Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1, 2010 P & Z MinPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 2010 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm by Vice Chair -Donna Schmitt. Commission Members present- Fiorendino, Schmitt, and Peterson. Commission members absent: Szurek and Thompson Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutes from the meetings ofMay 4, 2010. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2010 -0601 APPLICANT: Savers LOCATION: 4849 Central Avenue NE REQUEST: 200 square foot area variance for wall signage INTRODUCTION In May 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan for the construction of a new loading dock for Savers located on the east side of the building. Along with the construction of this loading dock, Savers is planning on expanding into the vacant end -cap tenant space and will be using the entire building. Savers is planning on relocating the main entrance into the store and would like new wall signage to compliment the new changes. Savers originally submitted a request for a 350 square foot area variance for new wall signage for the building located at 4849 Central Avenue. After discussions with staff, Savers re- designed the proposed signage and is now asking for a 200 square foot variance. ZONING ORDINANCE The zoning classification of the property is GB, General Business District. Per Code Section 9.106(P)(12), signage in the GB District is permitted as follows: 1. Any number of wall signs on any side of a building not to exceed 200 square feet of total surface area for all wall sign surfaces and limited to one surface per sign. 2. Total signage shall not exceed two square feet for each front foot of building or structure. Therefore, the Zoning Code would restrict the total square footage of wall signage for the Savers store to 200 square feet. Savers is now proposing a sign plan that incorporates four wall signs totaling 400 square feet. For this reason, a 200 square foot area variance is required. Currently, Savers is utilizing two wall signs. The main "Savers" entrance sign is approximately 59 square feet in area. The second "America's Favorite Thrift Store" sign is approximately 38 square feet in area. The total wall signage for the building is 97 square feet. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 JUNE 1, 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. Being that Savers is a commercial entity and is expanding, the variance proposal is consistent with the types of uses guided for this area. FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance) Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five findings of fact that must be met in order for the City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause undue hardship. The orientation of the building on the property limits sight lines for passersby along Central Avenue. Wall signage limited to 200 square feet would be insufficient for a building in excess of 33, 000 square feet and oriented in the manner it is and on a corner lot. Staff thought 550 square feet of wall signage was too excessive and not compatible with sound planning principles. However, staff does feel that the re- submitted design asking for a total of 400 square feet of signage was acceptable. b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are no other single- occupant buildings with the same size and orientation on a corner lot as Savers in the GB, General Business District. The request for a sign variance is unique in the City of Columbia Heights for a building of this size, dimension and orientation. C) The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The provisions of the article do not properly address large, single tenant buildings. The purpose of the Sign Code is to prohibit a disproportionately high ratio between the size of the sign and the tenant space the sign is intended for. In this case, the opposite is occurring. If the applicant were limited to 200 square feet of wall signage, there would be a disproportionately low ratio of wall signage to the size of the building. With that said, Staff feels that a variance request that would more than double the total square footage allowed by code is too excessive. Staff has spoken with the applicant and explained that because of the inefficiency of the current ordinance pertaining to signage for buildings of this size, staff would support a variance request of 200 square feet in area. Therefore, Savers did submit the secondary proposal requesting a 200 sf variance instead of the original 350 sf. d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. Being that Savers is a commercial entity and is expanding, the variance proposal is consistent with the types of uses guided for this area. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 JUNE 1, 2010 e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the variance would help promote Savers as a commercial entity in the city. The overall size of the signage on the building will be proportionate to the size of the building and will not be detrimental to the public. Sargent reviewed the signage planned for the site that was submitted on the second request. Staff recommends approval of a 200 square foot area variance for wall signage for the Savers store located at 4849 Central Avenue because the hardship of location and just one tenant in a building that large, does justify the need for the variance request. Questions from members: Schmitt wanted clarification that Savers is now requesting a 200 sf variance for a total of 400 sf of wall signage. Sargent affirmed that is correct. Peterson stated he thought staff did a good job insisting they downsize the signage from 550 square feet to 400 square feet. He thought the new plan was acceptable and adequate to meet their needs. He asked if they had any plans to put additional signage on the south side of the building. Sargent told him that was not included in the plan. He stated they will be re- facing the existing pylon sign and that provides signage for north and south bound traffic along Central Avenue. Schmitt was concerned that the signage may be blocked by the new pedestrian bridge. She stated the new bridge is higher than the old one and it may cause some visibility issues. She wants them to succeed and have an adequate amount of signage. Sargent explained that our code is specific and currently only allows a total of 200 square feet per building. We can't deviate too much from the policy in place. He said in situations like this, with one tenant in such a large building, that a change in the policy may be warranted. He said this is something that can be brought back to the Commission at a later time. Fiorendino asked if the temporary signs are part of this plan. Sargent told members the temporary signs currently in use are not part of this proposal. Public Hearing Opened: No one was present for this matter. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve 200 square foot area variance for wall signage per Code Section 9.106 (P) (12) of the City Code. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. The following Resolution will go to the City Council June 14, 2010. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 JUNE 1, 2010 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONSOF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR SAVERS WHEREAS, a proposal (Case 4 2010 -0601) has been submitted by Savers to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS 4849 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: per Code Section 9.106 (P)(12). A 200 square foot area variance for wall signage WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a special public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on June 1, 2010; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, where strict adherence to the provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any person currently having legal interest in the property. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance 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. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. The applicant shall obtain a permit prior to the installation of the signs. Passed this 14 day of June, 2010 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 JUNE 1, 2010 CASE NUMBER: 2010 -0602 APPLICANT: Renaissance Fireworks LOCATION: 4005 Central Avenue REQUEST: Interim Use Permit for Seasonal Sales INTRODUCTION Sargent explained that Renaissance Fireworks, Inc. has applied for an Interim Use Permit to allow the operation of a fireworks tent at 4005 Central Avenue. 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. The specific development standards for an outdoor sales /display establishment are found at Section 9.107 (C)(20), and will be added as conditions of approval for this permit. This will be the Renaissance's 6 th year operating a fireworks tent at this location in Columbia Heights. The attached site plan illustrates the configuration and orientation of the fireworks tent to Central Avenue. The Fire Chief has inspected the plans and will conduct a site inspection of the tent prior to the business opening for operation. 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 4005 Central Avenue is CBD, Central Business District. Fireworks tents are allowed as Interim Uses 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 87,500 - square foot commercial building is required to have 263 parking spaces. After using the 13 parking spaces for the tent, the site will still have 282 parking spaces. Furthermore, with the location of the display area 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. 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. Fireworks tents are an Interim Use in the CBD, Central 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 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. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 JUNE 1, 2010 The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. The proposed temporary use should not have any detrimental impact on neighboring properties because of its proximity to Central Avenue and because it is shielded from adjacent residential uses. 4. The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. The fireworks tent as proposed will have no impact on the use of adjacent properties. 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. The fire department will conduct an on -site survey prior to the business opening. All state requirements regarding fireworks sales will be complied with before the fire department will allow the operation of the business. 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 fireworks tent 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 fireworks tent should not have a negative impact on other uses in the immediate vicinity, which are all zoned commercial. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit for a fireworks tent subject to the conditions of approval reviewed by Sargent. Questions from members: Fiorendino asked if there were any changes or complaints from last year. Sargent stated that the only complaint he was aware of was that they had excessive signage at the site last year. By the time staff was aware of it, they were taking the tent down. Therefore, they will be watched more closely this year. Peterson asked if this was the only location in Columbia Heights that would be selling Fireworks this year. Sargent stated it was. He received a call from someone wanting to sell at another location, but they called too late to get approval for this year. Peterson asked if the greenhouses and fireworks had to come before the commission for approval. He thought they had decided to let staff handle these administratively. Sargent told him that previously these approvals went to the Commission and then on to the City Council. The proposal to have staff approve them administratively went to the City Council for approval, but the Council decided that the P & Z Commission should still go through an approval process, but they no longer needed to go to the City Council. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 JUNE 1, 2010 Public Hearing Opened: No one wished to speak on this matter. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit for a fireworks tent at 4005 Central Avenue NE for a period not to exceed 90 days from date of approval, 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 fireworks tent, display area, access aisles, and surrounding area shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department and the Fire Department. 2. The sale of fireworks shall meet all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Fire Code and NFPA Chapter 1124. 3. Fireworks tents located within the public right -of -way are prohibited. 4. All goods shall be displayed on a designated impervious surface area. 5. All goods shall be displayed in an orderly fashion, with access aisles provided as needed. 6 Music or amplified sounds shall not be audible from adjacent residential properties. 7. The fireworks tent shall not reduce the amount of off - street parking provided one -site below the level required for the principal use. 8. Signage shall be limited to two (2) professionally made signs, with a combined square footage not exceeding thirty -two (32) square feet. 9. Fireworks tents may be allowed for a maximum of ninety (90) days per calendar year. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -PZ04 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR RENAISSANCE FIREWORKS, INC WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case 42010 -0602) has been submitted by Renaissance Fireworks to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting an Interim Use Permit approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS 4005 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT Interim Use Permit for a fireworks tent and sale for a period of no more than 90 days, per Code Section 9.110 (F)(4)(a). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on June 1, 2010; PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 JUNE 1, 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 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 ofproperty 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 (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED 1. The fireworks tent, display area, access aisles, and surrounding area shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department and the Fire Department. 2. The sale of fireworks shall meet all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Fire Code and NFPA Chapter 1124. 3. Fireworks tents located within the public right -of -way are prohibited. 4. All goods shall be displayed on a designated impervious surface area. 5. All goods shall be displayed in an orderly fashion, with access aisles provided as needed. 6. Music or amplified sounds shall not be audible from adjacent residential properties. 7. The fireworks tent shall not reduce the amount of off - street parking provided one -site below the level required for the principal use. 8. Signage shall be limited to two (2) professionally made signs, with a combined square footage not exceeding thirty -two (32) square feet. 9. Fireworks tents may be allowed for a maximum of ninety (90) days per calendar year. Passed this 1s day of June 2010, Offered by: Fiorendino Seconded by: Peterson Roll Call: All ayes VICE -CHAIR Donna Schmitt 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. Mark Lazarchic Date PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 JUNE 1, 2010 CASE NUMBER: 2010 -0603 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: 4555 Washington Street NE REQUEST: Rezoning of property from R -211 to R -2A BACKGROUND Sargent explained he told the Commission members about this property at the last meeting and the need to re -zone it. He went on to report that in 2005, the City established the R -2B zoning classification in an attempt to identify all existing duplexes within the City. The zoning amendment also established the R -2A District, which required the need of a Conditional Use Permit, as well as minimum lot standards for future duplex uses throughout the R -2A District. The R -2B District allowed for all existing duplexes to remain as duplex uses, without the need of a Conditional Use Permit, and without needing to meet the minimum lot width and lot area standards as required in the R -2A District. Just recently, the City of Columbia Heights was called out to 4555 Washington Street to assist in a call for service conducted by the Anoka County Department of Human Services. Upon entering the structure, it was evident that the property was being used as a duplex, however it appeared as if the lower portion of the house was converted to a duplex illegally. The bedrooms did not have proper egress to the outdoors and the cooking facilities did not meet the minimum Building Code standards. There was also an infestation of insects and other substandard living conditions apparent throughout the living area. Ultimately, the City certified the unit as uninhabitable and declared that the lower level could not be used as a separate living unit. After reviewing city records, it was determined that in 2005 this property was inadvertently designated as a duplex use, and therefore given the zoning classification of R -2B. As stated previously, it is obvious that this structure is not set up for a duplex use and should not be used as such. Rezoning the property to R -2A will require the use of the property to revert back to the intended single - family use for the structure. If the owner would want to convert the structure to a duplex use in the future, she would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process and show that the property meets all the minimum zoning code requirements for a duplex. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan currently guides the property for Low Density Residential. Rezoning the land to require a single - family use would be consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING ORDINANCE The subject property is currently zoned R -2B, One and Two Family Residential. All immediately abutting properties are zoned R -2A, One and Two Family Residential and are all single- family homes. The proposed zoning classification for the subject property is also R -2A, which would be consistent with the zoning classification in the area. Because the house is not constructed to support a legal duplex use, rezoning the property to R -2A would be consistent with a single - family use for the property. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 JUNE 1, 2010 FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following findings before approving a zoning amendment: 1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan currently guides the property for Low Density Residential. Rezoning the land to require a single-family use would be consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The proposed amendment would ensure that the property would no longer be able to be used as a duplex without future approval by the City Council. Being that the current conditions of the lower - level living space is not conducive to proper, safe and standard living conditions as a separate living unit, the proposed amendment would be in the interest of the public. 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 existing use of the property is for low - density residential. All properties in the immediate vicinity are also zoned for low - density residential. The proposed zoning classification for the subject property is compatible with the surrounding zoning classifications. 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 property was being used illegally as a duplex, with living quarters and cooking facilities being substandard to proper living conditions, including the lack of legal egress windows. The rezoning of the property will ensure that the building will be a single-family house only, which is compatible with the intended use of the property. Staff recommends approving the rezoning of this parcel. Question from members: Peterson said he drove by the property in question and that it was obvious the property had been constructed as a single family home and that the tuck under garage had been converted to living space in their attempt to make it into a double. He asked about whether some of the other properties in the block had been built as duplexes, as it was obvious that was how they were being used. Sargent told members many of the properties along that block were built as duplexes. He went on to explain the difference between the R2A and R2B zoning classifications. Fiorendino asked if people were using the property as a single family home since the Anoka County /City inspection was done. Sargent said he wasn't sure, since the house had been posted as uninhabitable due to insect infestation and other issues that were health and safety related. If the property was properly cleaned and passed inspection, it could be used as a single family home and could be rented as such. Schmitt asked when they had obtained the rental license as a duplex and when the date was of the last rental inspection. Sargent said he didn't have that information, since the Fire Dept. handled those records. If the re- zoning is approved, the property would only qualify for a license for a single family home. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 JUNE 1, 2010 Public Hearing Opened: Tom Stuart from 4537 Washington St has lived in his home for 40 years. His wife's family built the home in question and had no doubt it was built as a single family home. He stated he is aware that it has been used for more than one family for a long time, and has reported this to the Fire Dept. in the past. He asked how many people can legally occupy the home. Sargent told members the City's policy is 2 people per bedroom, and the bedrooms in the basement do not have egress windows, therefore they cannot be counted as legal bedrooms. He also stated that since the bedrooms in the basement do not have proper egress, it is imperative this be re -zoned so there is no question that it is a single family home. Gary Peterson said there is a limit of 2 people per bedroom per our Ordinance, but that is hard to enforce. City staff cannot force their way into someone's property to prove how many people are sleeping there. He said this has become more of an issue in these hard economic times when families are moving in with each other due to losing their jobs and /or houses. He acknowledged this could become a safety issue if there ever is a fire, but it is hard to prove whether occupants are related or not. The City notifies landlords of the two occupants per bedroom rule as a requirement for the license, but some of the responsibility for enforcing this falls onto the landlord. Al Melcher 4536 Jefferson Street thought rental units needed their own separate entrances. This property definitely does not have separate entrances. He said he has the same problem with the house next to him at 4546 Jefferson St. He said 9 people are currently living in this property. He would like to see the City do something regarding the illegal use of these properties. Sargent said staff is aware there are illegal uses happening in many properties throughout the city. He explained that unless we have access to enter, such as the call for service from Anoka County that we received for 4555 Washington St., we have no right to enter. The illegal use of properties and enforcement issues are not on this agenda. The issue before the Commission at this meeting is to re -zone this one particular property. As staff becomes aware of others, it will bring them to the Commission's attention so they can be corrected. Christine Dosdall of 4538 Washington St. has lived in the neighborhood for many years. She wanted to go on record that she is in favor of it be re -zoned back to a classification of R2A for use as a single family home. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning of the property located at 4555 Washington Street from R -2B, One and Two Family Residential to R -2A, One and Two Family Residential. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. The following Ordinance will go to the City Council June 14, 2010 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 JUNE 1, 2010 ORDINANCE XXXX CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA BEING AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1428, PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF A CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4555 WASHINGTON STREET NE SECTION 1: WHEREAS, the current zoning classification of the property allows for a duplex use; and WHEREAS, the current property was being used as an illegal duplex because of substandard living quarters and cooking facilities; and WHEREAS, the lower unit of the property was posted as uninhabitable because of the substandard living conditions; and WHEREAS, rezoning the subject parcel from R -2B, One and Two Family Residential to R -2A, One and Two Family Residential would ensure the proper use of the property as a single - family dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, and is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of a single property owner; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning classification of the property is compatible with the surrounding zoning classifications and uses, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from R -2B, One and Two Family Residential to R -2A, One and Two Family Residential. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. CASE NUMBER: 2010 -0502 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: City Wide REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Outdoor Seating BACKGROUND Sargent explained that 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. Based on comments that were made at the last meeting, Sargent said he made the changes the members had suggested. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 JUNE 1, 2010 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. 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. 5. If the intent is to serve alcohol outside, the following regulations shall be enforced: 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 through the site plan approval process on a case -by -case basis. c. The barrier shall be constructed in a manner that ensures that non - patrons of the restaurant will not have free and easy access to alcoholic beverages provided by patrons using the outdoor seating area. 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. When not in use, the outdoor seating area shall not be used for off - season outdoor storage. 9. Banners, streamers or other types of permanent or temporary signs shall not be placed or displayed on the barriers surrounding the outdoor dining areas. 10. The outdoor dining area shall not take on characteristics of a building having a roof and /or walls. 11. The Planning Commission, through the site plan approval process, shall determine the need for additional on -site parking requirements for the outdoor seating area. 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: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 JUNE 1, 2010 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. 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. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment. Questions from members: Fiorendino said staff did a great job incorporating the comments members made at the last meeting and that he supports the new version of this Ordinance. Schmitt questioned #6 of the Ordinance that requires owners to sign an affidavit if no alcohol is being served. She doesn't see the purpose for this. Sargent explained it is for those businesses that have a license to sell liquor and also have an outside seating area that doesn't meet all the criteria, therefore they need to submit something stating they won't be serving outside. Customers could still eat outside, but couldn't be served alcoholic beverages. She asked if businesses that don't have liquor or beer licenses would still need to sign this affidavit. Sargent said he could amend the language to make it only necessary for those that have liquor /beer licenses. Schmitt then asked about #4 that disallows for any outdoor seating on driveways or parking areas. She felt if they had sufficient parking, they should be allowed to do this. Sargent stated it is in the Ordinance for safety reasons. If no barrier is required and seating would be allowed in the parking lot, vehicular accidents could occur. This Ordinance is meant to be an enforcement tool and prevents outdoor events from getting carried away or out of control. Schmitt used Marina's as an example as they put a tent up in the parking lot for Ramadan. Sargent said the Ordinance is meant for the conduct of a permanent restaurant business, not for temporary event licenses that are issued. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 JUNE 1, 2010 Fiorendino asked if the Police Chief had reviewed the revised Ordinance. Sargent said he looked at the first draft and had approved that version. He will see to it that he looks at it again before it goes to the City Council. Schmitt asked if Albert's would be allowed to have patrons drink outside. Sargent said he should not be allowing patrons to drink outside now, and under the new Ordinance it wouldn't be allowed either as he cannot meet the barrier requirement. Gary Peterson thinks the Ordinance is overkill, especially for a place like Albert's. He doesn't feel anyone would pay good money for a drink and then pass it to someone else. He said businesses in downtown serve outside all the time right on the sidewalks and they have no problems. He then mentioned the Boosters holding an event at the Liquor Store for Brats and Beer and asked how this Ordinance would affect that. Sargent explained that some of the conditions listed would allow the Commission to address some of these issues on a case by case basis. If a Site Plan is submitted, the P & Z Commission can decide whether to allow outdoor liquor if they meet the intent of the Ordinance. He said the Police Chief is not happy with having alcohol served outside with no barrier. It is the intent to protect the Public. Schmitt agrees with the Mayor and doesn't want to require high fences. Albert has fixed up the place so much, she doesn't want to put unnecessary restrictions on him to operate his small business. She wants to encourage local residents to frequent the establishment. Sargent responded that the Ordinance does not specifically require fencing, nor does it require a certain height for the barrier used. It is up to the applicant what type of barrier to use that would prevent free and easy access to the patrons drinking. Fiorendino felt comfortable with the P & Z Commission using their judgment on each case as it comes before them. Sargent said it is hard to encompass all situations in one Ordinance. He stated one requirement in this Ordinance is that customers cannot be served on the Public Right of Way. Columbia Heights does not have 8 foot sidewalks like downtown Minneapolis and we need to meet ADA regulations. Mayor Peterson asked whether the Commission members thought Puerto Del Sol would comply with the Ordinance as a "test case ". Peterson said he would accept it. Schmitt and Fiorendino said it wouldn't as there was no access from the building directly. Sargent agreed it would not meet the requirements. Mayor Peterson said his point was if we pass the Ordinance then there will always be exceptions to be made. Public Hearing Opened: Mark Ruscommon from 4151 Stinson Blvd. asked where the common sense is in this issue. There are no gates and fences required downtown or at other establishments throughout the Twin Cities area. Why put these types of confines on our local small businesses. He felt this Ordinance is too controlling. Public Hearing Closed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 JUNE 1, 2010 Sargent said he would change the language in #6 to only require those with Liquor Licenses to submit an affidavit and to add condition #12 stating that temporary events would be handled administratively for parking and seating requirements. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed zoning amendment. Ayes - Fiorendino and Nays - Schmitt and Peterson.. MOTION FAILED. The following Ordinance will go before the City Council for the first reading June 14, 2010 without a recommendation from the Commission. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANTS AND OTHER EATING ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.107 (C)(1) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: § 9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (C) Specific development standards. The following uses are subject to specific development standards: (34) Outdoor seating. a. Outdoor seating plans will be subject to Planning Commission approval through the Site Plan Approval Process. b. 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. c. Outdoor seating shall be on a hard surface meeting all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. d. No outdoor seating shall be allowed on driveways or parking areas. e. If the intent is to serve alcohol outside, the following regulations shall be enforced: 1. The outdoor dining area shall be adjacent to the principal building and access shall be provided from within the principal building only. 2. A barrier shall be installed around the perimeter of the outdoor seating area, and shall be approved through the site plan approval process on a case -by -case basis. 3. The barrier shall be constructed in a manner that ensures that non - patrons of the restaurant will not have free and easy access to alcoholic beverages provided by patrons using the outdoor seating area. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 JUNE 1, 2010 f. If the intent is to not serve alcohol outside, the business shall supply the city with an affidavit stating that no alcohol will be served outdoors. g. The design of the patio area and any fencing and landscaping shall be such that sight lines in and out of existing or proposed access points are not obstructed. h. When not in use, the outdoor seating area shall not be used for off - season outdoor storage. i. Banners, streamers or other types of permanent or temporary signs shall not be placed or displayed on the barriers surrounding the outdoor dining areas. j. The outdoor dining area shall not take on characteristics of a building having a roof and /or walls. k. The Planning Commission, through the site plan approval process, shall determine the need for additional on -site parking requirements for the outdoor seating area. *NOTE* Existing Code Sections 9.107 (C)(3) (34 -47) shall be renumbered accordingly. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (E)(5) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: § 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. (E) GB, General Business District. (5) Permitted accessory uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following accessory uses shall be permitted in the GB, General Business District: (a) Private garages, parking spaces and loading areas. (b) Accessory buildings. (c) Landscaping and other horticultural uses. (d) Incidental repair or processing necessary toe conduct the permitted principal use, provided the accessory use does not exceed 30% of the floor area. (e) Temporary construction buildings. (f) Signs as regulated by § 9.106. (g) Outdoor seating for restaurants and other eating establishments. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (F)(5) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 18 JUNE 1, 2010 § 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. (F) CBD, Central Business District. (5) Permitted accessory uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CBD, Central Business District: (a) Private garages, parking spaces and loading areas. (b) Accessory buildings. (c) Landscaping and other horticultural uses. (d) Incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct the permitted principal use, provided the accessory use does not exceed 30% of the floor area. (e) Temporary construction buildings. (f) Signs as regulated by § 9.106. (g) Outdoor seating for restaurants and other eating establishments. Section 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: June 14, 2010 Second Reading: June 28, 2010 Date of Passage: NEW BUSINESS Peterson reminded everyone the Columbia Heights Lions Club Jamboree will be held June 24 -27 He invited everyone to join in the festivities of the parade, carnival, fireworks and beer gardens. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary