HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2010 P & Z MinPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 2, 2010
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek.
Commission Members present- Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek
Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), Scott Clark (Community
Development Director), Council member Bruce Nawrocki, and Shelley Hanson (Secretary).
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutes from the meetings of .Ianuary S, 2010.
All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (The cases were heard out of number sequence).
CASE NUMBER: 2010-0301
APPLICANT: Linders Greenhouses
LOCATION: 4300 Central Ave
REQUEST: Interim Use Permit (Outdoor Seasonal Sales)
INTRODUCTION
Linder's Greenhouses has applied for an Interim Use Permit for the operation of a seasonal mini-garden
center for flowering plans and retail sales. The City of Columbia Heights has recently amended the
ordinance regarding outdoor seasonal sales in all zoning districts, and now requires an Interim Use Permit
rather than a Conditional Use Permit. The specific development standards for an outdoor sales/display
establishment are found at Section 9.107 (C)(28), and will be added as conditions of approval for this
permit. The will be the Linder's 21st year operating a temporary greenhouse at this location in Columbia
Heights.
The site plan and configuration remains unchanged from previous years. A fence will enclose the patio and
connect to each structure. The greenhouse structures will be the same as previous years with four, six-foot
doors remaining open at all times during business hours. There will be at least four fire e~tinguishers in the
Flower Mart and all smoking will be prohibited. The principal uses of the subject parcel are preexisting
and comply with zoning regulations. The two structures and patio will displace approximately 30 parking
spaces and a drive aisle.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial use, including retail sales, offices and
service businesses. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The zoning classification for this property located at 4300 Central Avenue is GB, General Business
District. Retail uses are allowed in this zoning district.
Existing parking exceeds zoning requirements. Section 9.106 (L)(10) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that
commercial uses provide 1 parking space for each 300 square feet of use. Therefore, the existing 144,900-
square foot commercial building is required to have 483 parking spaces. After using the 30 parking spaces
for the greenhouses, the site still has 598 parking spaces. Furthermore, with the location of the display area
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 2
March 2, 2010
on the opposite side of the parking lot as the store entrances, the operation should not have any effect on
vehicular access for the site.
Please note that the Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and has no concerns regarding it.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines seven findings of fact that must be met in order for the
City to grant an interim use permit. They are as follows:
The use is one of the interim uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is
a substantially similar use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Outdoor sales/display establishments are an Interim Use in the GB, General Business District, and
are considered retail sales, which are permitted.
2. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for commercial use. Outdoor sales/display
uses are allowed as conditional uses in all residential districts.
The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
The closest residential property to the south is over 300 feet from the proposed temporary use. In
addition, the amount of space dedicated for the gr~eenhouse sales is relatively small at
approximately 1, 000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed temporary use should not have any
detrimental impact on neighboring properties.
4. The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
The garden center as proposed will have no impact on the use of adjacent properties.
The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is compatible with
the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area.
Linder's has been in operation for 20 years at this location, with the City experiencing no
complaints. The proposed garden center should not negatively impact the existing character of the
vicinity.
6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets
and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
The traffic generated by the garden center will not significantly increase the traffic on the public
streets, and the site is large enough to handle additional interior traffic.
7. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect on other uses in the immediate vicinity.
As indicated by prior descriptions, the garden center should not have a negative impact on other uses
in the immediate vicinity, which are zoned for residential and commercial uses.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit for seasonal agricultural
sales subject to conditions of approval outlined below.
PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES
PAGE 3
MARCH 2, 2010
Questions from 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 or layout of the space. Sargent told him it
would be the same as they have done in years past.
Public Hearing Opened:
No one wished to speak on this matter.
Public Hearin~ Closed.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Commission approves the Interim Use
Permit for seasonal agr~icultural sales at 4300 Central Avenue NE from April IS through July IS, 2010,
subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest
and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including:
1. Outdoor agr~icultural/produce sales located within the public right-of-way are prohibited.
2. All goods shall be displayed in an orderly fashion, with access aisles provided as needed.
3. Music or amplified sounds shall not be audible from adjacent residential properties.
4. Signage shall be limited to (2) professionally made signs per structure, not exceeding thirty-two
(32) square feet per sign.
S. The outdoor storage shall be located as indicated on the site plan.
6. A$S00 deposit shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to
installation of the structures on the site. The deposit shall be refunded after the Conditional Use
Permit expires and the site has been cleaned up.
7. The proposed fence must be 20 feet from the retaining wall for safety vehicular access.
All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-PZOl
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE
PERMIT FOR LINDER'S GREENHOUSES, INC WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2010-0301) has been submitted by Linder's Greenhouses to the Planning and Zoning
Commission requesting an Interim Use Permit approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4300 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Interim Use Permit for outdoor seasonal
sales from April 15, 2010 to July 15, 2010.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on March 2,
2010;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air,
danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
MARCH 2, 2010
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia
Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following
findings:
1. The use is one of the interim uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is a
substantially similar use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
2. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
4. The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
5. The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is compatible with the
appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area.
6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the pubic streets and to
provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
7. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative
effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit
shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one L) calendar vear after the approval date,
subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. Outdoor agricultural/produce sales located within the public right-of-way are prohibited.
2. All goods shall be displayed in an orderly fashion, with access aisles provided as needed.
3. Music or amplified sounds shall not be audible from adjacent residential properties.
4. Signage shall be limited to (2) professionally made signs per structure, not exceeding thirty-two (32) square
feet per sign.
5. The outdoor storage shall be located as indicated on the site plan.
6. A$500 deposit shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to installation of the
structures on the site. The deposit shall be refunded after the Interim Use Permit expires and the site has been
cleaned up.
7. The proposed fence must be 20 feet from the retaining wall for safety vehicular access.
Passed this 2"d day of March 2010,
Offered by: Peterson
Seconded by: Thompson
Roll Call: All ayes
CHAIR Marlaine Szurek
Attest:
SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson
Approval is contingent upon execution and return of this document to the City Planning Office.
I have read and agree to the conditions of this resolution as outlined above.
Ciao Cella Date
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 5
MARCH 2, 2010
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
INTRODUCTION
2010-0304
Randy Yeary
4048 Central Avenue
Site Plan Approval for Siding
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 the property with the intent on making major improvements in
order to have apartment tenants move into the upstairs. The proposed new siding for the building requires a
site plan approval because the property is located within the Design Overlay Downtown District. Sargent
reviewed pictures of what the building looked like before the remodeling and of what it currently looks like
since he started the remodel.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Commercial related activities. One of the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the image and viability of the Central Avenue corridor. One way to
accomplish this goal is for the businesses along Central Avenue to conform to the Design Guidelines for
commercial-related activity. The proposed site plan meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The property is located in the CBD, Central Business District, as are the properties to the north, south and
east. The properties to the west are zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. The subject parcel is also
located within the Design Overlay Downtown District, and is subject the regulations for such properties.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
BUILDING MATERIALS. The Design Guidelines specify the types of building materials required for all
buildings along Central Avenue. A list of accepted primary materials includes: brick, natural stone, stucco
and precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that surfaces are molded, serrated or treated with a
te~tured material in order to give the wall surface a three-dimensional character. A list of prohibited
materials include: unadorned plain or painted concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, pre-fabricated steel or
sheet metal panels, aluminum, vinyl, fiberglass, asphalt or fiberboard (masonite) siding.
Originally, the applicant proposed to install vinyl siding on the top half of the entire building, as he was
unaware that the City had Design Guidelines governing the type of building materials that he may use.
Once 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 such materials. The applicant had a specific budget for upgrading the building prior to buying it, and
discovered many 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 of the
building with a heavy gauge (0.046") thick vinyl siding, using Earth-tone colors.
In this case, staff feels that the deviation from the Design Guidelines can be justified. This is an existing,
old building in dire need of repair and upkeep. The north side of this building is located appro~mately 4
feet from the neighboring structure, and passersby would have difficulty seeing any type of siding on that
wall. The south side of this building is visible from Central Avenue, but not entirely. The west side (back)
of the building abuts residential zoning and residential uses to the west across the alley. Being that vinyl
siding is typical in a residential conte~t, staff feels that the building would fit into the surrounding area.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 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:
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article
The proposed site plan meets all the Design Guidelines standards for building materials, but the
applicant is requesting a deviation from the guidelines for a portion of the building.
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 upgr~ade
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.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public
right-of-way.
The proposed site plan will upgr~ade the image of the surrounding area tremendously. The
proposed deviation from the Design Guidelines will also fit into the character of the surrounding
properties as it incorporates design elements commonly seen in residential districts.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan with the proposed deviations from the Design
Guidelines, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will severely upgrade the appearance of the
building, enhancing the image of the Central Avenue corridor.
Questions from members:
Fiorendino asked if construction had already started. Sargent said he has done some interior work and
replaced the windows. He also removed the old stucco to replace rotted wood. His original plan was to
replace the stucco/brick with vinyl siding on the entire building, but when he came in for the building
permit, staff told him that wasn't possible since the building falls under the Design Guidelines.
Schmitt asked if he would be using stucco and stone on the front. Mr. Yeary said he would be using the
stone on the entire front of the building and wrapping it around the sides. He showed the members samples
of the stone and also of the vinyl he will use. He told members he would be using either the Sandstone,
Clay or Khaki color for the vinyl.
Szurek thought the stone looked very nice. She then asked how many units he would be renting in the
upper level. Yeary said there would be four (1 BR) units, the same 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 units. 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 together. Yeary said he would consider it as
an option once the work commences.
Public Hearing Opened:
No one wished to speak on this issue.
Public Hearin~ Closed.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Peterson, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2010-PZ02, there being
ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution No. 2010-PZ02, being a resolution
approving a site plan for new siding for the building located at 4048 Central Avenue. All ayes. MOTION
PASSED.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-PZ02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR
NEW SIDING FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 4048 CENTRAL AVENUE WITHIN
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2010-0304) has been submitted by Randy Yeary, to the Planning and Zoning
Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4048 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for new siding for the
commercial building located at 4048 Central Avenue.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on March 2,
2010;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air,
danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia
Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following
findings:
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article, except signage.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-
way.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 8
MARCH 2, 2010
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit
shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one L) calendar vear after the approval date,
subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
Passed this 2"d day of March, 2010,
Offered by: Schmitt
Seconded by: Peterson
Roll Call: All ayes
CHAIR Marlaine Szurek
Attest:
SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson
Approval is contingent upon execution and return of this document to the City Planning Office.
I have read and agree to the conditions of this resolution as outlined above.
Randy Yeary
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Date
2010-0303
Grand Central Apartments, David Kloeber, Jr.
47th Avenue & Grand Avenue
Minor Subdivision, Site Plan Approval
INTRODUCTION
Sargent stated that the applicant is requesting two (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 of the Grand Central Lofts plat to assemble land needed for the
construction of two 100-unit apartment buildings.
2. A Site Plan Approval per Code Section 9.104 (N) for the construction of two 100-unit apartment
buildings at the northeast corner of 47th Avenue and Grand Avenue in the City of Columbia
Heights.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 9
MARCH 2, 2010
BACKGROUND
In August 2004, the City Council approved the Final Plat for the Grand Central Lofts. The proposal
included the construction of 218 total units of housing, consisting of three 66-unit condominium buildings
and 20 townhomes. Per the executed Development Agreement, the project was to take four years to
complete. To date, 10 of the 20 townhomes have been constructed, as well as one of the three 66-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. Kloeber is proposing to construct two 100-
unit apartment buildings, which would replace the two 66-unit condominium buildings yet to be built.
Once constructed, the Grand Central Apartment project will be a completely separate entity from the Grand
Central Lofts project with site modifications, and for this reason a new site plan approval for the proposed
development is required. It should be noted that the City's Economic Development Authority (EDA)
would still be required to amend the original Development Agreement allowing for the construction of the
200-unit apartment complex. This approval by the EDA has not yet been made.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Transit Oriented Development. Specifically, the
Comprehensive Plan states that these areas "will focus on the commuting needs of Columbia Heights
residents. As a result, a higher percentage of service-oriented commercial/retail development will be
necessary with high-density residential development providing the balance of the development. Mixed-Use
pedestrian-oriented development near transit nodes will provide opportunities for high-density residential
and neighborhood commercial development. Redevelopment of these areas will also provide the
opportunity for pedestrian linkages to other parts of the community and improvement of the overall non-
motorized circulation system within the community that will help improve the image of Columbia
Heights."
The proposed plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the following reasons:
^ The development is located along an existing transit route;
^ New residents will be able to commute to work via the existing transit routes;
^ The development will be a high-density residential development, including a community 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 connections to and through the subject properties.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The subject property is zoned MXD, Mixed Use Development District. The intent of this district is to
encourage a flexible high-quality design strategy for development and/or redevelopment of specific areas
within the community. 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 three development district types within the MXD District. They include: the Transit Oriented
Mixed-Use, the Community Center Mixed-Use and the Transitional Mixed Use. Due to the underlying
Comprehensive Plan Land Use guidance of this area, the proposed project would fall under the Transit
Oriented Mixed-Use type. According to the Zoning Code, the purpose of the Transit Oriented Mixed Use
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 10
MARCH 2, 2010
type is to "promote 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
facilities. The mix of land use shall be flexible to help facilitate a successful development (12 units/acre
minimum)."
In the MXD, building setbacks shall be regulated by the final site plan and Planning Agreement approved
by the City Council, based on 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 the mixed-use
development is located.
Although the setbacks for the buildings are flexible, there are other elements of the proposed development,
which require adherence to the Zoning Code. They are as follows:
Parking. Sargent explained that the legal ad stated there would be a variance request regarding the parking
requirements. However, since that notice was published, the Developer has changed the plan so the
variance is no longer required. The City's Zoning requires a minimum of one enclosed parking stall for
every bedroom (up to two bedrooms) in a multi-family residential building. The proposed plans indicate
that each 100-unit structure will have 67 one-bedroom units and 33 two-bedroom units. Therefore, each
100-unit building will have 133 bedrooms, which requires 133 enclosed parking stalls. The plans indicate
two levels of underground parking. The first level of parking will include130 parking stalls and the second
level of parking will include 140 parking stalls, for a total of 270 stalls. In addition to the underground
parking, the applicant is proposing 20 on-site parking stalls used for visitors of the tenants.
Density. In the MXD District, the Transit Oriented Mixed-Use type requires a minimum of 12 units per
acre. The maximum density allowed in the district is 20 units per acre. Per code, maximum densities may
be increased by up to 50% at the sole discretion of the City Council if at least 50% of the required parking
is provided by underground parking or parking in ramps. The proposed plans indicate that 100% of the
required parking will be located underground. For this reason, the maximum density may be increased to
30 units per acre.
When complete, the development as a whole will include 20 townhomes, 66 condominiums and 200
apartments, for a total of 286 units. To meet the 30 units per acre requirement, these units would have to be
placed on 9.5 acres of land. The total development is approximately 11 acres, meeting the minimum
requirements for density.
Landscaping. The City Code requires landscape plans that include a minimum of one tree for every 50
feet of street frontage or fraction thereof. Parking areas shall have a minimum of one over-story tree for
each 20 spaces or fraction thereof as well. The property at 4707 Central Avenue has approximately 1,000
feet of street frontage along Grand Avenue and 47th Avenue, and incorporates 20 above-grade parking
stalls. This requires 21 trees. The proposed plans indicate a total of 116 trees and 523 shrubs, meeting the
minimum requirements.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 11
MARCH 2, 2010
Stormwater Management. The stormwater retention pond built in conjunction of the first phase of the
condominium project, located just north of the community center building for the condominiums was sized
appropriately to accommodate the construction of the two 100-unit apartment buildings. No other on-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
approved at a later date. To be consistent with fees collected for the first phase of the Grand Central Lofts
Condominium project, the park dedication will be $750 per unit.
KMART REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN
When originally approved, the Grand Central Lofts Site Plan had been designed in accordance with the
goals and objectives of the Kmart Redevelopment Concept Plan developed by the Kmart Advisory Group
under the guidance of the City Council. In May 2003, the City of Columbia Heights initiated a planning
process for the Kmart Site for the purpose of creating a redevelopment plan for the outdated and mostly
vacant retail center. Goals of the plan include more employment opportunities within the City, new
housing option previously not available in the City, increased opportunities for transit use, amenities to
promote walking and biking, and improving the image and vitality of Central Avenue. A City Council-
established citizen advisory group and the Developer worked closely to create the Concept Plan to meet the
needs of both the community and the Developer.
Although the property has changed ownership and the use of the buildings has changed, staff feels that the
spirit and intent of the Kmart Redevelopment Concept Plan should still be met.
Residential Goal. The Grand Central Apartments site plan meets the stated goal for residential
development, which is to "provide the City of Columbia Heights a variety of housing types, styles and
choices to meet the needs of the community." The project meets the stated goals because it:
^ Provides a diversity of housing choices that will satisfy customer preferences for this location. A key
factor is that the proposed apartment complex will offer a price point and amenity package in a product
that Columbia Heights does not yet have.
^ Supports appropriate urban housing densities along with performance standards to create financial
value and achieve strong purchasing power to support neighborhood service businesses.
^ Promotes a redevelopment concept that creates an attractive urban neighborhood that includes housing
amenities such as decks, open spaces, gathering areas, recreational amenities, pedestrian ways,
landscaping and green spaces to ensure a safe functional and desirable living environment.
^ Requires high 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 of
expansions, renovations or new construction of buildings or parking within the Central Avenue and 40tn
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 objectives of
the design guidelines. The design district that is applied to the Grand Central Apartments is the Highway
District.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 12
MARCH 2, 2010
BUILDING PLACEMENT. Residential buildings may be oriented toward 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 should not be located along the Central Avenue frontage. The
frontage should be appropriately landscaped.
The development meets this objective. The residential development is separated from Central
Avenue by existing commercial development. The residential development is also focused toward
internal courtyards. The rear fa~ades of the western most apartment building is parallel to Central
Avenue and is architecturally detailed. Appropriate landscaping is also provided.
BUILDING MATERIALS. To ensure that high-quality, durable and authentic building materials should be
used in residential construction. All buildings should be constructed of high-quality materials, including
the following: brick; natural stone; precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that the surfaces are
molded, serrated or treated with a te~tured material in order to give the wall surface a three-dimensional
character; stucco; jumbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any fa~ade, provided that it is used only
on the lower third of the building wall; wood, consisting of horizontal lap siding with an exposure no
greater than 5 inches or wood shakes (surfaces must be painted); synthetic wood (fiber cement) siding
resembling horizontal lap siding.
The proposed apartments will be constructed of brick and EIFS and will be accented with cement
fiber panel siding and pressed stone window headings. Final building plans shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Staff to ensure that the building materials and design meet the
requirements of the Design Guidelines for the Highway District.
BUILDING COLOR. To ensure that building colors are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with their
surroundings, building colors should accent, blend with, or complement surroundings. Principal building
colors should consist of subtle, neutral or muted colors with low reflectance. Warm-toned colors are
encouraged. No more than two principal colors may be used on a fa~ade. Bright or primary colors should
be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent of building fa~ades.
The proposed apartment buildings will incorporate a color palate and architectural detailing that is
consistent with and will complement the existing Grand Central Lofts condominium building.
BUILDING HEIGHT. Two and three story buildings are strongly encouraged in the Highway District. All
buildings shall have a minimum cornice height of 22 feet.
The height of the apartment buildings will be consistent with the previously approved height of the
condominium buildings for the Grand Central Lofts project. Both apartment buildings will be 4
stories in height, with two levels of undergr~ound parking.
FINDINGS OF FACT (Minor Subdivision)
Section 9.104 (J) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines eight conditions that must be met in order for the City to
grant a minor subdivision. They are as follows:
(a) The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots.
The proposed subdivision will be dividing existing Outlot A into two parcels.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 13
MARCH 2, 2010
(b) The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements.
The subdivision will not involve the vacation of existing easements.
(c) All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements
established for the zoning district in which the property is located.
The lot created will not be a buildable parcel and will not have to conform to the minimum lot
are and lot width requirements.
(d) The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the
purpose of gaining access to the property.
This is a true statement.
(e) The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this
article.
This is a true statement.
(~ The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land.
This is a true statement.
(g) The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records
related to assessments.
This is a true statement.
(h) The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in Section 9.114.
Section 9.114 refers to the subdivision regulations set forth in the City's Zoning Code. The
proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in this section.
FINDINGS OF FACT (Site Plan Approval)
Section 9.014 (M) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission make
each of the following four (4) findings before approving a site plan:
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article.
The site plan conforms to all setback requirements, parking requirements, landscape requirements
and all requirements outlined in the Design Guideline Highway District.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed plan is consistent with the guidance of this area as a Transit Oriented Development
District.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
The site plan is consistent with the Kmart Redevelopment Concept Plan.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public
right-of-way.
The proposed plan is consistent with a previously approved plan for the Grand Central Lofts in
relation to building size, bulk, placement and heights. For this reason, the plan minimizes adverse
impacts on property in the immediate vicinity.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 14
MARCH 2, 2010
Because the site plan meets all the minimum requirements of the City Code, staff recommends approval of
the minor subdivision and site plan for two 100-unit apartment buildings to be constructed at the northeast
corner of 47th Avenue and Grand Avenue.
Questions from members/Public Hearing Opened:
The members wanted to hear from the public and use that format to address questions/answers that may
arise. Sargent then introduced 7ack Boarman, Gretchen Camp, and 7ohn Gould from BKV Group and
Clark Gassen who were present to answer questions.
Szurek reminded members and the public that the Commission's role is to see if the plan brought before
them meets the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. It is not their role to decide if
the project will be approved or not. That is done by the City Council. The Public Hearing being held at
this meeting gives the Public a forum in which to express their opinions about the project. These will be
passed on to the City Council when they consider the matter.
John Gould stated the two buildings would hold 100 units each compared to the originally planned condo
buildings of 66 units. He said the footprints of the building would remain the same, it's just that the units
would be smaller. They would include studio apartments with about 700 sf, some 1- BR apartments, and
some 2- BR apartments with about 1200 sf.
Schmitt asked why they are not offering 3 bedroom units. Gould explained they are trying to cater to
younger professional residents that want quality housing, without the upkeep, and that generally have
disposable income versus families. He said this is a market that so far is not being offered in Columbia
Heights, but has been very successful in other areas of the Twin Cities. Schmitt asked if the lot split would
create an Outlot for possible resale at a later time. The Developer stated the Outlot would be used to
provide access to the buildings.
Schmitt asked how the quality of construction would compare to that of the condo's. The Developer stated
it would be middle to middle high quality on the interior. The units would have wood floors, stainless
appliances, and some would have granite 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 improves.
Peterson asked how many units are sold in the condo building. Clark stated that 29 of the 67 units are sold,
but only 22 of the units are occupied since one owner has seven units. Peterson had concerns about
whether the proposed parking would be adequate. Gretchen Camp, from BKV, stated that the 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 will probably be a one level development and will not incorporate a parking ramp into
the design. Sargent said the grade difference between the residential site and the commercial piece is quite
drastic, and therefore, didn't feel that crossover parking would be an issue.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 15
MARCH 2, 2010
Gould stated they have room for up to 49 outside parking spaces if it is warranted at a later date. They
were trying to balance the outside parking with additional 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, community room
with a kitchen, and possibly a small business center. Peterson asked about the price points of the studio, 1
bedroom , and 2 bedroom units. Gassen stated that will depend on the results of the market study, but is
estimating that the Studio apartments could be rented for $700-$750/month, up to two bedroom units being
rented for $1,400-$1,500/month.
Sargent then reviewed the access to the site and the interior street layout and compared it to the original
plan for the condo buildings. The Developer has changed the design to improve traffic circulation and
reduce congestion, while adding green space. He explained they decided that the street along the south side
of the buildings will not go through to Grand Ave. That would have created a large, congested intersection
just inside the site off 47th Avenue and Public Works Staff felt it would be a dangerous situation. There
will be an emergency, break-away access on the southwest corner of that building for fire trucks. It will be
plowed during the winter and may include signs "for emergency vehicles only". Clark said it will be part
of the Development/Management Agreement.
Karen Karkula-4858 Grandview Court-has lived in one of the townhomes for about two years. She doesn't
think the units are selling up there because there hasn't been much effort in marketing the units in this
development. 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 ne~t to the condo building is a
good thing. She is concerned that their condo association fees are very high because of the limited number
of owners on the site, and they will remain high if the rental buildings are built as they will be under
separate management. She said it is the burden of the few owners there are to maintain the community
center and all the expenses of the site. Karen thinks the original plan should be honored for the sake of
those who already own there.
Sargent said that the City needs to separate itself from the Developer and private market decisions since we
do not have control over the site. The City cannot tell them how to manage their property, or what they can
or cannot charge for association fees. The owner is coming forth with a plan to build something he thinks
will succeed. The Commission needs to decide if it meets the established requirements, or not.
Jerry Nordstrom-4843 Grand Avenue-Wanted to know how long this rental plan has been contemplated.
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 condo buildings and
townhouses were going to be built. Had he know there would be 200 rental units, he wouldn't have bought
his townhouse. Without the additional condo units, it will increase their costs to maintain their association,
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 concerned about whether the rental buildings will face the same
circumstances as the condo buildings, in that they can't fill them. What will happen after three or four
years-will they decide then to turn it into a subsidized rental situation, just to fill the building.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 16, 2010
MARCH 2, 2010
Nordstrom also didn't like the road access going by the community center and only having 20 parking
spaces. He didn't feel that was an adequate amount. Thompson said he agrees that 20 spaces won't be
enough.
Fiorendino asked him how that would be different than if the two condo buildings were built. He said the
traffic would 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 Developer and that there is a covenant that
prohibits the condo units 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 he feels the owners have misrepresented the properties and that
the Commission made a mistake approving the project in the first place.
Szurek said the Planning Commission only decides if it meets the criteria set forth in the City Ordinances.
It is then passed on to the City Council for approval.
Andy Smoka-1206 Khyber Lane-asked the Developer what other projects they have built. Boarman
stated they designed the Silver Lake Village Condo, Apartments, and retail space in St. Anthony-Idle
City, near Loring Park-Heritage Landings-The Blue, near Aldrich and Lake St-and Main Street in
New Brighton. Smoka doesn't think the area will draw any young professionals with disposable income, as
the City has nothing to draw them here. He questioned why someone would invest in this type of
speculative project, that he believes will be a white elephant. Just because the original plan didn't work,
they want to change plans and try something else, that he doesn't think will work.
Szurek stated there is a market for this type of rental units. The fact that St. Anthony's buildings are almost
full proves that. She went on to state that sometimes Developers and Cities need to change course because
of market demands, economic times, and other factors that change housing choices. Is it best to try to
move ahead with the residential portion of this project and hope the commercial will follow, or wait and do
nothing until the commercial site is developed and then add the housing component. She believes the City
needs to move forward and try to make improvements rather than sitting back and doing nothing. Szurek
again stated that the Commission can not deny a lot split if it meets the criteria. This lot split will separate
land from the condo site for the rental site. It is not up to the Planning Commission to decide if it will work
or not. No one knows that anymore than they knew the market would collapse after the first phase was
completed on this site. It is up to the Developer to do the market study and decide if it will support their
investment.
Smoka also stated he didn't think 20 parking spaces would be enough. Fiorendino asked him how many he
thought there should be. Smoka answered about 1/3 of the total units which would require about 66 outside
spaces. But putting in that many parking spaces would take away too much green space for his liking also.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
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 original Development Agreement that
the Developer would be responsible for a sewer expansion to accommodate the rest of the project. The
City has just approved an amendment 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 will save the
City more than $200,000. The sewer expansion will be done this year regardless of whether this project
moves forward or not. It would be required in order to do any more construction on this site for either
residential or commercial development.
Johnson then asked what this development would do for the city. Szurek said it would add tax base to the
City. Clark said he recognizes that in 2004, no one could foresee the collapse of the market. He stated the
City needs to stay focused on our objectives and that is to improve neighborhoods. He felt this area could
use a jump start. He said the objective of the proposed project is to keep it compatible with the existing
building, and to attract a different resident type that may have a higher disposable income so 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 Planning
Commission should have seen it.
The Market Study will help determine the price points and the City Council will look at that information
when making their decision about this project.
Nordstrom said he is most concerned about the affect this may have on the association fees, and his market
value. He thinks it will adversely affect both of those items, and he feels the Commission should take that
into consideration.
Fiorendino asked him if he thought it would be better to do nothing and leave the site as is. He questioned
whether the City, and the current owners on that site, would be better off if the site is finished and some
commercial 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 different the association fees would be if the condo buildings were built
instead. No one knew that answer. They are approximately $375/month now with the owner paying about
25% of the maintenance fees for the site.
Deb Johnson-4626 Pierce St-has lived in the city for 40 years. She said she understands the role of the
Commission, but often finds that the City Council uses the fact that if the Commission approves something,
then they are bound by that recommendation to approve it also. She said it is passing the blame back and
forth between the City's various entities. She went on to say she is torn about this project. She doesn't like
the empty site, but she doesn't want to look at empty buildings either. She told the Developer that she went
on the tour and agrees the buildings were high quality, although, not always to her liking. She is hoping
that if the project moves forward that they would stay with a more traditional finishing style that will last
over time, rather than something trendy that goes out of style in a few years.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 18
MARCH 2, 2010
Bruce Nawrocki-1255 Polk Place-He wanted to know how the garages would be accessed now that the
parking arrangements had been revised. Sargent explained '/z would access off Grand and '/z would access
off the east street. Grand Ave is the only Public Road on 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 both 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
be charged e~tra 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 annually, similar to any
other rental complex. There would not be additional association fees. These costs are incorporated into the
rent estimates that were already discussed.
Nawrocki then stated that a lot of time and effort went into the original plan and that we should wait until
the market improves and stick with the original plan. He feels owner occupied housing is the best option
and that owners tend to care for their properties better than renters. He thinks changing the plan now would
do a disservice to those who already own on this site and that it would be taking a step backwards.
Fiorendino asked him how long he thought it would take to fill the condo buildings. Nawrocki said it will
take years, but it could take years to fill the rental buildings also, in his opinion. He thinks we should give
the original plan more time.
Peterson commented that he understands and sympathizes with the current residents in the Grand Central
Lofts location. He said it is impossible for anyone to have a crystal ball or to guarantee anything anymore.
All anyone can do is make the best decision they can with the information they have to work 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 whole.
Schmitt asked if both buildings would be built at the same time, or if one building would be built at a time.
Gretchen responded that they would build the west building first. Schmitt said she would like to see a
similar number of units in the rental buildings as there are in the condo building, in case they are ever
converted. She also suggested re-designing the project to add townhouses to the south side of the project.
Fiorendino asked how they arrived at 20 outside parking spaces. He wondered what the code required.
Sargent stated that our code does not address visitor parking. It only requires one parking space for each
bedroom, which would make a total of 266 spaces. 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 order to balance the green space around the buildings. She said the norm is to provide guest
parking at 5% of the number of units. This proposal is providing 10% guest parking. Fiorendino asked if
there would be any parking along Grand Ave. Sargent stated there are no parking spaces planned along
Grand Ave.
Thompson said he could not vote in favor of the two requests even though they meet the criteria. He
doesn't think the 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 market studies are expensive to do. If the City wasn't interested in the proposal, or if the
Planning Commission denied their Lot Split 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 their
decision.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
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 would be responsible for approving an
amendment to the Development Agreement.
Public Hearin~ Closed.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the site plan for the construction of two 100-unit apartment buildings located at the
northeast corner of 47`h Avenue and Grand Avenue, subject to certain conditions of approval that have
been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the
Zoning and Development Ordinance, including:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Planning Contract agr~eement with the City per regulations of the
MXD, Mixed Use Development District.
2. All necessary driveway, access, drainage and maintenance easements shall be established and
recorded with Anoka County.
3. The applicant shall install a guardrail or safety fence along the pedestrian walkway of 47`h Avenue
per specifications and approval of the City Engineer.
4. A fire truck access shall be installed connecting the southern most drive within the development to
Grand Avenue.
S. It shall be the responsibility of the apartment management company to ensure that the fire access
remains clear of debris and snow at all times.
6. If the construction of the proposed development is completed over 2 phases, the construction of
the Community Building shall occur during Phase 1.
7. The applicant shall supply the city with a Letter of Credit in the amount as specified by the City
Engineer to ensure completion of all public improvements.
8. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $750 per unit due at the time of
building permit issuance.
9. Per the MXD, Mixed Use Development District, the site plan must be approved by the City
Council.
Roll Call: Ayes: Fiorendino, Peterson, Szurek Nay: Thompson and Schmitt
MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the minor subdivision for the property located at the corner of 47`h Avenue and Central
Avenue, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public
interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance.
Roll Call: Ayes: Fiorendino, Peterson, Szurek Nay: Thompson and Schmitt
MOTION PASSED.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 20
MARCH 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 47Tx
AVENUE AND GRAND AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2010-0303) has been submitted by David Kloeber to the Planning and Zoning
Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: Northeast corner of 47t'' Avenue and Grand Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for the construction of
two 100-unit apartment buildings.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on March 2,
2010;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission 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 concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air,
danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing
the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission:
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article, except signage.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-
way.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit
shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one L) calendar vear after the approval date,
subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Planning Contract agreement with the City per regulations of the MXD,
Mixed Use Development District.
2. All necessary driveway, access, drainage and maintenance easements shall be established and recorded with
Anoka County.
3. The applicant shall install a guardrail or safety fence along the pedestrian walkway of 47t'' Avenue per
specifications and approval of the City Engineer.
4. A fire truck access shall be installed connecting the southern most drive within the development to Grand
Avenue.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the apartment management company to ensure that the fire access remains
clear of debris and snow at all times.
6. If the construction of the proposed development is completed over 2 phases, the construction of the
Community Building shall occur during Phase 1.
7. The applicant shall supply the city with a Letter of Credit in the amount as specified by the City Engineer to
ensure completion of all public improvements.
8. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $750 per unit due at the time of building
permit issuance.
9. Per the MXD, Mixed Use Development District, the site plan must be approved by the City Council.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 21
MARCH 2, 2010
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR HUSET PARK DEVELOPMENT CORP.
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case No. 2010-0303) has been submitted by David Kloeber to the City Council requesting
a minor subdivision from the City of Columbia Heights Subdivision Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: Northeast corner of 47t'' Avenue and Central Avenue
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot A, Grand Central Lofts Addition
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Outlot A, lying southerly of Lot 1, Block 1, and lying
southerly of the easterly extension of the North line of Lot 2, Block 1, all in Grand Central Lofts, Anoka
County, Minnesota.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF A M1NOR SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed subdivision upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its
Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to
public safety, in the surrounding area; and has held the required public hearing on this proposal on March 2, 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing
the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission:
1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements.
3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for
the zoning district in which the property is located.
4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining
access to the property.
5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this article.
6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land.
7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to
assessments.
8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the §9.114.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached condition, plans, maps, and other information shall become part
of this subdivision approval.
CASE NUMBER: 2010-0302
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for the R-3, Multiple Family Residential District
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the R-3, Multiple Family Residential District is to provide appropriately located areas for
small lot single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings with up to eight units per structure (town
homes, condominiums and apartments), congregate living arrangements and directly related
complementary uses. Staff has determined that the current setback requirements for the R-3 District make
it e~tremely difficult, if not impossible, to build additions or new homes on a majority of the R-3 zoned
properties because of the preexisting size of the properties.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 22
MARCH 2, 2010
The purpose of the proposed zoning amendment is to modify the setback requirements for one and two-
family dwelling units located in the R-3 District to enable construction on these parcels without the
constant need for a variance to do so.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One goal of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to h
neighborhoods as the community's strongest asset. "
of Columbia Heights is populated with single-family
the construction of additions and new homes wc
ousing is to "preserve and expand the single-family
The majority of the R-3 District throughout the City
dwellings. Amending the Zoning Code to promote
uld be directly consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The current Zoning Code pertaining to the R-3 District requires substantial setback requirements compared
to other residential zoning districts. The following table outlines the setback requirements for each
residential zoning district:
R-1 R-2A R-2B R-3 R-4
Front Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 15 ft.
Side Yard 7 ft. 5 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 Depth 20% of Lot Depth 20% of Lot Depth 30 ft. 15 ft.
A study was conducted of the R-3 District to determine whether single and two-family properties would be
able to sustain the required setbacks. The study revealed that there are 469 single and two-family parcels in
the R-3 District. The following table breaks down the average lot size and number of unbuildable lots
currently in the R-3 District:
One and Two Famil Residences in the R-3 District
Avera e Lot Width 50.99
Avera e Lot De th 129.18
Average Square Footage 6,587.03
Total Number of One and Two Famil Lots 469
Number of Unbuildable Lots 261
Percenta e of Unbuildable Lots 55.65%
Number of Unlikely Buildable Lots 315
Percenta e of Unlikel Buildable Lots 67.16%
As the table indicates, the average lot 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 from the side
lot lines. Given the average lot width of 51 feet, this would leave a perspective builder approximately 11
feet on the property to build a house.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 23
MARCH 2, 2010
The study also indicated that 315 of the 4691ots, or 67% of the total number of one and two-family parcels
in the R-3 District, were too small to build on without the need of a variance to do so. For this reason, Staff
is proposing a Zoning Amendment that would alleviate the setback restrictions imposed on these properties.
Staff recommends recreating a separate setback category for one and two-family dwelling units within the
R-3 District, and imposing setback restrictions consistent with the R-2A District on those parcels. The
following table outlines Staff's recommendation:
R-1 R-2A R-2B R-3 R-4
1& 2 Family - 25 ft.
Front Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Multi-Family - 30 ft. 15 ft.
1& 2 Family - 5 ft.
Side Yard 7 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Multi-Family - 20 ft. 10 ft.
1& 2 Family - 10 ft.
Corner Side Yard 12 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Multi-Family - 30 ft. 15 ft.
1& 2 Family - 25 ft.
Rear Yard 20% of Lot Depth 20% of Lot Depth 20% of Lot Depth Multi-Family - 30 ft. 15 ft.
The purpose of the Zoning Amendment is to create 315 more buildable lots for one and two-family
dwelling units within the R-3 District.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia 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.
One goal of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to housing is to "Preserve and expand the single-
family neighborhoods as the community's strongest asset. " The majority of the R-3 District
throughout the City of Columbia Heights is populated with single family dwellings. Amending the
Zoning Code to promote the construction of additions and new homes would be directly consistent
with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
The proposed zoning amendment is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The
proposed amendment would allow prospective builders to construct additions to existing houses, or
to construct new houses in the R-3 District on properties which now would not be legally able to be
built on.
Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing
use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the
property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
This zoning amendment will not change any existing zoning classification.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 24
MARCH 2, 2010
4. Where 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 of the property in
question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning
classification.
This zoning amendment will not change any existing zoning classification.
Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code to help alleviate the setback restrictions currently imposed
on the R-3, Multiple Family Residential District, in regards to one and two family properties as outlined in
the Draft Ordinance.
Questions from Members:
Szurek questioned whether the new figures would give them enough room to work with. Sargent stated he
thought it would in most cases and that it is more consistent with the other residential districts. He said
there are provisions in place in the Zoning Ordinance to deal with other small lot issues. Sargent explained
that we don't get a lot of variance requests, but it will eliminate the need for one when owners want to add
a small addition or deck to their house.
Peterson asked for clarification on definition of a corner side yard. Sargent explained what defines a side
yard from a front yard and how the setbacks would be applied.
Schmitt asked if the Sheffield area is mostly an R3 District, and since the City is purchasing properties
there, is the impact of the setbacks why staff is requesting this change. Sargent said no, most of Sheffield is
either R2A or R2B and would not be affected by this change. He went on to state, that most of the R3
properties are in the south part of the city or on the west side.
Fiorendino questioned why the rear yard setback is a fixed number. Sargent said it eliminates variations
and the need to verify each case.
Thompson stated that the side yard setback is necessary for drainage between properties, emergency access,
and for maintenance of the structure. He doesn't feel that 5 feet is necessarily enough, but due to the size of
the lots in Columbia Heights, common sense must prevail, so he agrees with the recommended change.
Public Hearing Opened:
No one was present to speak on this issue.
Public Hearin~ Closed.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the proposed zoning amendment, subject to modifying the setback requirements for one and two
family dwellings in the R-3, Multiple Family Residential District.
All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
The following ordinance will go to the City Council March 8, 2010
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 25
ORDINANCE NO. ~;XXX
BE1NG AN 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:
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (C) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions:
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(C) Lot Dimension, Height, and Bulk Requirements. Lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements for uses
in the residential districts shall be as specified in the following table:
R-1 R-2A R-2B R-3 R-4
Minimum Lot Area
Single Family Dwelling 8,400 sq.
ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft.
Two-Family and Twinhome
Dwelling 12,000 sq.
ft. Existing on
January 1, 2005 -
5,100 sq. ft.
Established after
January 1, 2005 -
12,000 sq. ft. 8,400 sq. ft. 8,400 sq. ft.
Multiple Family Dwelling 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft.
Non-residential Structure 8,400 sq.
ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft.
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit
Multiple Family Dwelling
Efficiency 1,200 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft.
One bedroom 1,800 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft.
Two bedroom 2,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft.
Three bedroom 2,500 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft.
Additional bedroom 400 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft.
Congregate Living Units 400 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 70 feet 60 feet 60 feet 70 feet 70 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth
Residential Building Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 1& 2 Family - 25 ft.
Multi-Family - 30
ft. 15 feet
Side Yard 7 feet* 5 feet* 5 feet* 1& 2 Family - 5 ft.
Multi-Family - 20
ft. 10 feet
Corner Side Yard 12 feet 10 feet 10 feet 1& 2 Family - 10 ft.
Multi-Family - 30
ft. 15 feet
Rear Yard 20% of lot
depth 20% of lot
depth 20% of lot depth 1& 2 Family - 25 ft.
Multi-Family - 30
ft. 15 feet
Non-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
drives/pads) 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet
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
Rear Yard 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet
Multiple Family Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 30 feet 30 feet
Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet
Corner Side Yard 30 feet 30 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet
Non-residential Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Corner Side Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Maximum Height
Residential structures 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Non-residential structures 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Non-residential Floor Area Ratio 2.2
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
CASE NUMBER: 2010-0305
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Zoning Application Fees
BACKGROUND
At the August 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, planning fees are done on
an escrow based system that creates a significant amount of work (that is not reimbursed) to receive a
check, create an escrow, receive documentation from departments regarding time allocations and then
reissuing checks back to the applicant. Most of the planning applications are straightforward and a simple
flat fee would reduce all of the aforementioned work.
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 e~traordinary in size or complexity.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 27
MARCH 2, 2010
COMPREHENSIVE 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 escrow to be collected as the sole means for
funding land use requests. Staff spends a considerable amount of time tracking the hours of phone calls,
emails, meetings and staff report writings in an effort to accurately account for the amount of time each
land use application takes to complete. More time is then taken to process refund checks - if needed - and
then mail out the checks to the applicants.
The proposed ordinance would revert back to a flat-rate fee for Planning and Zoning applications. The
following table depicts the amount of escrow the City had previously required for each land use
application, as well as the proposed amount the City will collect as a flat rate fee:
PLANNING AND ZONING FEE SCHEDULE
Land Use Action Escrow Previousl Collected Pro osed Flat Rate Fee
Appeal $185 $185
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $545 $500
Conditional Use Permit $220 $200
Preliminary Plat $670 $500 + Escrow
Final Plat $395 $100
Interim Use $255 $250
Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) $275 $275
Site Plan Review $370 $250
Vacation $150 $150
Variance $235 $200
Zoning Amendment $545 $500
It is anticipated that larger redevelopment projects will take a considerable more time to process than
smaller, simpler land use requests. For this reason, the City will retain 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 e~traordinary in size or complexity.
Staff also conducted a comparison of Application Fees other cities in the area charge. This information can
be found on Appendix A.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
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
following four findings before approving a zoning amendment:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive 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.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
The proposed amendment is a citywide endeavor and is not solely for the benefit of a single
property owner.
3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the
existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the
property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
4. Where 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 of the property in
question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Questions from Members:
Fiorendino suggested a language change to the Ordinance to include "consultants and/or professional
services".
Public Hearing Opened:
No one was present to speak on this issue.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the proposed zoning amendment. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
The following Ordinance will go to the City Council March 8, 2010.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 29
MARCH 2, 2010
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ~;XXX
BE1NG AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO
MINIMUM PLANING AND ZONING APPLICATION FEES WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.104 (C)(S) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions:
§ 9.104 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
(C) General application procedures.
(5) Application fees. Fees for all applications for development or land use approval shall be a flat rate
and established by resolution of the City Council. ^ m °~~o€~~~*~°~~~~t~e~
. The City retains
the right to require an escrow and additional payment for any out-of-pocket expenses for consultants and/or
professional services, and/or to obtain an escrow for cases that are extraordinary in size or complexity.
Remaining escrowed funds not spent in reviewing the application shall be returned to the applicant. T~+~~
, . Payment of
all fees is a condition of application approval. The fee schedule shall be:
PLANNING AND ZONING FEE SCHEDULE
Land Use Action Flat Rate Fee
Appeal $185
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $500
Conditional Use Permit $200
Preliminary Plat $500 + Escrow
Final Plat $100
Interim Use $250
Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) $275
Site Plan Review $250
Vacation $150
Variance $200
Zoning Amendment $500
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
NEW BUSINESS- None
OTHER BUSINESS
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary