed.
Ivloiion dy r iorenciino, seconct"ed dy Schmitt, that the 1'lanning Commission ~ecornrnends tl~at the City
Council approve the site plan far the const~^uction of two I00-unil~ apartinent building.s located at the
northeas2 co~~ner of 4~'~ Avenue and Grand Avenue, subject to certain conditions of ap~roval that have
been found to be necessary to p~^otect the public interest and ensu~~e com~lianee wzth tl2e provisions of the
Zoning and Development Ordinance, including:
1. The applicant shall ente~^ into a Plannzng Contr~act agreerr~ent with the City per regulations of the
MXD, Mixed Use Develo~n~ent District.
2. All ~~ecessary dNive~~c~y, access, drainage and rnaintenanee ~asern~ents slzall be established ay~d
recoNded with Anoka Cvunty.
3. The appZicant shall instalZ a guar~drail or safety fence along the per~est~iar~ ~~alkway ~f ~7`h Avenue
per specifications and approval of the City Fnginee~r.
4. A.~~e truck access shall be installed connecting the s~outhern inost drive wzthin the develvpn~ef2t to
Gt°anc~ Avenue.
5. It sh~all be the ~~esponsibility of the aparl~nient manageinent con~pany to ensur°e that the fi~e access
renzains cZear e~f~c~ebrzs and sno~~ at all times.
6. If the constr•uction of the ~roposed developmet~t is completed over 2 phases, the con.~tructi~n ~f
the CornnzuniCy Ba~iZding shc~ll c~ccur du~i»~ Phase 1.
7. 7'hc a~plicant shall s~upnly tlie ezty wil~h~ a Letter of Ca~~dit in t~he czmount as .specified by the ~`idy
Engineea^ t~ ~a~sr~~e c~ample~ion of all ~aublic irraprrc~vement~.
8. The applzcant shall pay a park dedication,fee in the amount of $750 per unit due at the tim~e of
building permit issuance. ~
9. PeN the MXD, Mixed U.se Developrn~nt Z~istyict, th~ site plcrn must be crppro~ed I~y the City
Council.
Roll Call.• Ayes: Fiorendinc~, Peterson, Szu~^ek Nay: Th~or7~pson and Schmitt
MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Fzorendino, seconded by Sch~nitt, that t~he Plannin~g C'or~amission ~~econ~inend,s t~hat the City
Cauncil app~^ave the minor subdivision fo~ the p~operty locczted at the co~ner af 4~`~' Avenue and Cent~al
Avenue, subject to certain con~'itions of'ap~~°oval that have l~een found to be necessary to protect the public
interest and ensu~e coinpliance ~n~ith the p~~ovisions of the Zoning and Development O~°dinance.
Roll Call.• Ayes: Fior~endino, Pet~e~^son, Szurek Nay: Thon~pson and Schmitt
MOTION PASSED.
PLI~NNIIlTG & ZONII`'G COMMISSIC~N M1NTiJTES
PAGE 20
MARCN 2, 2010
The following Resolutions will go to the Council April 12, 2010. Clark stated that everyone within 350
feet would be notified again of this meeting and the agenda will be posted as required by law.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR
TWO 100-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 47TF;
AVENUE AND GRAND AVENUE VVITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2010-0303} has been su6mitted by David Klaeber to the Planniug and Zo~zir7g
Coinmission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Colwnbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: Northeast con~er of ~7`h Avenue and Grai~c~ A_venue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for the construction of
two 100-unit aparhnent buildings.
WHEREAS, the P1an71ing Commissian has held a public hearing as required by the city Zaning Code on March 2,
2ola;
WHEF~E~S, th~ City Caur.cil has considered the advice and t-ec~mmendations of tne Pianning and ~oning
~~rninissio~l reg~arding the erfect of the proposed site plan ~apon the health, safety, a~~d we~f~~re of the com~nu~~ity and
its Co~np~•ehe~~sive ~'Ia~a, as ~~e11 as a~iy coi~cerns relafed fo compa~tibility of uses, traffic, property valL-es, Iight, air,
danger of fire, aatd risk to p~blic safety in t1Te surraundiilg al•eas; and
NOV~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ciry of Columbia Heights aftei- reviewin~
ti~e proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Plai~ning Coinmission: ~
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements af tliis article, except si~~age.
2. Tl~e site plan is eonsistent wit11 the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
3. The site ~lan is consisteilt with any applicable area p1a~1.
4. ThP si~e ~1a!~ ~~:~itr~~zes ~n~~ ~~lerse ~~r,~acts ~n ~r6~,e~iy i~~ tiie ilnir~eaia~e vicinity and rhe pubiic right-of-
way.
~U~~'~E~2, ~E IT I2.E~€~I.,~i), ihat the attached coi~ditians, maps, anc't other information sllall
beeome par~t of ~his per~nit and a;~~rav~i; ~r~~i i~t gran~ing t1~is permit th~ cft~ ard ~lte a~~p;~ca~t ab e~ ~ti~~ tt3rs pet~it
sl~atl beeome z7ut1 ai~d void if the project lzas nat been colnpleted withil~ one (1) calendar ~ea~• after ~Ire approval date,
subjeet ta ~etition for rer~ewal af the permit. ~
CONDITIC)NS fITTACHED°
1. The applicant shall enter into a Plamiing Coniract agreement with the City per regulations of the MXD,
Mixed Use Developinent Distriet.
2. All necessary driveway, access, drainage and mai»tena~zce easenlellts shall be established a~1d recorded witll
Anaka Coullty.
3. The applicant shall install a guardrail or safety fence along the pedestrian walkway of 47`~' Avenue per
specificatiatis and appi-oval of the City Engineer.
4. A fir°e truck access sl~all be installed connecting the southern most drive within fhe developmeut to Grand
Avenue.
5. It shall be the i°espoi~sibility of the apartmeut management company to ensure that the fire access remaills
clear of debris and snow at aIl times.
6. If the construction of the proposed development is completed over 2 phases, the constriiction of tl~e
Community Building shali occur during Phase 1.
7. The a~plicai~f shall supply the city with a Lette1° of Credit in the aznount as specified by the City Eiigineer fo
ensure eompletion of all public improvements.
8. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee iii the amouilt of $750 per unit due at the time of building
permit issuance.
9. Per the MXD, Mixed Llse Development District, the site plan must be approved by the City Cc~uneil.
PLANNIN.r'~ & Z~NI?~1G ~OMMISSICN 1`.RiNUTES
PAGE 21
MARCH 2, 2010
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION
VVITH CERTAIN CONDITIO~S FOR HUSET PARK DEVELOPMENT CORP.
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case No. 2010-0303) has heen submitted by David Kloeber to the City Coancil requesting
a minor subdivision froin the City of Columbia Heights Subdi~isio3l Code at the f~1lc~win~ site:
ADDRESS: Northeast corner of 47`~' Avenue and Ce»tral Avenue
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTTON: Outlot A, Grand C~ntral Lofts A~lditio~~
PROPOSBD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That pa1~t of Outlot A, lying southerly of Lot 1, Block 1, and lying
southerly of tl~e easterly extellsion of the North line of Lot 2, Block 1, all in Graud Centi-al Lofts, Anoka
County, Minnesota.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the City Cauncil I~as cansidered the advice and recommendations af the Planning Camm~ission
regardi~~g the effect of ti~e propased subdivisian upon the health, safety, and weifare of the community and its
Com~rehensive Plan, as well as any c~~~ce~-ns related t~c~ trafFic, ~ropetfi~ va;ucs, Iight, air, danger af fire, and risk to
pttblie safety, in t~;e surra~ndina a~rea; and has held the required public hearing on this proposal on IV1arc112, 2Q 10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED hy tl~e City Council of the City of Colu~nbia Heiahts after ~-evie«~zzg
the proposal, that the City Cou~lcil a~ccepts and adopts fl~e followuig fii~dings af the Planning Cominission:
1. The proposed subdivision of land will nat result in nlore than three lots.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easeine~lts.
3. All lots to be crea~ted by fl~e proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width require~nents established for
tI~e zoning district in which the property is located.
4. The proposed suhdivision does not require the dedicatior~ of public rights-of-way far the purpose of gainin~
access to th~ jzro~~,-r;~.
5. Tl~e property has not p~°eviously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this articte.
6. Tl~e prc~cse~ su~~i ~isi~n da~s ~at 1,ii~~et• tlz~ c~nveyance of land.
7. ~`I~e ~roposed subdivision does n3t hinder tFfe making of assessments or tlle kee~ing af records reiated to
assessmer~ts.
The proposed subdivis~~n meets a1~ of ~he ~esig~~ standards speci~ed i~z~ the §9.114.
F'UI~T~IE12, BE IT 12ESOLVED, tl~at the attacl~ed ca~zditic~~~, plans, maps, aF~d other infonn~tiol~ shatl became ~ar-t
of this subdivisioii approval.
c~s~ r~ur~sEx: ~oio-a~oz
APPLICANT: City af Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City ~Vide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for the R-3, Muitiple Family Residential District
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the R-3, Multiple Family Residential District is ta provide appropriately located ar~as for
small lot sii~gle-family dwellings, inultiple-fainily dweliings with up to eight uiuts per structul-e (town
homes, condominiums and apartments), congregate living arrangements aild directly related
compleinentary uses. Staff has determined that the current setback requireinents for the R-3 District make
it extremely difficult, if nat impossible, to build additions or new homes on a majority of the R-3 zoned
properties because of the preexisting size of the properties.
PLANNIN~G 8i ZONIN~ COMMISSION MII~IUTES
PAGE 22
MARCH 2, 2010
The purpose of the propased zoning amendment is to modify the setback requirements for one and two-
family dwelling units located in the R-3 District to enable construction an these parcels without the
constant need for a variance ~o do so.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One goal of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to housing is to "preserve and expand the single-family
b.....~....v v u.~
.•
nPiahhnrhr~nrlc u~ ~~~ ~^v~i~i2iuiiiij%'S Siivil}~cSi a~~C`l. " l I1C 117d~OT1Ly QI L~1~ K-.5 111StT'1Ct Lh2'dU~120Ut tll~ (.ItV
of Columbia Heights is populated with single-famil~ dwellings. Amending the Zoning Code to promote
the canstruction of additions and new hames would be directly consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The current Zaning Cade pertaining to the R-3 District requires substantial setback requirements compared
to other residential zoning districts. The fallowing table outlii~es t17e setback requirementis for each
residential zc~z~ing distriet:
R-1 R-2A R-2B It-3 R-4
~'ront Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 15 ft.
Side Yard 7 ft. S ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft.
Corner Side Yard 12 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 30 ft. 15 ft.
Rear Yard 20% of Lot Dept1a 20% of Lat Depth 20% of Lot Depth 30 ft. l 5 ft, ,
A study was conducted af the R-3 District to determine whether single and two-family properties would be
able to sustain the required setbacks. Tl~e study revealed that there are 469 single al~d two-famity parcels in
the R-3 District. The fc~llowing table brzaks dawrl ~he average ~at size azld num~er c~f ~~_n_1~?~ilrl~i~1_e ~~ts
currently in the R-3 District:
C~~e and 'I'w~ ~~m~1y I~esie~ences in the R-3 Disirrict
Avera e I,o~ ~idth
- _ _- S p.gg
Avera e ~,~t I~~ ~h 129.18
Avera e S aare Foota e 6,587.03
Total Number of One and Two Famil ~ Lots 469
Number of Unbuildable Lats 2{1
Percenta e of tinbuildable Lots 55.65%
Number of Unlikel Buildable Lots 315
Percentage of Unlikely Buildable Lots 67.16%
As the table indicates, the average 1ot width for single and two-family parcels is 51 feet. In order to build
within the specifications of the Zoning Code, a new house would have to be set back 20 feet fronl the side
lot lines. Given ihe average lot width of 51 feet, this would leave a perspective builder approximately 11
feet on the property to build a house.
PLAI~NING & ZONING ~CMMISSI~N MINUTES
PAGE 23
MARCH 2, 2010
The study also indicated that 315 of the 4691ots, or 67% of the tatal number of ane and two-family parcels
in the R-3 Dishict, were too small ta build on withaut the need of a variance to do so. For this reason, StafF
is propasing a Zoning Amendment that would alleviate the setback restrictions imposed on these properties.
Staff recormllends recreating a separate setback categary for ane and two-family dwelling units within the
R-3 District, and imposing setback restrictians consistent with the R-2A District on those parcels. The
fouowing table outlines ~tat~'s recommendation:
R-1 12-2 ~ l~-ZB f~-~ ~2-4
Front Yard
2~ ft.
25 ft.
25 ft. 1& 2 Family - 25 ft.
Multi-Family - 30 ft.
15 ft.
Side Yard
7 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft. 1& 2 Family - 5 ft.
Multi-Family - 20 ft.
10 ft.
C'orner Side I'ard
12 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft. ~ & 2 Fainily - 10 ft.
Multi-Family - 30 ft.
15 ft.
~ear Y~rd
20% ~f Lat De~th
20% of Lot Bepth
20% of Lot Depth 1& 2 Family - 25 ft.
~ulti-Family - 30 ft.
l5 ft.
The purpose of the Zoning Ainei~dinent is to create 3~ 5 more buildable lots for one and twa-family
dwelling units within the R-3 District.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 {F) of tl~e Columhia Heig~ts zoning code requires that the City Cnua~cil ~nake ea~h of ~he
f~l~~~%ir~~ i`c,ui iil~uings 'rrefare approving a zoning amendment:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plar~.
O~z~ boal of tl~e C~ra7p~eher~sive Pla~z ~e~tairaing t~ hausing is t~ "I't ese~°vc and expc~a~cd the singZe-
farnily neighbo~hoo~s as tlze eommunity's st~~ngest ass~et. " Tlze majority of th~ R-3 TJist~ict
thrau~lZOZ~t the City of C~lumbicz I-Ieights i.s~ populated with single fa~nily ~'tivellings. An~encling the
Zoning C'ode to promate the constr°uction of`additzot~,s c~nd n~w homes t~~ould be di~eetly ~onsistent
with the intent of tl~e Con~~rehensive Plan.
2. The amendment is u1 the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owl~er.
The praposec~ zoning aynendnaent is not solely for the benefit of a single pr-operty owne~^. The
proposed a~~end~rient would allo~N ~rospective builders to cc~nstr~uct additions to existing houses, or
to construct new houses in the R-3 Distr~ict on p~~ope~~tzes whicd~ now ~~ould not be Zegally abZe to be
built on.
3. W11ere the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing
use of the praperty and the zoning classificatian of property within the general area of the
property in question are cainpatible with the proposed zoning classification.
This zoning arvrendment will not change any existing zoning classification.
PLANNINC~ & ZC}NIN~`r ~OMl'vIISSION MINliTES
PAGE 24
MARCH 2, 2010
4. ~Vhere the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has
been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area af the property in
question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning
classification.
This zonzng a~~zen~'inent will n~ot change any exzsting zoning classifzcatzon.
Staff recoirunends amendii~g the Zoning Code to help alleviate the setback restrictions curren~ly imposed
on the R-3, Multiple Fainily Residential District, in regards t~ oi~e ~r~d t~~o family properties as Qutlined in
the Draft Ordinance.
Questions frorn Members:
Szurek questiol~ed whether the new figures wauld give them enough roam to wark with. Sargent stated he
thought it would in mast cases and tlzat it is more consistent with the other residential districts. He said
there are provisions in place in the Zoning Ordinance t~ deal with other sma11 lot issues. Sargent ~xplained
that we don't get a lat af variance requests, but it vva11 elitninate the rleed far one when own~rs w~nt to add
a small addition or deck t~o their hause.
Peterson asked for clarificatia~l an definitian of a carner side yard. Sargent explained what defines a side
yard from a front yard and how tlle setbacks wauld be applied.
Sclunitt asked if the Sheffield area is mostly an R3 District, and since the City is purchasing properties
there, is the ilnpact of the setbacks why staff is requesting this change. Sargent said ~o, most of Sheffield is
either R2A ar R2B and would nc~t ~e affected by this change. He went on ta state, t~~at rr~ost of the F~3
properties are in the south part c~f tl~e city or on the west side.
Fiorendino questioned ~hy tl~e rear yard setback is a fixed ~umber. Sargent said ~~ elitninates variatior~s
and the need to v~rify ~ac~a case.
T~c~mpson sta~ed th~t the side yard setback is necessary for drainage between properties, emer~ency access,
and for maintenance ofthe str2~cture. I-~~ doesn't feel that 5 feet is necessarily ei~ougll, but due to the size of
the lots in Coltunbia Heights, common sense must prevail, so he agrees with the recommended change.
Public Hearin~ O~ened:
No one was present to speal~ on this issue.
Public Hearin~ Closed.
Motion by Schn~itt, seconded by PeteNSOn, that the PZanning Com~nission reconzn2ends tlaat the City Council
approve the pNOposed zoning ~nmendment, subject to r~2odifying the setback ~^equi~eme~~ts for one and two
, fa~nily dwellings in the R-3, MultipZe Family Residential Distrzct.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The following ordinance will go to the City Council March 8, 2010
PLANNING & ~ONING COl`/I:1;~IISSI~N 1~~ITv'UTES
PAGE 25
ORDIl~ANCE NO. ~;XY,X
BEING AI~1 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO THE R-
3, LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapte~~ 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (C) of the Colum~bia Heights City C~de, is p~oposed to incZz~de the foZlowing
additioras and deletzons:
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(C) Lot Di»aei~sion, Height., and Bulk Requz~ernents. Lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements for uses
in the residential districts s1~a11 be as specified in the following table•
R-1 R-2A Ia-2I3 R-3 R-4
Miniinum Lot Area
Single Fa~nily B;~~elling 5,400 sq. 6,~00 sq. ft. 6,SOt~ sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft.
ft.
Two-Family and Twinhome 12,000 sq. Existing on 8,400 sq. ft. 8,400 sq. ft.
Dwellina ft. January 1, 2005 -
5,100 sq. ft.
Establisl~ed after
January 1, 2005 -
12,000 sq, ft.
Established after
Jarluary ], ZOOS -
12,000 s . ft.
Multiple Farnily Dwetting l0,OQ0 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft.
Nan-residential Structure 8,400 sq. 6,500 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft.
ft.
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit
Multiple Family Dwelling
_. Efficiency -- ~- 1,200 sq. ft. ~ 800 sc~. ft.
One bedroom 1,800 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft.
i wc~ bedroU~n 2,000 sq. ft, 1,20Q sq. ft. ~
Three bedraam 2,SQ0 sq. ft. 1,500 sc~. ft. ~
Additianal bedrooin 400 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft.
CaPigre~,a~e L,ivi~~g Un~ts 40Q sq. ft. 400 sq. ft.
Miniinum I,ot ~Vidth 76 feet 60 feet 60 feet 70 feet 70 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth -~-
Residential Biiilding Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 1& 2 Family - 2~ ft, 1 S feet
Mealti-Family - 30
ft.
Side Yai°d 7 feet* 5 feet* 5 feet* 1& 2 Family - 5 ft. 10 feet
Multi-Family - 20
ft.
Corner Side Yard 12 feet 10 feet 10 feet 1 & 2 Family -10 ft. 15 feet
Multi-Famiiy - 30
ft.
Rear Yard 20% of lot 20% of lot 20% of lot depth 1 & 2 Family - 25 ft. 15 feet
depth depth Multi-Family - 30
_ ft.
I~on-residential Building Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet 15 feet
Side Yard 40 feet 30 feet 30 feet 25 feet 10 feet
Corner Side Yard 12 feet 10 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet
Rear Yard 40 feet 30 feet 30 feet 25 feet 10 feet
Single & Two Family Parking
Setbacks
Front Yard (excluding 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet
drives/ ads)
Side Yard 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet
Corner Side Yard 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet
° ~ai i 4i ~ 3 ieet j feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet
Multiple Family Parkiilg Setbacks
Front Yard 34 feet 30 f~et
Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet
Corner Side Yard 30 feet 30 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet
Nan-residential Parking Setbacks
Front ~ard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 3d feet 30 feet
Side ~'ard 10 feet 10 feet 10 fe~~ 10 feet l~ feet
Con~er Side Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 3Q feet 30 fe~t
Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 14 feet 1 Q feet
Maximum Height
Residential structures 28 feet 2$ feet 28 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Non-residential structures 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Nan-residential Fiaar Area Ratio
22
Se~tion 2:
Tl~is ordi~~al~ce s12a11 be in fu11 forc~ an~! ?ffeet frsn~ ~:t~ a#ter ~~J ~uys a~er its ~assage.
cas~ ~~~BER: zalo-o~as
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Zoning Application Fees
BACKGROUND
At the Augusf 25, 2009 EDA meeting and the City Council meeting of November 30, 2009 staff presented
its recommendation to revert planning fees back to a flat fee system. Currently, plamling fees are done on
an escrow based system that creates a sigilificant ainaunt of work (that is nat reimbursed) to receive a
check, create an escrow, receive documentation from departments regarding time allocations a11d then
reissuing checks back to the applicant. Most of the planning applications are straightforward and a simple
flat fee wauld reduce all of the afarementianed wark.
As part of the planning fee structure, staff has included language that the City retains the right to seek an
escrow and additional payment for any out-of-pocket expenses for consultants and/or to obtain an escrow
for cases that are extraordinary in size or complexity.
PLPNNIN~ & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 27
MARCH 2, 2010
CCIMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Restructuring the fee schedule for Planning and Zoning land use requests enables staff to more efficiently
use their time and thus provides a better service to the community. Processing land use requests more
efficiently will also make it easier to pursue many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
As stated previously, the current zoning ordinance requires an escraw ta be collected as the sale ineans for
funding Iand use requests. Staff spends a considerable amount of time trackiug the hours of phone calls,
einails, meetings and staff repart writings in an effort ta accurately account for the amount of time each
land use applicatian takes ta coinplete. More time is then taken to process refund checks - if needed - and
then inail out the checks ta the applicants.
The propased ardinance would revert back to a flat-rate fee for Planning and Zaning applications. The
foilowing table depicts the amourit of escrow the City kad previously required for eacl7 land use
application, as well as the pro~osed anzount the City will collect as a flat rate fee:
PLAIi~NIli~+G AND ZOl~iII~iG FEE SC~IEDUI.E
Land Use Actian Escraw Previousl Callected Pro osed Flat Rate Fee
Appeal $185 $1$5
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $545 $500
Conditional Use Pennit $220 $200
Preliminary Plat $E70 ~500 + Escrow
Final Plat $39~ $100
Interim Use $255 ~ ~250
Minor Subdlvision (Lot Split} $2'75 ' $275
Site P1an Review $370 ' ~25(~
Vacatia~ $154 $I50
Varia~ce ~235 $200
2oniz~g Amendmeni $545 $500
It is anticipated that larger redevelopment projects wiil take a cansiderable more time to process than
smaller, simpler land use requests. For this reason, the City will retai~~ the right to seek an escrow and
additional payment for a~1y out-of-pocket expenses for consultants and/or to obtain an escrow for cases that
are extraordinary in size or complexity.
Staff also conducted a comparison of Application Fees other cities in the area charge. Tlus information can
be found on Appendix A.
PLA?vNING ~ ZONING C~MMISSION I`v1INUTES
PAGE 28
MARCH 2, 2010
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the
fallowing four findings before approving a zoning amendment;
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
RestYUCturing the fee schedule for Planning and Zoning IQn~ u.se reques~t~ errabl~.~ staff t~o n~~~e
effzciently use thei~ tinze and thus provides a better serviee t~o the communzty. Processing Zand use
requests mor~e e~ciently ~~ill also ~~ake it easier to pur~sue n~any of the goals of the Corn~rehensive
Plan.
2. The amei~tdment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
The ptoposed a~nendrrient zs a cityu~zde ende~vor cznc~ is not soleZy fot the Z~enefit of a single
p~operty owner. '
3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, tl~e
existing use of the property and th~ zoning classificatian af property within the general area of the
praperty in questian are compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
The anzendnzent would not change the zonzng classificat~ion of a pa~ticular~,~t~operty.
4. Where the amendment is to chan~e the zaning classification af a particular property, ~here
has been a change in th~ character ar trend c~f development in the geneg-al area af the pro~erty in
question, which has taken place sii~ee such praperty was placed in the current zoning elassificatian.
The amendfnent w~uld not change the ~onzn~- classifc~~~ic~n ~f ~~~~ti~ulaa~~r~o~erty~.
Staff recammends approv~l of the prop~s~d Zoni77g Ainendment.
Questions fram Memb~rs•
Fiorendino suggested a language change to the Ordinance to include "consultants and/or professianal
services".
Public Hearing Opened:
No one was present to speak o1i this issue.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Schmitt, secanded by Pete~^son, that the Planning Corl~mission recommends that the C'ity Council
appNOVe the proposed zoning a~nendnzent. ~111 ayes. MOTIDNPASSED.
The following Ordinance wili go to the City Cauncil March 8, 2010.
PLANNII~IG :~ ZONIN(3 COMMISSIDIV I`d11IIVLTTES
PAGE 29
MARCH 2, 2010
]3RAFT ORDINANCE NO. '~.RXX
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE I~IO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO
MINI,MUM PLANING AND ZON~ING APPLICATION FEES VJITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The City of Colwnbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter ,9, Article I, Secti~n 9.104 (C)(S) of tlze Colui~abia Heigl~ts City Code, is pr^oposed to i~~clude the following
additio~~s and deletia~~s:
§ 9.104 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFQRCEMENT.
(C} General applicatiorz p~^ocedr~res.
(5} Application fees. Fees for all applications for developinent or Iai~d us~ a~~raval s~all bP ~ fl~t rate
and established by resolution of the City Council.
. ,
~
~ . The City retains
the right to require an escrow and additional payment for any out-of-pocket expenses for consultants and/or
professianal services, and/or to abtain an escrow for cases that are extraordinary in size or complexity.
Remaining escrowed f~nds not spent in reviewing the agplieataon shall be retnrned to the appticant. r~*"^ ~^n*
`' ~ ~ . Payment of
all fees is a candition of applicatian apprav~l. The fee schedule shall be:
PI.~1~1NI1~iG A1~I) ~Ol'~I1~I~G F~~ ~~HEY3L'I.E
La~d Us~ Actia~ Flat Rat~ Fee
Appeal $185
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ~540
Canditional Use Permit $240
Preliminary Plat $500 + Escrow
Final Plat $1 pp
Interi~ Use $2Sa
Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) $~'7~
Site Plan Revie~u ~2~p
Vacatiozl ~ ~ 5~
Var~~nce $200
Zoning Amendment ~ $Sa0
Sectia~~ 2:
Tlais ordiraance shall be in fuZl force and effect, fi~orra an~' afte~° 30 days after its passage.
NEW BUSINESS- None
OTHER BUSINESS
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Sllelley IIanson
Secretary
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2010-0501
DATE: May 4, 2010
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Ccammission
APPLICANT: Jeff Agnes, AiA / Savers
LOCATION: 4849 Central Avenue NE
REQUEST: Site Plan Approval Loading Dock Addition
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City PRanner
INTRODUCTIC)N
At this time, Jeff Agnes, along with Aarchitects, LLC is requesting a~ite plan approval
for a new loading dock and drap-aff area for the Savers store located at 4849 Central
Avenue NE. On September 6, 2006, Savers requested a Conditianal Use Permit (CUP)
for the autdoor storage of semi trailers. The trailers were to be parked on the east side
of the property and screened from adjacent views with a privacy fence. The reason for
the outdoor storage request was that Savers had inadequate storage space inside the
building and required the semi trailers f~r sts~rage as an integral part af their day-ta-d~_y
~~erations. Ultimately, the ~UP request was denied by the City Counci6, based on
findings that the screening fences would not pr~~ide a~~q!,~at~ scrse~i~g f~r the
residentiai properties to the east.
At this time, Sav~rs is planning ~n expandir~g in#o the vacant end-cap portian of the
bu~lding they are (~cated iro, makir~g th~m the sc~ie user of th~ buiiding. This action wiil
enab(e the store ta gain the necessary storage space in th~ building ~c suffice their
operational needs. Along with the expansion, Savers would also like to add a loading
dock onto the east side of the building and a drop-off area on the north side of the
building. The proposed new loading dock and drop-off area require a site plan approval
because the property is located vvithin the Design Overlay Highwa}o D'ostrict.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Commercial related activities. One of the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities and mechanisms for
successful redevelopment of targeted areas within the community, by enhancing the
image and viability af the Central Avenue corridar. Une way to accomplish this goal is
for the businesses along Central Avenue to conform to the Design Guidelines for
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 4, 2010
4849 Central Ave, Savers Addition Case # 2010-0501
commercial-related activity. The proposed site plan meets the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The property is located in the GB, General Business, as are the properties to the south.
The properties to the east are zoned residential and MXD, Mixed Use Development.
i he proper"ties to the north are zoned commercial and residential, and the properties to
the west are located in the City of Hilltop. The subject parcel is also located within the
Design Overlay Highway District, and is subject the regulation~ for such properties.
SETBACKS. The GB, General Business District requires that all additions be located
na closer than 20 feet from the rear lat line and may be located directly on the side lot
line. The property at 4849 Central Avenue is a corner lot, with frontage along both
Central Avenue and 49th Avenue. Because of the orientation af the property, the lot line
along Central Avenue is considered the front lot line, making the eastern property fine
the rear lot line. The proposed loading dack addition is located on the east side of the
property and is located approximately 76 feet from the rear !ot line.
Provisions in the Zoning Code restrict the location of all loading docks to no closer than
50 feet from the lat line of any residential or residentially zoned parcels. Being that the
loading dock is 76 feet from the rear lot line, this criterion is met.
PARKING. The Zoning Code requires 1 parking stall for each 300 square feet of gross
floor area for any retail establishment. Gross floor area is calculated by taking 90% of
the total floor area. VVith the proposed addition, the Savers buildi~g wilf b~
approximatefy 3~,~~:3 square feet, with a gross floar area af 30,27Q square feet. The
size of building would require 101 parkina stalls.
~urrentiy, the pr~p~r~y ~av~r~ ~s Ic~c~ted can has 144~ parkir~g st~fls. The Ccscatian ~f the
proposed Ir~ading dock and drop-off area require sorre~ reconfiguration ~f th~ parking fat
tc~ ~ceomr~nc~dat~ on-~it~ tr~ffic as v~e{P as fihe serr~i tr~cfior~ used in ioading
merchandise, For this reason, 29 p~rking stalls will be removed fram the sit~, leaving
115 stalls for customer parking. Because only 101 parking stalls are required, the
property will have sufficient parking with the proposed additions.
DESIGN GUIDELINE~
The Columbia Heights Design Guidelines were created to guide developers and
businesses in the design of expansions, renovations or new construction of buildings or
parking within the Central Avenue and 40t" Avenue commercial corridors, and to assist
City officials and staff in reviewing development proposals. The guidelines are
mandatory, but the City may permit alternative approaches that meet the abjectives of
the design guidelines. The design district that is applied to the Savers store is the
Highway District.
Page 2
City of Cofumbia Heights Planning Commission May 4, 2010
4849 Central Ave, Savers Addition Case # 2010-0501
BUILDING MATERIA~S. The proposed loading dock will be located on the east end of
the building and will be screened by the building itself, along with the retaining walls to
the east. The dock will be approximately 1,260 square feet in area and will be
constructed of brick to match the existing building.
The drop-off area will also be constructed of brick to match the existing exterior of the
building. The use of brick is consistent with the Design Guidelines for the area:
SIGNAGE. The Sign Code only allows for a maximum of 200 square feet of signage for
buildings in the GB, General Business Qistrict. The ~ignage included with the
application material is only a representatian of the type af signage that Savers would
like to implement. The type of signage meets the Design Guideline standards, as it
consists of internally lit channel letters. However, the overall square footage of the
signage depicted in the application materials would not meet the minimum code
requirements.
Staff has informed the company in charge af Savers' ~ignage that the proposed square
footage of signag~ exceeds the rninim~m requirements of the code. They have
acquired a variance application form and e~vill mmst likely apply far a vari~r~ce to gain
more signage on the building. The variance request wauld have ta be reviewed by the
Planning Commission at a later date.
FIN~INt~~ UF FACT
Site Plan Approval
Section 9.104 (M) r~qu~res that the Planning and Zaning ~orr~missian shaif m~k~ ~~ch
of tr~e ta6fowing findings before appraving a site pian:
The site pian confarms t~ all applicabl~ requirem~nts of this article
The proposed site plan meets all th~ 17esign Ge~idelines standards for buildrng
rrsaterrafs and alscs rrreets afl set~ack requirements for additiorrs to existin~
buildings.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's
comprehensive plan.
The proposed site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the
proposal will upgrade an existing commercial business and will enhance the
image and viability of the Central Avenue corridor.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
There is no applicable area plan for this area.
Page 3
Cicy of Coiumbia Heights Pianning Commission May 4, 2010
4849 Central Ave, Savers Addition Case # 2010-0501
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate
vicinity and the public right-of-way.
The proposed site plan invo/ves the construction of a loading dock that is
screened adequately from adjacent uses. For this reason, the site plan
minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and public
right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan, as it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Move ta waive the reading of Resalution No. 2010-PZ03, there being ample copies
available to the public.
Nlov~ to adopt Resolution hlo. 2010-f'Z03, being a resolutiar~ apprcaving a site plan for
the construction of a new loading dock and drop-off area for the building located at 4849
Central Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS
= Cisaft ~escluiio~
• Location Map
~ Applicant narratiue
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-PZ03
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A
SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LOADING DOCK AP~D llROP-
OFF AREA FOR THE SAVERS STORE LOCATED AT 4849 CENTRAL AVENUE
WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2010-0501) has been submitted by Jeff Agnes, to the Plannin~ and
~uiiir~g ~ommission rec~uesting a site pla~n approval from the City of Columbia Hei~hts at the
following site:
ADDRESS: 4849 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCKIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS TH~ FOLLOWINU PERMIT: Site Plan approval far the
construetion of a new loading dock and drop-off area for the building located at 4849 Central
Avenue.
W~-IE~12~A~, the Planning ~€~minissial~ has held a pii~lic lzea~ring~ as required by the city Zoning
Code o~1 May 4, 2Q10,
WHEREAS, ~he Plannitlg and Zonin~ Commission h~s consi~ered the ad~rice and recommendations
of the City st~ff regardil~~ the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welf`are of
the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses,
traffic, property vahies, li~ht, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety i~z the surroundin~ areas;
a1~d
~~~~`~f ~'~~~~g`'~R~, B~ I'~' ~'cESv~.~~II~ by the Planning and Zoning Co~nlnissit~~~ afthe C~ty of
~ oltunbia ~~eights ~fter reviewing the proposal, t1~at the Plazini~~g ~nd Z~nir~g Cotnmission aeccpts
and a~lopts t~he follo;~ing fir~dings:
1. Tl1e site ~l~n eonfoi°ms to all applicable requiretnents of t1~is article.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
3. The site plan is consist~ent with any applicable area plan.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse iinpacts on property in the iinmediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVEll, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this pernlit and appl•oval; and in granting this permit the eity and the applicant agree
that this permit shall become null and void if the pioject has not been completed within one I
calendar ear after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
Resohition No. 2010-P703
n~..o ~
Passed this 4'h day of May, 2010,
Offered by:
Seconded by:
R~>> ~'ail:
Ayes:
Nays:
Attest:
CI-~AIR Marlaine Szurek
SECRETAKY, Sl~elley Ilansan
Approval is contingent upon executioi~ and return of this document to the City Planning Office.
I have read aild agree to the conditions of this resolution as c~utlined above.
:feff Agiies Dat~:
4849 Central Avenue
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z
_ ° ~ 5013
o ~
N o 0 0 ~ ~ N o Y ~ 5001 99y
n m m m ce o~ ao o U ~ 5000
~ Q 5001
- - ~ - `'~~
N°o ~'' o o `~ 00 N tO 840 842 4955 1000
c
~ ~ °J ~ ~ ~ ~ 4949
m 4950 4924
d 4943
N o II o 0 1° °i N m
n ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4937 4915 4922
I V ~
~ir d931 I~~~
Avc~ i "~ ~ d9iu
4925
a o d m N ro+o ` 4911 4916
~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~ a as~o
- - o i asos W
~n ~n rn ~n m v~ ~ ..., ~I Z 4901
~°m °m °m m oo mN °o ...' 841 4900 W
~ ~ II- Q
4811
4801
4T57
4707
toas - PIERCE ~,~oo
1037 1100 ' ~ ~ ~ a ryo ~
i035 ,.. N ~.ti yp~
00~ 1030 ~ ' { ~ 1,0 j
'005 1085 0 "~i v ~ w N yo ~~21 ~3~~
499 ` ~ °~ 5000 ~
~~
4995 N 50TH
1977 ° ~ o ~
~ p O N V~' W ~ O N V p
{S7S F e- '- ~- a- ~ N tV N
9005 --. ~ r. ~ ~ ~ .- .- i f eq50
-
e
4955 ~ r"~i u"'i ~ ~ M u"'i n m ~ M u"'i c~ 13
O O I O ~ ~ ~ N N N ~
LINCOLN
49pp ~
F
~~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ O O O ~ N ~ ~ m N N ~.
N ~ O .~
~ \"~/ N
'~~ Q ~ O N
M tn
~D t~ O N
N N
49 TH
asas
h O ~
O
M [f
f~0 ~ N
N
...-- --
----- m v H
~~ ~y
~~. j;~ o r ~
~
~ I e- I N N
~
°~4 aaa i~33 _~~
BOREALIS LN
... _.... ~ de,~ 3 ~
4g31 483
4$? b6
^^ 4~ ~ o ~
r
y
N ~
826 ~
~~ 82 (~
~qB~ 814
~ Qao 1039 aos e
.
'
7~ i ~ Q '^
Q,~ `ru~ ~ r' N
~ d6~03)
1131
KHYBER LN
-
~ 1070 ~
UNITS
i60~119. )W-209.3W~320 <0 A15 ^r,~ ~ o ~
^`O ' ~ ~ ~
1069
4729
. . ... ....--~- - - ------ -'----- -...~ __•_,_
47T
N
------
4657 ~ 4656 4657 4662 ~ 4657 4654
465
,tl ~. ~ ~ 4653 4648 4655 4fi60
4
4 d648 3
-
d647
4640
4649 6
8
- -- 4
4642 4645
~ s5a
4641
4636 ~ 4647 4642
4641 --- 4639
4633 4634
4634 4636
4637 4636
---......... q633
4628 4633 6 4630
4630
4625
4635 4633
4624 4627
4622 4624 4625
4621 qg~g 4629 4621
4616
4 4616 4618
4615 617
4612 6 6 D 4615
4605 ......-4607 4609 4608 4607 4609
4606 4605 4606 J
} 46
1001 1101 1111 ~ 46D1 4603
46T H
4556 4555 4556 4557 4554 4555 4556 557
4550 4556 4555 M
4549 4549 455U
~ 4546 4549 4546 4548 q545 ~
~ 454J 45 2 4543 4546 4539
N
Location Map
~P~
w~ ~e
~d`~'
S
~ ° ~,;~P ,..
~Ofj i~~'[ ~~I(1 ~ F`-~'~/,(', ~ 1I)~I~
:~Illlt.'. 1 ~~l
f Iff ~IE?:~F,U~~i ~~P~I ` ~~'~(~1
E-t~j'r y ' i "6 f4. .F...
_ _. _. .-v`'F~:.~ :
l:i l~ ~ i~: ~.'' !J I~~,i f..
. if `..~~ ~ r I ~(~.::;f<..,,..;-.i:''
A I I ACHMENT - for Site Plan Review Application
Re: SAVERS ADDITION/TENANT IMPROVEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED
(Per poc. No. 1979319.001) Anoka County Court File No. C9-05-7256.
That part of Section 25, Township 30, Range 24, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence South along the West
line thereof 383.0 feet; thence East at right angles 550.0 feet; thence North at right angles 254 feet more or
less ta the centerline of 49th Avenue NE; thence Northwesterly along the said centerline to the point of
beginning, according to the United States Gavemment Survey thereof and situate ir Anaka Coun~y,
Minnesota.
Except that part of a permanent easement described as follaws:
That part of the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 25, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota,
described as fo~lows:
Commencing at the Northwest carner afi said NW1/4 nf t~~ ~~t1/q; thence on an assum~d bearing uf
SO°24'48"W along the West line of said NW1/4 af the SW1/4, a distance of 383.00 feet; thence S89°35'12"E,
a distan~e of 55Q.QQ feef to the point of beginninc~ of land ta be described; thence N89°35'12"W, a disfance
of 59.18 feet; thence N21°58'09"E, a distance of 25.42 feet; thence S88°13'46°E, a distance af 12.39 feet;
thence NO°13'48°E, a distan~? af 12?.15 feef; thence N22°5~'14"W, a disfance of 1 i G.52 feet ta the sautheriy
right of way line of 49th Avenue; thence S66°47'16"E, along said southerly right of way line, a distance of
24.84 feet; thence southeasterly, alang said southerly right of way line, alang a tangenfial curve, concave to
the northeast, having a radius of 749.77 fee't, central angle of 4°47'26", a distance of 62.69 feet to its
intersection with a line that bears NO°24'48"E from the point of beginning; thence SO°24'48"W, a distance of
220.50 feet to the point of beginning.
ANQ
Outlot A, GRAND CENTRAL LOFTS SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat fhereof, Anoka County,
Minnesota
REASON FOR ~EQUEST
The main tenant (SAVERS) in this existing multi-tenant building is expanding into the adjacent vacancy such
that the building will now be a single-ienant building.
A new ramped and enclosed 42 ft. x 30 ft. loading dock is being added to the east end of the existing building
to address a long-standing issue of a lack of loading area for the main tenant. A retaining wall on the far east
end wii~ double as a partial screen for the loading area; aii materials will match and blend with the existing
building, including fhe screen ~rall.
The parking lot will be adjusted on the east end to accommodate semitrailer maneuvering. The addition of a
low-rise, CMU retainin~ wall v~ill keep the existirc bou{der retaining wali ur~affected. When completed, there
will be 120 parking stalls (85 sta(Is are required).
The customer drop-off area will relocate to the northwest corner of the building and the main entry will shift
westward and include a new entry parapet which again, matches and blends with the existing buiiding
architecture.
, ,~
~~.,. ~':=~°-~"~~"%~.: o~''~~,.. m
~ D
'II -_ _ ~ ~ '~o ~
~ ~ 1 p
:
~ ,
. , N . ~ ; ,,. N
. . . .. . .. .. . . _ . , ~ , .
.._. .._ .__. ... .. . .._._. .. . . . ~~ . a o .
.. . , j ~ ~ - ,,
~ .. '~,, ~ ~ 4 ~'~'~,.
~~
o , ~
.._.. .. _ .. ... . .... .. .. . . s ... ;
..... . .... ~-~- ~ ~ il ,
'_. .._ ...... _ -....._.. ... ... . ........ ....._. ...__ _-."_"'___- _.... ...__..
. ____ ~ m o ~..
<
CENTRAL AVENUE NE ~ m " ~ '~.
-__ _-. _ __ mpf=il ~.
_D
AO
. .... . . . . Z ~~~,
.. ~' .. ~ - ~ .. . .. ... .. ~ . .
~ . .. .. ... . .. . .. ~ ...
r : ___ _ . _._-_'_' -'""-_-'-"-___'- ~ ....
._ -'_'_ _."_' '_'____._.._ _.~ ~. _"_-
~i' '
' . . . . . ~ ..:
I~ - 1 - I ,
I, ~
f :
. .... rt ~ ~ ~ '~
~' ~ '.
i',. O x O~ :'" _ ',, ~'~
~~. ~ ~ ~ ~~. ',
Z A ~
~. II~Z D~ ~~rryp ~I,~ ~~. I .
. Vi ~ G, a-^TT'f-•"'.! I
~~~~ ~: (J p m ... ,
'i ~. ~ D .~ 4 ..'a ~~. . I .
~
O I ~p Z
f~'. qII b b 1,.~ ,
I X I . . . ~. . _
siz f m-1
~ ~ ~ ~
f~~'i JJ DC~A ZR A' Z'~,.Nm . , /
Or ~p yr~ ~~ .
(~ ' Z<ZOI~ ~Op ;p-~~ . ..
I~~~~. i m Q 6i ~~ y m < c c ~ '. . ~'.,.. I
TpnO ym~ Nmm ;C
~ ~ ~ ~
~I A9p 9~ C~ ~ZmA ~. . , ., . :j~I.
~I ~ n .'il O Z ~ T . v ,r2 ; .~~, / :
y
a
N,.~j ~m ~ ~ ~~ !
` Z ~ C '!" . ~~: ~ i !~O
~ , ~" m - ~ ~,. . ~ . . !?~
~ z ~ '~
~ Nm i~, ,mc .
f''~. oox ~~~(I~~ _. ...,. ~// m2
f o m =+ o ~ s ~ ' q .,.,~ ~ / ' ~~.
~
i~ 'o_ A o ° c .~ ST\
I zr~ ',1~ 7, II ~~ / r
1
~~ ~~v o '~~ ~Ir - ~FFT
~~~' ~ ~~~ III ,, . ~:
if ~ A p O p Y= a\~~~~ ... ,r ~::.
~ ~
I ~ ,~ I ~ ~~ 1 ~ , ~ i
,
~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ - ~- ~ /
/
I ~_ ~ I ~' -- ? i
~~'~~ ~ ~' /
.~==r'~ i I / ~/
C~,
I~ i T
; I
~ - , i
I i i ~ D n N
~ ~
p '~ C'Z
L~ i.,: __ __ -.___ _ __ J ~ ~ A Z y C '~ 2(A OIZ
D '~ ~ Dly~ Tm -i()~~~
I I ~ i AN~~OCNii~r Ny..T01 ~~y0m
mO'~m1m~c mm`~D'~m ~z ~yo
f/1-m ~1 02 ~1 l~~(~ NR D~~ .UR1 ~m 00 2 mfil ~~mx O~_ omm].1~,x N~N~C
fIX XOT A-ICO _n0 O X DX -n ~ X ~o oZ" m'S fn(/:~Tm'O A~
Ot~D mn~ 3ZDZ A(~ o y~ ~<n Zv tn3 ~`~ m-Ni ~ m~p n o i~ -ni: D'O D ~iZm
~ -1T._.9 AC1 OfM1T~ IT -~ --1 !n> m0 ~'{~,mioiil0 ~ ~"~ '.,~ m w.-y1
ZNm ~m~ ~Z AIp*I ZZD O ZO 2p~ ~0 ~O rR~i ~Z ~A!^~N~vir O~Ta~lz il~lZl
~' C p~ ym L~~n N ~ O mm () C O~ D~ DD-1w IU
NOA Z]Ir nmRlrm ~~m o~tn ~O AO ~~ O 00 m~mmU>~~~,,~ GJL10i1 I~ +ID
~Om ~A~ D~ j r-i~ ~ ~.-. KA ~ ~ V m p ~mOO'°o~ ODT~ IIO o
~A ~n=~ z y$,F A NN£m oz _ m A 9~"'0+ ~ o~m o,n
m~ >p ~-mi p ~ y n-i O z y y ~,.~mop m D D N(~
~N r~nm ~~ ~ Sa Z ~Z x~ ~ ~ z i7 .o A ~ ~ z
FT ~pO ZO C C ffi ~n
O D % z ~~~ 2 ~ ? '',.~0 0 0 op D p x
2p D~
~~z0 ~m f~'lZ O A~ D C Z D O O w
S~ ~ p n IO
~ Q ~ ~ ~
~ ' ° ' ~ _'~~ ~ ~ ~~_ ~ ~ ~~oa
~ D ~~ ~~I ~_~, I _ ~ ~~ i zg ~3~ ~ ~ N~ o~~
AA ~ _
g o~ a~ g$, ~~.., mm ~~°<3 i~~~ _a.~ g s ;p -OT~-
~ a m~ , ., .~~ oo ~ a -
i ~
' s z tA ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ .,
o „~~~ ~~~ " ~ z
~ ' :~ ~ ~ .,~ ~g ~~"~~~~~..~~_~ "' cn n
~
.. _ . I~: ~ ~ ~w~E~ x ~~_ :a '~..o o .'
I
~ ~
A'g A 8 ~
~ ~~ .
~ 3 .C' s . . . . ~
3:'., g '`i 3 : ~ _ 2 _C €
d g
i Y ~ 3-. %~..
~
~ 4~ : .
~ a
~ 7 ~ 3 -
F a a
. ~ ~
~
~ .
3~ 3 -
~
"
Sg . A
S$"^ ~
`
;G
`
~ ~
',
O '3°`y ~ _
~R
s
~ ~
3 .
~ ~
g ~ §8 0 ~ `~g.
gft .
~
s
v
$
i } 5
x
g _ R s
0
~ ,i 1
~ ~
~ R ~
-
R. .' Z
$
~
?
~
k
as
~
~
6
R `
~
4 ~ Zg
~
S a ..
x
g
~a
~ ~ s ~, >.
Z
..
~
~ & L
-
-
& ~ .3~ ~ R ~ 3
° g
8 a
.~. . 3
S ~ ~
: §,Q
.Y S 3:
e
R '
~
F
g
83
}
3 R '
'
rc
4
g
'm
&
~ '•
4 ~ S b
°
e.
n "
g.e s
3
~R
§
~ ~ ~; ~ 3 ~
a
3
e
s
~~ 3
-.d
': .~, ~ fra~ ace
°
H g
;
; 9 s s
g
~
~ R z~B £ . $ .~" : ~~~ o S ~ ~
;
~
s
.
` ${a.o ~ .
~ a
g f x .. . -
~
b . ` x . $ K
~
~ _ . ~ ~ g x
~p
R
-
-
p
3e "-
4°at ~"- ~ E a ~.-j %
~ ~ fi
~ 9 Q 8. _ ~3 a 5 Y _ RA g .
_
cgC^
4b ~^ ~
.e
~g- '
S
~
~
Suog~ ! ' 3' °~ ~ 8~ ~
~ 3g R~ t ~.. A
- 3
''~
g
~~5° 5 R° ead ~ ~ 3 .
8 .- 4. 6 ' ~ a
e ~
~ d P .~
~ 9c
R
~
~op $ ~ a' ~ . r ° a ° ~ S
~
' ° ,
a~
o ~
~ ' e.
~ ~ d
$ i
P3
p ~ r~ ~
: ° 3 s,~ s
: Y g
.
-
,
`
~
a : a ~~ . y
~
§ a° . - 9; ~
~~a ,
.
~
~'
A
~
_
4F~~ ~' ~
~
$ fi
- E
1' ~
& . gR . 2 .°
~_' g s_
e.
F ~
F _
as9 xR
~ .
g
i",~ o °a ~ 3j ~.
E . ~
d 3 - ~
t~- .5 ~ d sj~
" ~ d X ' ~, A~
P R R 4
F~~ 6. "3_. 3 - gS o
-..
^
RL .. .e 3 ~ q
.
,. '
^
"^ 9~ B
_
~
I
3
.q_
~.R .R
~ [ 8 ~
~ ~ 7
£
' a
F
3
g
~~
_
9 0 ~~ ~2' g B' ~
,
'R ~e S ~ ~ _ 3 §"
..o £ .o A p 3~ A..N i
~q
'3 . '
Z i>:
y
a9£ .' s
~~
~~ ~ £ .
_ -, .
~ '.
~ e. .
Y . ~
g
~ ,
~ o.
'
P
.
..
~ . s g - _ '
a~ x_ x ' s a ~~as
~
is€ -
¢e~
~
~
~ y
- o
_
~
. ~~~~a g~
-
a:a ~ .-
:
.Y$ 3 ~~
- a e~ B_ z~
~
~
-
o ° ~ ~
~ - u
~ ' a
~ § y_ ~
~d ~ ~
R3 '. ..§73 F~ ~°i
9 ¢
F '
~ . : j 3 _
~ S ..~ p
R 2 ,',
~
g
~om
g. = ~~' -
~ - E -
~ 9a 3 3: ~
- '
'~
£
~'E ~~8 4g ~ _ . 3 _
., . ; S
.
° F , R
`
y n
~'9 Xo
'
~ _ j
~ aq _ u
~ g
i b§ $
a ~ ~
] ~' _
q g ~
~
.~ ~
_ ~ i~$ ~
~
~4 8 5 Raa
~' S
2
8 5 `
- ; ' ,~~ ° S ~~£
" a ~
= ~e~ ~
t A A qa
o ~. s f s
o ~ a ~ ~
- ' s ? ~ e~
N a ~ o ~
„ a ~:a ,:
~ - ~ sg
n ; $ .
o-~ ~
3
B A~
~: ~ $
~ ~ ~g e;
F ~. - 9a
_ - ":3 s~~
" _ iS ~
~~
a , fi ~4
k~~~~
~
S
~ i2
$
~
C~~~F'
`Y~ ''-r'.
~
N - L
o ~~€ ~$~~~~
$~~ a
~ - ~
()
Z ~
~ g~ °g
~
~ ~~~~a p~4
Z ~
'il
.~
~
-
~
p
~ $
~f
~~
5p Y59e~~ ~
~..
_
~_~
~
b
°_A~~m
~~i~~p
F'S94
£~
m Y~n
~ ~~ ~
~ ~ \~
, I
~ T
~ ~G
~~~,
~fi~ ~~k ~ I ~a t
€_
~~ ~ 4 f
, ~ ,A d
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ .
~ Eg9 c
8 g
a~ ; _
4 ~ _ _~ 9,' '
R 2 R d
s °hd -
s ~qa s~
: ~ °~
"ss
~ y'~
2 a~.3 ~
€3 _ ~
~~
~aH ~ ~
3 " s -a
is s
5~
a
~
9 3a - -
~ i 4 -
~~ _
_ ~~ ^'3
e3e_ v
a u
ya 3
4 3
~;-2
R
~'-s
' g ~~_g ~
` ~ ~ - ~
d
~ .~ .
~ g
x -
3 3
~ ~{ ~ 3.3..a- ~~ "
£
k ~ " g'
~ ~ , ~_ -
a , ,~ gN
M e ax
' •'z e
i s ~3 0
~
3 9
A t
o ~
~ `: .
" F R
.~ ~ ~. % 8 : ` Y%..
~ x
h~d s R £`~ ~ .~."~ 3 g .a
~ S ~ 3 6 3
~xs 8 x ~Es a~ ;-
~ ~ 5 ~' - 3 d k~ ~ e-~£
3 ~ ~~ ~ 3~
~ :5 ~ - S ~ ft ~
y i : a„
' R 3 9
q ° ~ a ' ~
3 ~ ~
~ 3
3
~ x ' a
; 3A 3ff .
E r ~, i
R .s i
i' T ER R
~ So_ _ ~ ~3E..
y ~ 3 ~
~ $ ? 4
3 .k SF~F
1~^~ 3~ ..- _
S
E n~"
A $.€~ ° ~ 1
~ ~~ ~ '
~ h5~ ~~ \
~ ~ ~~/ 'q'
s ~P; ~ lie^
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~
L € ~~0
!
~ ~\ ~~i
~ fa~o~ A
~ ~~ ~~
€ ,~~ ~
~'
~'lo -_J
J~1L~'~ § ~=„a~.~.
~ g
g S
g 2
a
4
~ ~Q
~9
8
s:
S
~ ;a - i
8
~$~ ~ F 9 § ~
So ~ ~.
g ~ 2
d 3 Y
e fl a °
~~) ~ . '
~ ~ _
s "
; g ~'-
_ ~ $ s ~ ''~s ~
~gn _'o ~
e ~ s ` x
~£; ~q 8
~ . 3 a
frg L ~d
s ~ x
3
9 ~
s s' 8' s
,3 s
; s R -
3 ~~
.y ~ ~
. g
aR ~a
_ 2 ~
6 b ~ » Y
c~ ^~ Q
~3 3
z -
2 d
~~ -
^'E BR i
~=. s
Sa R~
~ ~_
ge 5
t #'.,
a
~
_- ~. ~
f
3~ R ~
s ^ ~ 3 n~
~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..
~ , ~~Fg' ~e 9 k € g
~ a' 3s r. ~ ~ x ~ ~
:.Q p~~ ~ ~~ s s s q
o _ F
~ L g
. - ~ ~ d ~ 8 . ~ ri - - S ~' ~,o
gg ~T a s -~%' ~ 3_
a
4a' $ ~ ry i s a ~_
&:~ ~~ 5~ £ ~ 4 _ t' _
3 R
~ - Y~ ..a-~, ~ -
a R ~ e
3 Z 6 g.
8 g
~ S_
. ,.y$ ~ ~ R -.
o A~ ~ ~
~ 3
3 ~ _
. ~ $ ~ ° ~
" S g ~. ~ . 0~ ~.~' ~
a -~P° 'o' •~do b"
~R.g ~e~,~ s ts~ _
aT~FB§ ~ P ''$ '
4 ~. - 23 F
_ . a x i~ :~~e~O g °
~ 3
I
~ e4e; ~;
2
\P, .g 3.
,,a ~3;
= 35
d 8"
xg e
a .S S° ;
~ ,~5a
>~ :
a "s- ~
3
a. a::a
;a `
? 5~A?.
8 ~
a~
8
~ . -
~~_
~g
~i"
S'
~ _ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~~ ~I ~ !~ il ~~~~~ - - _
Z R '~ .. ~ 5 ~6 ~ I ~ 8
/~ 00 . ~ „ . . ~ , . m~7 ~ ~ ~
l J m _ ~ ~; . . . - O
~ ~ m w ~<. . . . . .
r . _ . , . . . . G~ . o ~
. :. ~~,t . ~ . ~ .c~
D m = Iz ~ I~ ~~ .. .. r~
N - - ~ F~- _< g <
r ~_~ i ~
_
D - -i
7~ -
~
f
F m
(b ' 6~ ~
Z m _
~~~ i ~ ~ W
o ~~ I
~°€ , ~ s ~p
I ~ ;
~g II ~ I I~ ~ ~ Z~ ~,
~ z
k'~
sA
I=
~v
-C
k~
~
0
~
? ~
O -
?
C
N
~
_ C:
a
p.,
i~
L e~
s
I~
I_
~
s
_~.~
9
~
-~ v
n
~~ ~
~' . I~.~. ed'
i i
I { '_.
f y
j
_ y I' ~
~ I ~
-E-C -.... ' ._I_C%
_ _ _ _ - -_ -,-, ~
, ~u c~c~~ c oc~ w.oc~ ~ o c ~e? ~~w;~ g
' ~~ 2 3~Y~ wY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~63~ ~ ~~. § ~~y~~ ~ R~ ~. ~Y~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~. ~, q ~s & ~ ~ s6 ~ ~ 3 8 ~~ ~ ~~i € ~ ~ e s ~ ~
¢ f# i$~~ ~ ~$ _ 6ss s c a9 ~ a~~$~ i e~ m
~ ~; ~ ~ ~i~ a § ~s a ~~'-~s ~~z~ eg~ x . ; , <
~ s g~ ~ a s~~ ~ ae i ~~i ~- S r0 3, a` ~ € i o
~ ~j `a ~a t ~~ ~ ~~ p ~A, s~ q ~ ~ ~P ~s t ^~ e
; ~ ~~ F ~ s¢; ys ~ ~£ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ , ~ i ; ~ I ti
~ i~ ~ ~i ~§ s;~ ~ ss~ i a ,
€ ~ ~ ~ «h ° € ~ fse ' 3 ~~ '~? : ~ ~
~ a s~ ~~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ g ; ~~ F ~:
a
' n ~
~
~y ~ ~ ~~
~- ~ v~ . ..._J
s ~ y~~
M1[p v
A a
J
~ g ~ ~ , ,
0
~
~
Ex
zy
c
~
~e
F
-~s
E.
~ ~
~
7
~=_.C ___l=J
~ ~ a
.'
- ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~, .~ o>
~
~ ~ N ~ ~ o D
N
_
, ~ I I
% ~
w
~nC€I
y ~; ~~~
~ ~
I ~.3~I ~..~ ~ ~ ~~:~ ~~,.
~
~ I
~
~
~ ,P ~oQ~
° ~
Lc
_ ~
' r ~
,. .
.
_
3~4 ~ ~ ~`p~ ~ ~ ~~ T ~ ,--•
~ z ~ CD
I ~ ~}~~~~ag
qa
~
~ o ~
' c I~
~
gg'9I
~ ~ ~
CITY OF COLUMBIA HE(GHTS PL.ANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2010-0502
DATE: May 4, 2010
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: City ofi Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to 4utdoor Seating
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
~ACKCROUN~
The City of Calumbia Heights is experiencing a number af dining establishments that have
requested the ability to serve food and/or alcoho! to customers outside. To date, the City
does not have a formal ordinance regulating this type of use. For that reason, staff is
proposing a Zoning Arnendment to help regulate restaurants and other eateries that might
want to serve patrons outdoors.
The necessity of such an ardinance amendment originates from the possibility that some
restaurant~ may want to ~erve alcohol t~ their patrans whi{~ they dine outdaors, ~he City
of Columbia Neight~' Palice Chief, Scott f~adea~ expressed the desire to regulate fhe
m~nr~er in vvhich resta~arants could s~rve alcohol ta patrons c~utdaars becaus~ ~f the
potentia{ negative circumstances ~hat such actions could present.
~~MPP~EFIEN~I~/E PLAN
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the economic viability of the
community. The proposed amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
by aliawing the contir~ual use and enjayment of restaurants and other dining place~ in a
safe manner.
An overarching goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure the safety and welfare of the
general public. By restricting areas in which alcohol may be served outside a restaurant,
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 4, 2010
City of Columbia Heights, Outdoor Seating Case # 2010-0502
ZONING ORDINANCE
The proposed amendments made to the Zoning Ordinance would include language
regarding the operation of outdoor seating space for restaurants and other eating
establishments. The proposed changes include:
Outdoor seating plans will be subject to Planning Commission approval through
the ~ite Plan Approval Process.
2. Outdoor seating shall be located fully on the property in which it is intended, and
may not restrict pedestrian traffc on public rights-of-~~vay.
3. Outdoor seating shall be on a hard surface meeting all Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
4. No autdoor seating shall be allowed on driveways ar parking areas.
5. If the intent is tc ser~re alcohol outside, the fc~llowing regulations shall be
enforced:
a. The outdaor dining area shall be adjacent t~ the principal building and
access shall be provided from within the principal building anly.
b. A barrier shall be installed around the perimeter of the outdoor seating area,
and shall be approved administratively on a case-by-case basis.
c. The barrier shalf nat permit free and easy access t~ th~ c~utdac~r seating area
directly from the outside.
6. If the inter~t is to not serve alcahol outside, the bu~ir~ess shall ~upply ~he city with
an affidavit st~~ir~~ th~~ r~o ~Icahcal ~ill b~ s~rved o~atdoars.
7. The design of the patio area and any fencing and fandscaping shali be such th~~
sight iines in and out af ~xis~ing or proposed access points are r~ot abstructed.
8. Temporary structures shall not be allowed within the autdoor dining area.
9. ~anners, streamers ar o~her types af permanent or temporary signs shall not be
placed or displayed in outdoor dining areas.
10. The outdoor dining area shall not take on characteristics of a building having a
roof and/or walls.
11. The on-site parking requirements shall only pertain to the indoor seating capacity
and shall nat apply to any outdoor seating.
Page 2
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 4, 2010
City of Columbia Heights, Outdoor Seating Case # 2010-0502
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Calumbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make
each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment:
The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C~nn nf th~ ~naps nf thP (1~-n,e~r~hensivP Pl~n is tn ~nhance the economic viability of
the community. The proposed amendment would be consistent wifh the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing the continual use and enjoyment of restaurants
and ather dining ~iaces in a sat`e mar7ner.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a
single property owner.
The proposed amendment would be etfective for any restaurant ar food
establishment in the city.
3. Where the amer~dment is to change the zoning classificatior~ of a particular
praperty, the existing use af the praperty and the zoning classificatian of
property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with
the proposed zoning classification.
Not applicable.
4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
prepetty, there has ~~en a ch~n~~ in the character or tren~l of dP~Plo~r~~r~fi ir~
the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such
property was placed in ihe current zoning ciassificatian.
r~fot applicable.
~ECO MEN~ATION
Staff recornmends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
proposed zoning amendment.
Attachments
• Draft zoning ordinance
Page 3
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
BEING AN~ ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANC'E NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF
2005 RELATING TO OUTDOOR SEATING FOR R~STAURANTS AND OTHER
EATING ESTABLISHM~NTS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The Cit,y of Columbia Heights does c~rdain:
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.107 (C)(1) of tlie Columbia Heights City Code, is
pr~posed t~ inelude the fo~lovving additions and deletions:
§ 9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(C) Specific developn~ent standards. T'he followin~ uses are subject to specific
developinent standards:
(34) ~actr~o~~ sec~tango
a. Outdo~~- s~ating ~~ar~s widl be sulbjec~ ~~ Pl~~ning Comrnission
approval th~~ough the Site Plan ~~pr~val Pracess.
b. Outdoor seatin~ shall be located fully on the ~rc-perty in w~ich it is
intended, and may not restrict pedestrian traffic on public rights-of-way.
c. Outdoor seating shall be an a hard surface meeting all Americans
with I7-isabilities Act ~A~A) requirements.
~. 1`Ia c~atde~~r seatY~~ sh~t1 ~e allo~ec~ a~n ciry~e:~ays ~ar ~ar~~~ng ~reas.
~. If t~~ ~~~~a~~ ~s ~~a sea-ve ~fle~h~i ~aatside, t~~ ~~~~~a~~a~g a~~gt~~~~ao~~ ~l~~tl
be enforced:
1. 'i'he outdoor dining area shail be adjacent to the principal
building and access shall be provided from within the principal building only.
2. A barrier shall be installed around the perimeter of the outdoor
seating area, and shall be approved administratively on a case-by-case basis.
3. The barrier shall not permit free and easy access to the outdoor
seating area directly from the outside.
f. If the intent is to not serve alcohol outside, the business shall supply
the city with an affidavit stating that no alcohol will be served outdoors.
g. The design of the patio area and any fencing and landscaping sha^ be
such that sight lines in and out of existing or proposed access points are not
obstructed.
h. Temporary structures shall not be allowed within the outdoor dining
area.
i. Banners, streamers or other types of permanent or temporary signs
shall not be placed or displayed in outdoor dining areas.
j. The outdoor dining area shall not take on characteristics of a building
having a roof and/or walls.
k. The on-site parking requirements shall only pertain to the indoor
seating capacity and shall not apply to any outdoor seating.
*NOTE* Existing Code Sections 9.1 U'7 (C)(3} (34-47) shall be renumber~d accorclillgly.
Cliap~er 9, A~•iicte I, ~ection }.I 1G (E)(~) of ~he ~`ol~imbia Heights City Code, is propc~sed
to incllzcie the following adciitions anc~ cleletio~ls:
~ 9.110 ~O1VIlVIE~~IAL llISTRIC'I'S.
(~) G13, Genercal ~z~sin~ss ~istrict.
(5} Per~~~itted accessory a~ses. Except as specitic~lly liinited herein, the
followin~ accessory Llses sh~ll be permitted in the G~B, General Business District:
(a} I'rivate garages, parking spaees and laading areas.
(b} Accessory buitdings.
(c} Landscapin~ and other hortieultural L~ses.
(d} Iilcidental repair or processing necessary toe conduct the pennitted
principal use, provided the accessory iise does not exceed 30% of the floor area.
(e) 'Cemporary construction buildings.
(f) Signs as regulated by § 9.106.
(g) Outdoor seating for restaurants and other eating
establishments.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (F)(5) of the Golumt~ia Hei~hts C~ity Code, is proposed
to include the following additions and deletions:
§ 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
(F) CBD, Central I3i,~siness District.
(5) Permztted accessory us•es. Except as specifically liinited herein, the
following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CBD, Central Business District:
(a) Pri~~ate ~ara~es, parking spaces ar~d loading areas.
(b) Accessory buildings.
(c) Laildscaping and other horticultural uses.
(d) Incidental repair or prc~cessing necess~ry toe conduet the permitted
principal use, provic~ed tlle accessory use does not exceed 30% of the floor area.
(e) Temporar~ constructioll buildings.
(f} Signs as regulated by ~ 9.106.
(g~ ~Jutc3oar seating for a-estaurants ar~d ~ther eating
estabIishments.
Section 2:
This ardinance shall be in filli force and effect from and after 30 days aFter its
passage.
~'irst ~eading: 1~1~y I~J, 2~J1~
Second Reading: May 24, 2(~ 10
Date ~f` 1'assage:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Attest:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Patricia Muscovitz, C1V[C
City Clerlc/Council Secretary