HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-0559040" Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, NLN 55421 -3878 (763)706 -3600 TDD (763) 706 -3692
Visit our website at. www.ci.columbia- heights. nut. us
PLANNING AND ZO NING
7:00 PM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5,2010
CITY H COUNCIL CHAM
.# 40 AVENUE NE
�
Minutes (June 1, 2010 meeting)
July 6, 2010 meeting canceled
August 4, 2010 meeting canceled
September 8, 2010 meeting canceled
2. Public Hearings:
Case #2010 -1001 Conditional Use Permit (Used Auto Sales)
4839 University Avenue NE
Interrnaco Auto Body, Inc.
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
Case #2010 -1002 Minor Subdivision, Site Plan
3900 Jackson Street NE
Schafer Richardson, Inc.
3. New Business
4. Other Business
TMEMBERS:
Marlaine Szurek, Chair
Donna Schmitt
Rob Fiorendino
Mike Peterson
David Thompson
The Responsibility of the Planning Commission is to:
• Faithfully serve the public interest.
• Represent existing and future residents, and base our decisions and
reconinendations on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
• Recognize the rights of citizens to participate in planning decisions.
• Protect the natural environment and the heritage of the built environment.
• Exercise fair, honest, and independent judgment.
• Abstain from participation when they may directly or indirectly benefit from a
planning decision.
PLANNING 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 fi°om the meetings of May 4, 2010.
All ayes. MOTTONPASSED.
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 wail 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 wail 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. MOTION PASSED.
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 # 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 A 200 square foot area variance for wall signage
per Code Section 9.106 (P)(12).
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The granting of the variance is in hanmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
5. 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 infonnation 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 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.
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 fare 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.
?. 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. MOTION PASSED.
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 of property in the immediate vicinity.
5. The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is compatible with the
appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area.
6 Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the pubic streets and to
provide for appropriate on -site circulation of traffic.
7. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative
effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit
shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (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 I" 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 -2B 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 -213 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 -213 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 -213. 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 -213, 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 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.
uestion 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 R213 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 lie 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 Fior°endino, seconded by Peterson,that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the rezoning of the property located at 4555 ffl'ashington Street from R -2B, One and Two
Family Residential to R -2A, One and Two Family Residential. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
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 l:
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 -213, 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 -213, 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 establislunents 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 P1amling 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 marmer 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
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.
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
camlot 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 HearingOpened:
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
L 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
§ 9.11.0 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
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT
C07TAIRTZKLiWTAi:1:11 P411 1 11IN
DATE: October 5, 2010
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Shafer Richardson, Inc.
LOCATION: 3900 Jackson Street NE
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision, Site Plan Approval for Shared Parking
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
� e •
Bulk Storage Corporation, c/o Shafer Richardson, owns the business located at 3900
Jackson Street. Currently, there are two buildings on the site. The first is a 56,000
square foot warehouse /manufacturing facility located on the west side of the lot. The
second is a 6,000 square foot office building located on the corner of 39 Avenue and
Jackson Street.
At this time, Shafer Richardson is requesting a minor subdivision per Code Section
9.104 (K), in order to split the smaller office building from the remainder of the lot. This
would give the owner the ability to market and sell the parcel separately. The current
configuration of parking stalls would make it difficult for the warehouse building to
comply with the minimum parking requirements. For this reason, a site plan approval
for shared parking is required. Per Code Section 9.016 (L)(9), the City Council may
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 5, 2010
3900 Jackson Street Case # 2010 -1002
approve the use of a required off - street parking area on an adjacent site in the form of a
site plan approval for shared parking.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Industrial related activities. The proposed
lot split and site plan for shared parking would enable the businesses at this located to
continue to prosper.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9.106 (L)(9) of the Zoning Code outlines specific conditions in order for the City
Council to approve the use of shared parking. They are as follows:
1. The use for which the application for shared parking is being made is located
within 300 feet if the use providing the parking facilities.
The warehouse building will share parking stalls located on the office building's
parcel. These uses are adjacent and abutting and within 300 feet of each other.
2. Subsections 9.106 (L)(9)(b) — 9.106 (L)(9)(d) relate to whether the use in
question is a nighttime, daytime or Sunday use. In this case, both uses are
daytime uses. The Code imposes restrictions on what percent of the shared
parking can be used for each type of use, with the assumption that each
business only has the minimum amount of required parking. In this case, the
office building property has an excess amount of parking, which will be shared
with the warehouse use. This is consistent with the Zoning Code.
3. Contract. A legally binding instrument for the shared use of off - street parking
facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Anoka County
Recorder's Office within 60 days after approval of the shared parking use.
The applicant is working on a cross - parking and cross - driveway easement
agreement by and between the two parcels in question. The City Attorney will
have to approve this agreement before the minor subdivision will be effective.
PARKING City Code requires 1 parking stall for every 300 square feet of office space
of gross floor area. Gross floor area is defined as 90% of the outside dimensions. The
office building is approximately 5,400 gross square feet, which yields a requirement of
18 parking stalls.
The large building is a mixture of assembly /manufacturing /processing and warehousing.
City Code requires 1 parking stall for every 1,000 square feet of
assembly /manufacturing /processing and 1 parking stall for every 3,000 square feet of
warehousing. The building has approximately 44,296 square feet of
Page 2
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 5, 2010
3900 Jackson Street Case # 2010 -1002
assembly /manufacturing /processing and 10,665 square feet of warehousing. This
equates to a total parking requirement of 44 parking stalls.
The site plan indicates a proposal of 34 parking stalls on Parcel A, the office building
parcel, and 34 parking stalls on Parcel B, the warehouse building parcel. While this
suffices the requirement for the office building, the warehouse parcel is short by 10
parking stalls. Exhibit A indicates the area on Parcel A that will be utilized in the shared
parking agreement. Notice that there will only be 12 parking stalls dedicated as those
shared between the office building and the warehouse building. Even if warehouse
employees use all 12 stalls, there will be a remainder of 22 parking stalls for the office
use. This still exceeds the minimum parking requirement for the office building of 18
parking stalls.
PARK DEDICATION The City Code requires a park dedication for any newly created
parcel or parcels through the subdivision process. Per ordinance, the park dedication
fee shall be equivalent to 10% of the market value of the tract in question. According to
Anoka County Records, the 2011 land value for the property located at 3900 Jackson
Street is $419,300. Given this value, the park dedication fee would be $41,930.
Staff feels that the size of the parcel in question poses a hardship to the applicant. The
City Code allows for modifications to the park dedication fee because of such a
hardship. To be consistent with other municipalities in the metropolitan area pertaining
to industrial pieces of land, staff proposes that the Planning Commission recommend a
park dedication fee equivalent to 5% of the market value of the property. Communities
such as Brooklyn Park (5 %), Fridley (3 %), and Roseville (5 %) use a lesser percentage
amount to calculate park dedication fees in industrial zones. Using 5% of the market
value would yield a park dedication fee of $20,965.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Minor Subdivision
Section 9.104 (K) of the Zoning Code outlines specific conditions in order for the City
Council to approve a minor subdivision. They are as follows:
Page 3
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 5, 2010
3900 Jackson Street Case # 2010 -1002
1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots.
The proposed subdivision will only created two parcels.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing
easements.
No vacation of existing easements will occur as a result of the minor subdivision.
3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width
requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located.
The minimum lot area requirement for the Industrial District is 10, 000 square feet.
The minimum lot width requirement is 80 feet. With the completion of the minor
subdivision, the newly created parcel will be approximately 137' x 139', which
equates to just over 19, 000 square feet in area.
4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights -of -way
for the purpose of gaining access to the property.
The property is currently accessed from both 39 Avenue and Jackson Street.
The proposed minor subdivision will not require any new public rights -of -way in
order to gain access to the newly created parcels.
5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision
provisions of this article.
This is a true statement.
6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land.
This is a true statement.
7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the
keeping of records related to assessments.
This is a true statement.
8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in Section
9.114.
This is a true statement.
Page 4
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 5, 2010
3900 Jackson Street Case # 2010 -1002
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 requirements set forth in the Zoning Code
related to shared parking.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's
comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Industrial related activities.
Allowing the shared use of parking facilities would enable the businesses to
prosper, which would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for
industrially guided properties.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
There is no applicable area plan for this area.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate
vicinity and the public right -of -way.
The proposed site plan will alleviate parking concerns for the businesses in
question. This will help ensure that the parking for the businesses will be
confined to the property and that parking will not spill over into the neighboring
residential area.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed minor subdivision and site plan conform to all standards outlined in the
Zoning Code. Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and site plan for the
property located at 3900 Jackson Street NE.
Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
minor subdivision of the property located at 3900 Jackson Street NE per Code Section
9.104 (K) of the City Code, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been
found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including:
1. The applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Anoka County.
2. The applicant shall pay a Park Dedication fee in the amount of $20,965.00, due
Page 5
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 5, 2010
3900 Jackson Street Case # 2010 -1002
prior to the applicant recording the minor subdivision with Anoka County.
Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
site plan for a shared parking arrangement for the property located at 3900 Jackson
Street per Code Section 9.106 (L)(9) of the City Code, 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. A legally binding instrument for the shared use of off - street parking facilities shall
be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Anoka County Recorder's
Office within 60 days after approval of the shared parking use.
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Resolutions
• Location Map
• Site Plans
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-97
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 3900 JACKSON STREET
NE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case No. 2010 -1002) has been submitted by Schafer Richardson, Inc.
requesting a subdivision from the City of Columbia Heights Subdivision Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 3900 Jackson Street NE
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall
THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed subdivision upon the health, safety, and welfare of
the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to traffic, property
values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; and has held the
required public hearing on this proposal on October 5, 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights
after reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the
Planning Commission:
1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements.
3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements
established for the zoning district in which the property is located.
4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights -of -way for the
purpose of gaining access to the property.
5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of
this article.
6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land.
7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of
records related to assessments.
8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the §9.114
Resolution No. 2010 -97 Page 2
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached condition, plans, maps, and other information
shall become part of this subdivision approval.
CONDITIONS
1. All applications materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this
application shall become part of the permit.
2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $1X.50, due at the time
of the recording of the minor subdivision with Anoka County.
<-4 7 2
Passed this 11 `" day of October, 2010
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-98
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR SHARED PARKING AT 3900
JACKSON STREET NE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case 42010 -1002) has been submitted by Schafer Richardson, Inc. to the
City Council requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS 3900 Jackson Street NE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT Site Plan approval for shared
parking per Code Section 9.106 (L)(9).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning
Code on October 5, 2010;
WHEREAS, the City Council his considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and
welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to
compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the
surrounding areas; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights
after reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings:
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article, except signage.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the
public right -of -way.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree
that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one 1
calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONIDTIONS ATTACHED:
1. A legally binding instrument for the shared use of off - street parking facilities shall be
approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Anoka County Recorder's Office within 60
Resolution No. 2010 -98
days after approval of the shared parking use.
Passed this l I"' day of October, 2010,
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Nays:
Attest:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
0
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
WI I�' . MiMB-lMI
HUSET PARK
3965
ET PARK
PKWY
6
m �_...... 385
620 636 650 3842
z q 660 674 662 700 716 3838
w L
36 j(j
3829
3828
3615 381E
38TH PL
J 627 U)
d 637
AVE 38Th
29 r
m m
604 z 637 z n
m m O
O _ V) 675 3 1(
m m n 647 711 741
836 3988 f
8 950
mL_LJ/ 02D 3982 3982
Fl 7 3976 900 3970
3970 3970 3968 3989
3967 3968 3963 3964 3964 GOU LD
396 y 3958 J
39 fi 3956
57 3952 3959 950 d
3 2 g 3946 7 3sn6 3951
3942 _ W' N m m
3 g 3932 W °
3935 3939 3940 "
9 5 3 393 W
3931 931 3 3928 LL
23 3922 3923 3924 -- 1036
7000
98 ]918
3900 3914 3915 3912 3919 3yp8
3910 _ 971 33y
9
m o 3900 3 ' 9 0 v
981 390 39D7 0 3900 `�
m
39TH
3857 3856 3965 850 3857
3059 3850
- g 3849 3850 F 3853 3854 7853 940 950
3847 38 5 3844 8 3844 3847 3827 38pp - 84
8
19 3841 383p 3 C3
3833 3 3 3 3 7837 3828 3pv e`7S
— M - 3u -
-Ma- 3 3828 38 ?p 38"9 S
3829
1625
UgU 2 7Q 383 "'p
3819 3 1 3821 1 38 .t 08 34 ?) 387a
3815 W 38 ? 3 8
3813 ] Z 3 1p
87 S 3
3805 38 3801 3800 > 3701 "'8p8 pp
3601 Q ` 3 j3 0
3728 J
3722 z 3722 1
77 3716 O 3 3 _. 37 3 3718 z (v� 3 X33 3 3 l? S ,
77 3710 W
.! 3
�37< Y 3709 37 3706 3 � 7 3
5 801 1700 Q 7 3700 37D1 X 967 370 3701 > 17Tl
B
Location neap
W E
-
S
C
HUSET PARK
3965
ET PARK
PKWY
6
m �_...... 385
620 636 650 3842
z q 660 674 662 700 716 3838
w L
36 j(j
3829
3828
3615 381E
38TH PL
J 627 U)
d 637
AVE 38Th
29 r
m m
604 z 637 z n
m m O
O _ V) 675 3 1(
m m n 647 711 741
836 3988 f
8 950
mL_LJ/ 02D 3982 3982
Fl 7 3976 900 3970
3970 3970 3968 3989
3967 3968 3963 3964 3964 GOU LD
396 y 3958 J
39 fi 3956
57 3952 3959 950 d
3 2 g 3946 7 3sn6 3951
3942 _ W' N m m
3 g 3932 W °
3935 3939 3940 "
9 5 3 393 W
3931 931 3 3928 LL
23 3922 3923 3924 -- 1036
7000
98 ]918
3900 3914 3915 3912 3919 3yp8
3910 _ 971 33y
9
m o 3900 3 ' 9 0 v
981 390 39D7 0 3900 `�
m
39TH
3857 3856 3965 850 3857
3059 3850
- g 3849 3850 F 3853 3854 7853 940 950
3847 38 5 3844 8 3844 3847 3827 38pp - 84
8
19 3841 383p 3 C3
3833 3 3 3 3 7837 3828 3pv e`7S
— M - 3u -
-Ma- 3 3828 38 ?p 38"9 S
3829
1625
UgU 2 7Q 383 "'p
3819 3 1 3821 1 38 .t 08 34 ?) 387a
3815 W 38 ? 3 8
3813 ] Z 3 1p
87 S 3
3805 38 3801 3800 > 3701 "'8p8 pp
3601 Q ` 3 j3 0
3728 J
3722 z 3722 1
77 3716 O 3 3 _. 37 3 3718 z (v� 3 X33 3 3 l? S ,
77 3710 W
.! 3
�37< Y 3709 37 3706 3 � 7 3
5 801 1700 Q 7 3700 37D1 X 967 370 3701 > 17Tl
B
Location neap
W E
-
S
�2
p
Z
N..3932 N. 3931
t
Garage
L
4 89-22 E 167.00;1
1 .0 -1b N 8922'57" E 129.15 N 89225 %
I 7S;=rR PER 130014
F OF LENS & LEASES PACE 583- — WATERMAN EASEMENT PER DOC. N.. 68030�-, 1
- — — — — — — — — — —
- - — — — — — — — — — — — — - Pad
metol .d
-----------------
nc,.
ow
1 0
ladder
Z
2
- — -- ------
S89 '22
01 0--
0
r "tch besin,
,i6.9 r 77
0
I � 7
> 29 .75�
STORY BLOCK & METAL BUILDING
x
k
7.00' 9
..........
S 89'22'57"W 22-651 — — _ ---- _
0C
k
l.c 1
Building b p
S
Z
25.25
d deck
p
2-Story 131
2y
Z > 34 85 4 9PS meter
e, "66
.6
P.— lk
V Inrimt er,
pole 55 '679
wo r7 ........ ..
S 5
OMH v, ,,. W
QJH C'WH MiF -NORTH LINE 0
39TH AVENUE NE.
Denotes Parking Areas (Parking Easement)
*i. or is
SCALE IN FEET
30 0 30 60
Denotes Ingress and Egress Area (Access Easement)
45�414161
LOT quRvEys COMPANY, INc
LAND SURVEYORS
ALTA / ACSM LAND TITLE
HILLCREST
SCALE N FEET
L --------- MiW
30 0 30 60
Z
C,
.,.Do se
rq a—
uji
c u1
I SPIRY BLOCK a M ETAL BUILD
47,--
7.00
N89'22'57
E
I
'N
L-gg
r %A�
- N89' -143.15
N9 m32
CD
e
frome shed
no foundation
N Wk'57"
F. 167.00 -
-- -- -
\
blo ck wall .:
MHO curb
�J4
tt
wood fence
'' ^p
B04I�
-SEWER EASEMENT-PER
�
5i.15` `'`
, _
F OF LIENS &LEASES PAGE 585
-
` WA-'
-
`
f
e
meter
gas meter
______
metal she lco nc- -pad -- —
d (
I { l
—
i
- --
CD
<
00
r
T
4
p
O
_
h
Q r
+I
t5o
10.9
chain link fence
i
, •.
- STORY BLOCK & METAL B UILDIN G
TM
2257" W4
@ ,
-- - - -- - -- - --
-- _ e
Q)
u
<
r
ildir)£g
V
c tQ33''
ulp
LO
r
Z
�\ - 3485 ti,,•,
metal
;.gas rseter
!
!Aoirs -
ei�C
\
trans
>
chain link fens
n
=r
o
{ o c
power
i of o
S u
{
p.ble
, b.5� \
a
MH
October 5, 2010
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We at Schafer Richardson understand the importance of creating park and recreational
land in the development process. In the past, Schafer Richardson has worked closely
with the City of Columbia Heights on providing both in -kind and cash park land
contributions for the Huset Park development project. The City of Columbia Heights
Community Development Planning staff have been extremely helpful and flexible in
working with us on our current project; a proposed lot split of the property at 3900
Jackson Street NE. City planning staff communicated to Schafer Richardson that per
planning ordinance 9.115(C)(3)(b)5 a parks dedication fee amounting to 5% of the total
land value would be assessed. However, we feel that a parks dedication fee of 5% creates
undue hardship and could halt our ability to move forward with the lot split and sale of
the parcel.
Schafer Richardson bought the property at 3900 Jackson Street NE in March 1999. Since
that time, despite efforts by Schafer Richardson to market to an office user, the small
office building located on the site's southeast corner has sat primarily vacant. Schafer
Richardson has found an interested buyer, and the proposed lot split will create a parcel
for the existing office building to make the sale possible. The proposed lot split at 3900
Jackson Street NE will not change the uses at the site, and it will not add new
construction. The proposed lot split and sale of the created parcel will bring more jobs
into the city and increase the City's tax base. Given that there will be no new
construction at the site, that there will be reuse of an existing vacant building, that jobs
will be added to the local economy, and Schafer Richardson's desire to work in continued
cooperation with the City of Columbia Heights, we propose a Parks Dedication fee of
2.5 % in this instance as a compromise.
We at Schafer Richardson thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Klatt
Project Associate