Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 4, 2010 P & Z MinPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING MAY 4, 2010 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice Chair -Donna Schmitt. Commission Members present- Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, and Peterson. Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Thomspon, to approve the minutes from the meetings ofMarch 2, 2010. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2010 -0501 APPLICANT: Jeff Agnes, AIA / Savers LOCATION: 4849 Central Avenue NE REQUEST: Site Plan Approval Loading Dock Addition INTRODUCTION At this time, Jeff Agnes, along with Aarchitects, LLC is requesting a site plan approval for a new loading dock and drop -off area for the Savers store located at 4849 Central Avenue NE. On September 6, 2006, Savers requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the outdoor 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 for storage as an integral part of their day -to -day operations. Ultimately, the CUP request was denied by the City Council, based on findings that the screening fences would not provide adequate screening for the residential properties to the east. At this time, Savers is planning on expanding into the vacant end -cap portion of the building they are located in, making them the sole user of the building. This action will enable the store to gain the necessary storage space in the building to 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 within the Design Overlay Highway District. 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 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. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 MAY 4, 2010 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. The properties 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 regulations for such properties. SETBACKS The GB, General Business District requires that all additions be located no closer than 20 feet from the rear lot 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 49 Avenue. Because of the orientation of the property, the lot line along Central Avenue is considered the front lot line, making the eastern property line the rear lot line. The proposed loading dock addition is located on the east side of the property and is located approximately 76 feet from the rear lot line. Provisions in the Zoning Code restrict the location of all loading docks to no closer than 50 feet from the lot 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. With the proposed addition, the Savers building will be approximately 33,633 square feet, with a gross floor area of 30,270 square feet. The size of building would require 101 parking stalls. Currently, the property Savers is located on has 144 parking stalls. The location of the proposed loading dock and drop -off area require some reconfiguration of the parking lot to accommodate on -site traffic as well as the semi tractors used in loading merchandise. For this reason, 29 parking stalls will be removed from the site, leaving 115 stalls for customer parking. Because only 101 parking stalls are required, the property will have sufficient parking with the proposed additions. DESIGN GUIDELINES 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 40 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 Savers store is the Highway District. BUILDING MATERIALS. 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 District. The signage included with the application material is only a representation of the type of 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. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 MAY 4, 2010 Staff has informed the company in charge of Savers' signage that the proposed square footage of signage exceeds the minimum requirements of the code. They have acquired a variance application form and will most likely apply for a variance to gain more signage on the building. The variance request would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a later date. He told members the City may want to modify the sign ordinance slightly to deal with some issues that have become apparent due to language used in the Ordinance. This also will be addressed at a future meeting. 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 and also meets all setback requirements for additions to existing 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. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. The proposed site plan involves 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. Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Questions from members: Peterson asked if the drop off s would be done internally or left outside as they have been in the past. He wanted to know if there would be screening around the drop off area since it will be moved to the north side of the building. Peterson is concerned with the appearance along 49 Avenue and doesn't want donations left outside. Sargent told him that if merchandise is left outside, it becomes a zoning issue, and they would be cited. Fiorendino questioned the traffic flow on the site and asked if there would be adequate room for semi trucks. Sargent explained they are removing some of the parking spaces on the northeast portion of the site to allow plenty of space for maneuvering the semi trucks. He told members that the Fire Chief reviewed the plans and approved them as submitted. Schmitt asked where the dumpsters would be located. Mr. Moran, from Savers, stated the compactor they currently have would be sufficient to deal with any garbage or unwanted items they have. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 MAY 4, 2010 Public Hearing Opened Jeff Agnes, from Aarchitects Inc. and Tom Moran, from Savers were present to answer questions. Agnes told members that in the process of the remodeling, the parking lot will be seal coated and re- striped to improve the appearance of the business site. He told members that the drop off area will not be screened, but the donations will be handled immediately and will not remain outside. Thompson asked how big the trucks would be and how they would access the loading dock. Agnes told him the site has been re- designed to accommodate semi trucks and showed the members how they will back up to the loading dock. Peterson asked if the road along the south side of the building would remain open. Agnes stated it would remain open and explained how changes to the grade along the east line would make it more accessible, especially for fire trucks. There was a brief discussion regarding the landscaping plans for the site. It was noted the new pedestrian bridge will be located about 50 feet further to the south with a spiral access on the Saver's side and a switchback access on the Hilltop side. Some landscaping will be done as part of that project. Agnes told members they would be re- grading and replacing some of the existing retaining wall along the east side of the site as described in the plans. Some additional sod will be added on that side as a result. Agnes told members they are still obtaining prices and will be applying for the permit shortly. They hope to complete the project before the end of the year. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2010 -PZ03, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution No. 2010 -PZ03, being a resolution approving a site plan for the construction of a new loading dock and drop -off area for the building located at 4849 Central Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -PZ03 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LOADING DOCK AND DROP -OFF AREA FOR THE SAVERS STORE LOCATED AT 4849 CENTRAL AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case 42010 -0501) has been submitted by Jeff Agnes, to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS 4849 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT Site Plan approval for the construction of a new loading dock and drop -off area for the building located at 4849 Central Avenue. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 MAY 4, 2010 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on May 4, 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. 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 (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. Passed this 4 th day of May, 2010, Offered by: Fiorendino Seconded by: Peterson Roll Call: All Ayes Ayes: Nays: Attest: SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson VICE CHAIR Donna Schmitt 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. Jeff Agnes Date PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 MAY 4, 2010 CASE NUMBER: 2010 -0502 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: City Wide REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Outdoor Seating PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner BACKGROUND The City of Columbia Heights is experiencing a number of dining establishments that have requested the ability to serve food and /or alcohol 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 Amendment to help regulate restaurants and other eateries that might want to serve patrons outdoors. The necessity of such an ordinance amendment originates from the possibility that some restaurants may want to serve alcohol to their patrons while they dine outdoors. The City of Columbia Heights' Police Chief, Scott Nadeau expressed the desire to regulate the manner in which restaurants could serve alcohol to patrons outdoors because of the potential negative circumstances that such actions could present. COMPREHENSIVE 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 allowing the continual use and enjoyment of restaurants and other dining places 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. Sargent showed the members examples of various businesses in town to explain which ones would meet the criteria being proposed in the Ordinance, and which ones wouldn't. 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: 1. Outdoor seating plans will be subject to Planning Commission approval through the Site Plan Approval Process. 2. Outdoor seating shall be located fully on the property in which it is intended, and may not restrict pedestrian traffic on public rights -of -way. 3. Outdoor seating shall be on a hard surface meeting all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 4. No outdoor seating shall be allowed on driveways or parking areas. S. If the intent is to serve alcohol outside, the following regulations shall be enforced: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 MAY 4, 2010 a. The outdoor dining area shall be adjacent to the principal building and access shall be provided from within the principal building only. 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 shall not permit free and easy access to the outdoor seating area directly from the outside. 6 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. 7. The design of the patio area and any fencing and landscaping shall be such that sight lines in and out of existing or proposed access points are not obstructed. 8. Temporary structures shall not be allowed within the outdoor dining area. 9. Banners, streamers or other types of 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 not apply to any outdoor seating. 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. 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 allowing the continual use and enjoyment of restaurants and other dining places in a safe manner. 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 effective for any restaurant or food establishment in the city. 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. Not applicable. 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. Not applicable. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 MAY 4, 2010 Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment. Questions by members: Thompson asked several questions regarding patio seating: Do businesses pay SAC units on outdoor seating? -Yes, as determined by the Met Council Do the License Applications ask if a patio area is used, and if so, is it designated on the License? -Yes. Do we have any requirements regarding food service on patios ? -No, Anoka County handles food issues. Some patios are used as smoking areas -can employees serve food /drinks on patio if smoking is occurring? -Yes, outdoor areas are not covered by the Indoor Air Act. Sargent explained this Ordinance is proposed at the request of the Police Chief. He wants to have some control over the serving of alcohol in an outdoor setting to prevent unlawful situations from occurring and to ensure the safety and well being of the community. The proposed Ordinance grants some leeway to businesses in choosing a fencing style that works for them. He used the examples of Sarna's and Buffalo Wild Wings, stating their barrier /fencing both meet the requirements even though they are different heights and styles. Sargent also pointed out outdoor patios that wouldn't meet the criteria such as Mr. BBQ (which doesn't serve alcohol, but was used as an example) and Puerta Del Sol (an open deck not accessed through the building). Thompson had a problem with 5B which states barriers would be approved administratively on a "case by case" basis. He thinks standardized rules need to be established so businesses know what the rules are. Sargent suggested changing the language so the barriers are approved by the Planning Commission, as part of the site plan process. Thompson also felt #10 indicating that outdoor dining areas shall not take on characteristics of a building having roofs /walls was "re- defining" what is already in the Indoor Air Act. Sargent explained that outdoor dining areas are different than actual additions to a building with roofs and partial walls, and therefore, the Indoor Air Act doesn't pertain. Sargent told members that changes can be made to this Ordinance before this goes to the City Council or after the first reading, if the City Council wishes to do so. Fiorendino asked how existing restaurants would be affected? Sargent said none of the existing restaurants would be affected. Sarna's and Buffalo Wild Wings already meet the requirements of the ordinance. Albert's and Puerta Del Sol have already been told they cannot serve alcohol outside, and Mr. BBQ does not have a Liquor License, so this does not pertain to them. Any new restaurant or an existing one that adds an outdoor patio would have to go through the Site Plan Process once the Ordinance is passed. Fiorendino also had a problem with the language in 5B. He thought an explanation of why the barrier is necessary and what it must accomplish should be included in the language, so businesses know how to design it prior to submitting the Site Plan for approval. He then asked why parking requirements were not increased for those places that add an outdoor patio area. Sargent explained that the patios are generally only used about 3 months of the year due to rain, wind, heat, bugs, etc.— therefore, there isn't a huge impact on the parking, plus staff thinks it is important to keep as much green space as possible on these sites. Sargent suggested looking at each case and possibly making it a condition of approval depending on how much seating is being added. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 MAY 4, 2010 Schmitt agreed that the barriers should not be handled administratively. She thought there should be some minimum standards provided to give businesses an idea of what is expected. She said the language should address the fact that the requirements can be met by width, not just height of the barrier. Schmitt stated she does not like the look of a six foot high fence, and thinks Sarna's style barrier is much more inviting. She said she would like to hear from the Police Chief and possibly from some of the Restaurants what they feel about this. Sargent said the Police Chief had reviewed the draft Ordinance and was happy with the items as listed. Schmitt asked Sargent to explain #7 sight lines of the access points not being obstructed. He gave an example of not blocking the view of where vehicles enter /exit the site, or not blocking a nearby intersection so traffic is negatively impacted. She then asked about #8 not allowing temporary structures on the patios. Sargent explained this would disallow the patio being used for outside storage during the off months. Peterson and Fiorendino both concurred that #8 & #11 need to have the language changed. Thompson suggested looking at Crystal's Ordinance. He thought they had a Model Ordinance that may be helpful. Public Hearing Opened: No one was present to speak on this issue. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Fiorendino, to table consideration of the proposed zoning amendment until the next meeting so that changes to the language can be made. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. NEW BUSINESS Sargent told members that staff became aware of a housekeeping issue regarding the zoning assigned to a property located at 4555 Washington Street. When the R -2 district was split into R2 -A and R2 -B, staff went by information obtained by the Fire Department. This property had been issued a rental license for a duplex use, and therefore, was issued a R2 -B classification. Recently, staff was called to the property on a child endangerment situation and discovered the residence is not a proper duplex. The first floor and basement area have non - conforming bedrooms and are not in a livable condition. The residence does not have separated access to what they considered two units. Sergeant said this property should be re- classified as a Single Family Residence. He stated there could be other properties like this one that have inappropriate zoning designations. Members agreed that the changes should be made to correct these types of situations. They also thought there should be a better definition of what constitutes a duplex so the unit is zoned and licensed correctly. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary