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