Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-06z. 590 - 40 Avenue Nt;, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 -3878 (763)706.3600 '1'DD (763) 706 -3692 Visit our website at: wwn ci columb /n- betebts.nm. us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 - 40 AVENUE NE 1. Roll Call Minutes October 3, 2011 meeting (November 1, 2011 meeting cancelled) 2. Public Hearings: Case #2011 -1201, Variance for Shed Setback 5075 Johnson Street NE Jeanne Ramirez Case #2011 -1202, Variance, Parking Setback 3700 Central Avenue O'Reilly Auto Parts Store 3. New Business 4. Other Business 5. Adjourn MEMBERS: Marlaine Snick, Chair Rob Fiorendino Mike Peterson David Thompson 'Tracey Kinney The Responsibility of the Planning Commission is to: • Faithfully serve the public interest. • Represent existing and future residents, and base our decisions and recommendations 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 October 4, 2011 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair - Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Thompson, Fiorendino, Kinney, Peterson and Szurek. Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary) and Gary Peterson (Council Liaison). Motion by Kinney, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 3, 2011. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2011 -0901 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: 590 — 40 "' Avenue NE REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit, Variance for LED Monument Sign Sargent explained that at this time the City of Columbia Heights is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the installation of an LED sign for City Hall, located at 590 — 40 ' 11 Avenue NE, per Code Section 9.106 (P)(13)(c). In conjunction with the CUP, the City is also seeking a variance to allow an LED sign to occupy more than 60% of the sign area per Code Section 9.106 (P)(8)(a) 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Institutional uses. Enabling City Hall to more efficiently promote events and information pertaining to the City welfare through the use of an electronic display sign is consistent with the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 590 — 40 "' Avenue NE is located in the PO, Public and Open Space District. The properties to the east are zoned LB, Limited Business, the properties to the north are zoned LB and GB, General Business, the properties to the west are zoned GB and R -3, Multiple Family Residential, and the property to the south is Huset Park, zoned PO, Public and Open Space. Digital LED signs are permitted as a Conditional Use in the PO, Public and Open Space District. The proposed LED sign will replace the existing reader board sign adjacent to City Hall along 40 "' Avenue. The current location for this sign offers the best viewing of the sign and would more easily promote upcoming events that the city would like to advertise for. The previous reader board sign offered a large area for the placement of letters needed to promote event. City staff would like to be able to retain as much of that signage space as possible with the new LED sign. The proposed LED portion of the sign will be 9' x 4', with some space above for the words "City of Columbia Heights ". For this reason, a variance to the requirement that the LED sign could occupy no more than 60% of the total sign area is needed. The City Hall LED sign will also be required to meet all other regulations governing LED signs, which have been attached as conditions of approval. City Code allows for LED signs to be placed on pylon signs in the PO, Public and Open Space District. Page 2 FINDINGS OF FACT (Conditional Use Permit) Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines nine conditions that roust be met in order for the City Council to grant a Conditional Use Permit. They are as follows: (a) The use is one of the conditional uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Digital LED signs are specifically listed as a Conditional Use in the PO, Public and Open Space District. (b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area, for Institutional uses. Enabling City Hall to more efficiently promote events and information pertaining to the City welfare through the use of an electronic display sign is consistent with the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. (c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. The City will have to abide by specific development standards as they relate to LED signs. These standards were adopted to help ensure a limiting disturbing influence on neighboring properties. Given the location of the proposed sign and its orientation to 40` Avenue, staff feels that the use will not impose hazards on the neighboringproperties. (d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. The use of property in the immediate vicinity will not be diminished by the placement of a digital LED sign at 590 — 40 Avenue. (e) The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a mamier that is compatible with the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area. The City will have to abide by specific development standards as they relate to LED signs. These standards will help ensure compatibility with the appearance of the existing surrounding area. (f) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public facilities and services. This is correct. (g) 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 use of a digital LED sign at this location will influence traffic congestion. (h) The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of other uses is the immediate vicinity. By subjecting the use of a digital LED sign to specific development standards, it is intended that the use will not cause a negative cumulative effect. (i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located. This is correct. Page 3 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 property on which the proposed sign will be located is oddly shaped. Staff initially proposed the idea of placing the LED sign on a monument near the intersection of 40' Avenue and Mill Street. Upon further insight, it was determined that the public would best be able to view the new sign if it was located in the same spot as the existing reader board. Because of the construction of such signs, and because the proposed LED sign will utilize the same pylon supports, it becomes very difficult to construct an LED sign that occupies no more than 60% of the sign area. 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. City Hall is placed on a very narrow and oddly shaped piece of'land. Replacing the current reader board sign with a new LED sign would offer the best viewing of the sign by the general public. This is also the only piece of Public and Open Space land that would incorporate an LED sign on an existing pylon sign. The circumstances surrounding this piece of property are unique in the City for these reasons. 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 Zoning Code related to LED signs apply mostly to monument signs. The PO District allows for LED signs to be placed on pylons, but does not take into consideration the hardship involved in constructing an LED sign meeting the 60% criteria. No action by the City has caused the hardship for the need of the variance. 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 Institutional uses. Enabling City Hall to more efficiently promote events and information pertaining to the City welfare through the use of an electronic display sign is consistent with the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 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 use of property in the immediate vicinity will not be diminished by the placement of a digital LED directly on the north property line adjacent to 40 1h Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP and variance to allow an LED sign to occupy more than 60% of the sign area for City Hall located at 590 — 40 Avenue NE. Page 4 Questions from members: Mike Peterson asked if the existing pylons would be reused. Sargent said they would be painted and the new sign would be mounted on them. He said the visibility of the existing pylon location, and the expense of a monument style base, were the deciding factors. Peterson then asked if any consideration had been given to replacing the sign at Murzyn Hall at the same time, as there may be a cost savings to do two at the same time. Gary Peterson said the City Council did discuss that possibility. However, the sign itself costs about $25,000430,000 for a refurbished one, and there was no cost savings to do two, rather than one. He said the Council decided to do one at a time and chose to do the most visible one first. He said the safety of employees having to manually change the old message board was the primary reason to update the sign. He said that messages can now be changed easily and more often with the new design. Kimsey asked if the new sign would be digital. Sargent explained the top portion would have the static "City of Columbia Heights" display, and that the bottom part of the sign would be an LED lit sign. She asked if any consideration had been given to surrounding the pylon posts with brick to better match the building and hide the posts to make it more aesthetically appealing. Sargent said it hasn't been discussed to his knowledge and that the Council was hying to keep the cost down as much as possible. Fiorendino asked why the signage had to be more than 60% of the total size. Sargent explained that once the decision was made to re -use the pylon posts, that re- furbished LED signs come in pre- determined sizes, and this also dictates the area of signage would exceed the 60% figure. Thompson agreed that the existing location of the sign was best due to shape of the lot and that it granted the best visibility. He suggested that a "not to exceed" limit on the percentage of LED signage for the sign be established between 60% and 80 %. Sargent said that isn't necessary since Condition #1 already states the approval is based on what has already been submitted. Gary Peterson said it clearly states that each side of the sign is 9 x 4 = 36 sf for a total of 72 sf for both sides, which falls within the parameters he suggested. Public Hearing Opened: There was no one present to speak on this matter. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a for a digital LED sign for City Hall located at 590 — 40' Avenue, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of' the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: Page 5 1. The dynamic LED signs may occupy no more than sixty percent (60%) of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic LED signs, even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. 2. The dynamic LED sign may not change or move more often than once every ten (10) seconds, except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour - and - minute, date, or temperature information. 3. A display of time, date or temperature information may change as frequently as once every five (5) seconds, however information displayed not relating to the date, time or temperature must not change or move more often than once every ten (10) seconds. 4. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one state display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects. Motion, animation and video images are prohibited on dynamic LED sign displays. 5. The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. 6 The dynamic LED signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction shall occur. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards of this ordinance. 7. The dynamic LED signs may not exceed a maximum illumination of'5,000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum brightness. The dynamic LED signs must have an automatic dimmer control to produce a distinct illumination change from a higher illumination level to a lower level for the time period between one -half hour before sunset and one half -hour after sunrise. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Kinney, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the variance to allow an LED sign to occupy more than 60% of'the sign area, 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. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. The following Resolutions will go to the City Council October 10, 2011. Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-114 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY HALL WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2011 -0901) has been submitted by City Staff to the City Council requesting a conditional use permit from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS 950 — 40` Avenue NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT A Conditional Use Permit per Code Section 9.106 (P)(1 3)(c), to allow a dynamic LED sign in the PO, Public and Open Space District WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on October 4, 2011; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed conditional use permit upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: 1. The use is one of the conditional 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 distributing 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. The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public facilities and services. 7. 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. 8. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity. 9. The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located. 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 veor after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. Page 7 CONDITIONS ATTACHED 1. The dynamic LED sign may not change or move more often than once every ten (10) seconds, except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour - and - minute, date, or temperature information. 2. A display of time, date or temperature information may change as frequently as once every five (5) seconds, however information displayed not relating to the date, time or temperature must not change or move more often than once every ten (10) seconds. 3. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one state display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects. Motion, animation and video images are prohibited on dynamic LED sign displays. 4. The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. 5. The dynamic LED signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction shall occur. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards of this ordinance. 6. The dynamic LED signs may not exceed a maximum illumination of 5,000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum brightness. The dynamic LED signs must have an automatic dimmer control to produce a distinct illumination change from a higher illumination level to a lower level for the time period between one -half hour before sunset and one half -hour after sunrise. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-115 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONSOF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY HALL WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2011 -0901) has been submitted by City Staff to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS 590 — 40` Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF A variance to allow an LED sign to occupy greater than 60% of the sign area per Code Section 9.106 (P)(8)(a) 1. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a special public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on October 4, 2011; 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; Page 8 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 harmony 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: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. CASE NUMBER: 2011 -0902 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: City Wide REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for Variances Sargent told members that in 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision that changed the longstanding interpretation of the statutory standard for granting variances. In the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there was reasonable use in the absence of the variance. This was a much stricter standard, which considerably limited variance opportunities. On May 5, 2011, Governor Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. The new law now allows for variances to be granted based on whether the proposed use is a reasonable one, but happens to not conform to underlying zoning regulations. Page 9 The new law renames the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the familiar three - factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. This means that the proposed use has to be a reasonable one for the property, conditions of the property have to be unique enough to warrant the variance, and the granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the variance is granted. Code Section 9.104 (G) relates to the variance procedure for the City of Columbia Heights. The language currently used to describe the instances in which the City Council may grant a variance uses the term "undue hardship." Even so, the current language would still suffice and would be applicable for the City Council to grant a variance. However, to be more consistent with the recent legislation regarding variances, City Staff recommends a text amendment to the ordinance that substitutes the term "undue hardship" with the term "practical difficulties." COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The purpose of a variance is to provide a means of departure from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code, given that a set of criteria is adhered to. Since this is a procedure allowed for any zoning district throughout the city, it is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment: 1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of a variance is to provide a means of departure from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code, given that a set of criteria is adhered to. Since this is a procedure allowed, for any zoning district throughout the city, it is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The proposed amendment deals with the regulations for obtaining a variance from the Zoning Code. The proposed amendment was triggered by a state legislative change and not by a single property owner. For this reason, the proposed amendment will benefit all residents and business owners 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. The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property. 4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning classification. The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property. Questions by members Fiorendino asked why the wording "unique to property" was being deleted from G (1). Sargent said it is addressed later in the Ordinance under Findings, so it is still included in the overall interpretation. Page 10 Public Hearing Opened: No one was present to speak on this matter. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson to approve the proposed Zoning Amendment regarding variances. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. This will go to the City Council October 10, 2011. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: Chapter 9, Article 1, Section 9.104(G) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: § 9.104 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. (G) Variances. (1) Purpose. The purpose of a variance is to provide a means of departure from the literal provisions of this article. where striet adherenee would eatise undue hafdship because of eircurnstaneess unique to the property Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. It is not the intent of this section to allow a variance for a use that is not permitted within a particular zoning district. (2) Right of Application. Any person with a legal interest in the property may file an application for one or more variances. (3) Application for variance. An application for a variance shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on the approved form and shall be accompanied by a site plan and any other information determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary. (4) Public hearing. The Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, shall hold a public hearing on the complete application for a variance in accordance with the requirements of this section. After the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall make findings and submit its recommendation to the City Council. (5) City Council action. The City Council shall make the final decision regarding an application for a variance from the provisions of this article. Approval of a variance shall require a simple majority vote of the City Council. (6) Required findings. The City Council shall make each of the following findings before granting a variance from the provisions of this article: Page 11 (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 undu hardship practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. (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. (c) The difficu at! r a fE l s hi s practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. (d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. (e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. (7) Conditions of approval. The City Council may establish any reasonable conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to mitigate adverse impacts directly associated with granting of the variance and to protect neighboring properties. Section 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: CASE NUMBER: 2011 -0903 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: Scattered Site Housing TIF District REQUEST: Approval of Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan In 2009, the City Council approved the modification of some of the language of the University Heights (C8) TIF district. The purpose of the modification to the district was to utilize the unlimited pooling allowance to generate fund balances from the District. The money generated from the University Heights TIF District allowed the City to purchase 17 houses that were severely blighted and /or functionally obsolete. City Staff is now proposing to create a Scattered Site Housing TIF District in order to reimburse the funds taken from the C8 TIF District so that future housing programs could be implemented. The Public Hearing to approve the Scattered Site Housing TIF District is set for October 10, 2011. Prior to this Public Hearing, Minnesota State Statutes and TIP law requires an approved Resolution from the Planning Commission ensuring that the land use resulting from the TIF district conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Page 12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City has purchased single- family homes in areas throughout the City in which the Comprehensive Plan guides for Residential use. For this reason, the teardown and reconstruction of new single - family homes would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Questions by members: Kimsey asked if all the lots would be used for Residential purposes. Sargent stated that is the current plan. There is one lot on 3" d Street not currently zoned residential that would have to be rezoned. There were no further questions. Public Hearing Opened: There was no one present to speak on this matter.- Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Kinney, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission approves Resolution 2011 - PZ06, finding that a modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and the creation of the Scattered Site Rousing Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment ofthe City. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. RESOLUTION NO.2011 -PZ06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR THE CBD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND A MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CREATION OF THE SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, (the "City ") has proposed to adopt a Modification to the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project (the 'Revitalization Plan Modification ") and the creation of the scattered site housing tax increment financing district (the "TIF Plan Creation ") therefore (the Revitalization Plan Modification and the TIF Plan Creation are referred to collectively herein as the "Modification and Creation Plans ") and has submitted the Modification and Creation Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and Page 13 WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Modification and Creation Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modification and Creation Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: October 4, 2011 Motion by: Kinney Second by: Peterson Roll Call: All ayes CHAIR, Marlaine Szurek ATTEST: SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson NEW BUSINESS ■ Sargent told members he has been attending meetings for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) feasibility study being considered by the Met Council. He said open houses are scheduled to gather input on the following dates: October 11, 2011 from 6 -8 pm at Metro State University in St Paul October 12, 2011 from 6 -8 pm at Midtown Exchange October 13, 2011 from 11 am -1 pm at Minneapolis Central Library in Downtown Mpls. He told members there are 11 corridors being considered and that Central Avenue is one of them. If they decide to establish such a service they won't all be added at the same time. He said this service probably wouldn't be implemented for 5 -10 years. Sargent said the Met Council is looking at issues such as separate branding for the buses, special stops, new shelters, up to date time information, pre pay abilities to make the service as fast as possible. ■ Sargent also told members he is taking part in training for the City's new website. I-Ie said it should be very beneficial to users. It is user friendly, and provides for interactive communication with City Staff and will also provide notifications to those who want to be alerted to certain issues or meetings. He said the goal is to have it operational before the end of the year. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary Eel M o W-IUUIN 10 CASE NUMBER: 2011 -1201 DATE: December 6, 2011 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: Jeanne Ramirez LOCATION: 5075 Johnson Street NE REQUEST: 3 -foot side and rear yard setback variance for shed PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner INTRODUCTION At this time, the applicant is requesting a 3 -foot side and rear yard setback variance for the placement of a playhouse / shed located at 5075 Johnson Street, per Code Section 9.106 (C)(1)(c). The City's Zoning Code requires that all new accessory structures be no closer than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines. The storage shed / playhouse has already been constructed and is located within the 3 -foot setback requirement on the side and rear property lines. For this reason, a 3 -foot setback variance is required. ZONING ORDINANCE The property at 5075 Johnson Street is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, as are all the properties in the surrounding area. The Zoning Code states that all detached accessory structures must be located no closer than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines. The property at 5075 Johnson Street is a corner lot, intersecting with Lincoln Terrace. The house is situated towards the northeast corner of the property with the front of the house facing Johnson Street. The applicant has stated that this creates a very small rear yard, with little room for a storage shed. The applicant constructed the shed in the northeast corner of the property within the 3 -foot setback requirements of the north and east property lines. Staff noticed the two -story structure and informed the applicant that she would need a building permit and a variance if she wished to retain the shed's location. Upon inspection of the property records, it was discovered that the applicant has also placed the shed on a 5 -foot utility and drainage easement. Usually, the City does not i of Columbia H eil 5075 Johnson St - hts Planning Commission ed Variance December 6, 2011 Case # 2011 -1201 allow for the construction of any type of buildings on an easement. However, as a condition of approval, the applicant will have to agree to remove the shed at her expense should the City ever need to gain access to the utilities in the easement. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow the shed to remain in its current location would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the 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 practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. As stated by the applicant, there is no other reasonable place on the property to place the storage shed than in its current location. By moving the structure into compliance with the ordinance, the structure would block sunlight into either the neighbor's house or the applicant's house. Due to the small backyard and City Codes prohibiting the shed to be located in the front yard, there is no other space on the lot to place the structure. Staff supports the practical difficulties as stated by the applicant. The proposed location of the structure is reasonable given the characteristics of the property and the location of the structures on adjacent properties. 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. The topography and orientation of the house on the corner lot are unique to the specific parcel of land involved. c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. Page 2 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 6, 2011 5075 Johnson St - Shed Variance Case # 2011 -1201 The provisions of the Code would make it difficult for the applicant to use her property in a reasonable manner due to the unique circumstances of her property and the orientation of the house on the lot. 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 as residential. A variance to allow the shed to remain in its current location would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area. 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 not be materially detrimental to the public. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 3 -foot side and rear yard setback variances for the placement of a storage shed / playhouse because the practical difficulties surrounding the property justify the current placement of the shed. Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 3 -foot side and rear yard setback variance for the placement of a playhouse / shed located at 5075 Johnson Street per Code Section 9.106 (C)(1)(c) 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. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant shall agree to remove the shed at the owner's expense in the event that the City would need to gain access to the 5 -foot utility and drainage easement on which the shed is located. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Resolution • Location Map • Site Plan • Letter from the Applicant Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR JEANNE RAMIREZ WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2011 -1201) has been submitted by Jeanne Ramirez to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS 5075 Johnson Street NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF A 3 -foot side and rear yard setback variance for the placement of a playhouse / shed located at 5075 Johnson Street per Code Section 9.106 (C)(1)(e). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on December 6, 2011; 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, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. 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 practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony 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. Resolution No. 2011 -XX 2 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. CONIDTIONS ATTACHED: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant shall agree to remove the shed at the owner's expense in the event that the City would need to gain access to the 5 -foot utility and drainage easement on which the shed is located. Passed this 12 °i day of December, 2011 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Ayes: Nays: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Attest: Patricia Muscovitz, CMC City Clerk 50175 Johnson Street CI �' c> c u� ev Er) 't in m un o us 5150 5 (p 5145 RRACE MATTERHORN 5141 m �° 1550 5135 m d V tr EO :r r) 1388 1493 0 1384 1487 5075 5055 \\ 1479 1372 164 5045 1364 1471 1476 1633 5050 5035 1356 1461 1468 1629 � 1348 1453 5030 L 5025 40 1445 1460 5010 T 5015 1625 G U) 1 2 1439 -44/ 1450 5000 5005 1621 111 33 1440 Z 4995 4990 1617 1425 f. 1430 �- 4975 Tq2 WE 1615 4955 Location fvlap CP 00 nm O b • f _ L " , JI p p �i I Ln � ( ; ro l co p s to " h ' e ' 4 Rzo A — ../•� —hl. U 0 - Z417 > C y m m r , z a Petition for variance to keep shed /playhouse at. 5075 ,Johnson St NE, Columbia Heights MIN 55421 We began building this structure at the beginning of the summer 2010. At the beginning of the process we secured informal permission from our adjacent neighbors and called the City of Columbia Heights to ask whether we needed a permit to build. We were told that if the structure were under 16 feet tall and 3 feet back from the property line, there was no permit needed. We called again towards the end of the process to make sure we had heard the height requirements correctly and were assure that if it were under 16 feet no permits were needed. At no point in the process did anyone suggest that we check into possible easements on the property before building. In fact, we did not even know what an easement was until just recently when questions arose about this structure. The inspector (Larry Pepin) came by late in the winter (Feb ?) and told us about the easement which is for utilities and drainage on the back corner of our property. This house was build in in the early 1960s and there are no utilities to date using this space. There is established lines in the front of the house for water and gas + cable and telephone are on overhead wires which do not interfere with the shed /playhouse where it is currently located. The other major issue, drainage, is not a concern as the structure is constructed on elevated "stilts" which leave about 12 inches of clearance for runoff under the structure. Also our property is located at the top of a hill so drainage is not much of an issue for that reason as well. I've also talked to 11 neighbors that surround our corner lot and live within 350 of the property and they were all happy to let us keep the shed /playhouse in the northeast corner of our yard. Some even offered to come to the speak with the city of Columbia Heights with me on our behalf. I've lived in Columbia Heights since I was in kindergarten - went to school here, got good grades and never got in trouble (except with mom and dad every once in awhile)! I moved bacl because I consider the Heights to be a friendly and reasonable place to live. Hardship: There is no other reasonable places in the yard to put the shed /placehouse, besides where it is currently located. Even if we were to take off the second floor and just use the first floor shed, it will be blocking our house windows or the adjacent neighbors windows. For example, if we move the structure into compliance with the easement, but keep it in the same corner, it will be blocking our kitchen window light (see lot map). if we move it out of the easement zone, the structure will be on the back doorstep of our abutting neighbors. They do not want the shed /playhouse so close to their high traffic outdoor living and eating space. If we move it even further down the lot line, it will be legally located but just a feet away from the neighbors bedroom windows. They don't want it there either! We are a corner lot and the neighbors house is located about 3 feet off of our fence and property line behind our yard. If we locate it outside the fence on the west side yard, we are dealing with removing a section of hill. If we locate it in the front yard, nobody will be happy. Sheds just don't go in the front yard - especially not on a corner lot. Currently the structure is 15 1/2 feet tall and is between 1 -4 feet off of the property line at different points around the structure. Our bad: (This is the wife speaking) - As we built this backyard project, the husband should have paid more exact attention to the lot line measurements. By the law we are in the wrong on this point. Mercy: We ask that in light of the close proximity of the neighbors house and the odd shaped corner lot + hilly terrain that you approve this variance and allow us to keep the shed /playhouse in its current location. On the same topic, but different location... This is the question 1 want to ask every morning when I drive down Central Avenue: Why don't the owner's of the Central Loft apartments need a variance to keep a rusting sign, sagging plastic and weeds on a gateway property in our city? I think there are more important issues to take care of in the city of Columbia Heights than a shed that everyone in the surrounding area is in agreement with. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE ASK FOR YOUR MERCY in fulfilling the spirit and not the letter of the law! If you would like to come take a look at this structure in person, feel free to contact me at 763 - 442 -5103 or ,iiramirez @comcaaLnet I am a neighbor that lives within 350 feet of the property on the corner of Lincoln Terrace and Johnson Street (5075 Johnson Street NE, Columbia Heights, MN 65421) and I am signing this letter as a way of saying that I do not have any problem with them building a shed /playhouse in the NE corner of their yard. r,6rrip Address d Name Printed Signature 5065 Johnson St NE Richard and Judy Grommes ,Y D `join,` f ' l 5055 Johnson St NE p,F/� ! V lie V tl' � f C) n` Nathan and Chely Lowry u Lincoln- Terrace Matterhorn Drive C D fe'ZN9W4 c5 d) Mef, � ' J cola I 0 ( L 7 i� C.ti- N i ua . y J , � r.� _ - -- :i. � u }� � (uQ 7� ƒ� � w } : �� �� � p � ©/ � �� / _ £ /� .� y . :0ee y> � � ,� , �. �� � \�\ � \/3 � o � -- x I v z� IS I CASE NUMBER: 2011 -1202 DATE: December 6, 2011 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: O'Reilly Auto Parts Store LOCATION: 3700 Central Avenue NE REQUEST: 11 -foot Corner Side Yard Setback Variance for Parking PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner INTRODUCTION At this time, the applicant is requesting an 11 -foot corner side yard setback variance for parking for the O'Reilly Auto Part Store located at 3700 Central Avenue, per Code Section 9.110 (C). The site plan for the construction of the new store indicates that three parking stalls will be located closer than the required 15 -foot setback from Central Avenue. For this reason, an 11 -foot setback variance is required. The construction of a new building also requires a Site Plan Approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant is not ready at this time to submit the proper information for a Site Plan review, but would still like the variance to be considered for approval. The applicant is in the process of gathering the proper information for the Site Plan and will be submitting that information at a later time. An approved Site Plan will be a condition of approval for the variance request. ZONING ORDINANCE The property at 3700 Central Avenue is zoned GB, General Business, as are the properties to the north and east. The properties to the west are zoned R -3, Multiple Family Residential, and the properties to the south are located in the City of Minneapolis. The property is also located within the Design Guidelines Downtown District, and will be subject to those requirements. For definition purposes in the Zoning Code, a corner lot has both a front yard and a corner side yard. The front yard is portion of the property along the public right -of -way with the least width. For this reason, the front yard is considered the frontage along 37 Avenue and the corner side yard is considered the frontage along Central Avenue. The City Code requires that all parking must maintain a minimum 15 -foot setback from the City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 6, 2011 3700 Central Avenue - Parking Variance Case # 2011 -1202 public right -of -way along a corner side yard As stated previously, this property is also located within the Design Guidelines Downtown District. The Design Guidelines govern many facets of redevelopment, including building and parking placement on the property. For instance, the Design Guidelines require that the building be placed as closely to the intersection of Central Avenue and 37 Avenue as possible. The Design Guidelines also require that at least 50% of the parking be located behind the front line of the building. The accompanying Site Plan indicates that the building will be placed in the correct location with 100% of the parking located behind the front line of the building. The applicant would like to accommodate as much parking in front of the store as possible, which places two of the proposed parking stalls within the 15 -foot setback requirement. PARKING For retail establishments, the City Code requires 1 parking stall for every 300 square feet of retail space. The proposed building will be approximately 7,450 square feet in area, requiring a minimum of 23 parking stalls. The Site Plan indicates 30 on -site parking spaces, meeting the City's minimum requirements. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as commercial. A variance to allow extra on- site parking would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the 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 practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The practical difficulties are caused by the orientation of the property in relation to Central Avenue and the fact that the property is a corner lot. City Code requires the building to be placed as close to the corner as possible, and the applicants are using the remainder of the property in a reasonable manner as a result of the building placement. 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. Page 2 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 6, 201 3700 Central Avenue - Parking Variance Case # 2011 -1202 The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the corner lots along Central Avenue. Being that no other corner lot property along Central Avenue shares the same lot dimensions, this property is unique compared to other properties in the GB, General Business District. c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The Design Guidelines mandate where the building must be placed on the property. The applicants are utilizing the remainder of the property in a reasonable manner based on the building location. 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 as commercial. A variance to allow extra on -site parking would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area. 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 not be materially detrimental to the public. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 11 -foot corner side yard setback for parking because the practical difficulties surrounding the property justify the proposed location of the parking stalls in question. Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 11 -foot corner side yard setback variance for parking for the O'Reilly Auto Parts Store located at 3700 Central Avenue per Code Section 9.110 (C) 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. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. Approval of the variance request in contingent on the approval of the Site Plan for the O'Reilly Auto Parts Store located at 3700 Central Avenue. Page 3 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 6, 2011 3700 Central Avenue - Parking Variance Case # 2011 -1202 ATTACHMENTS Draft Resolution Location Map Site Plan Page 4 RESOLUTION NO.2011 -XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR O'REILLY AUTO PARTS STORE WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2011 -1202) has been submitted by O'Reilly Auto Parts Store to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS 3700 Central Avenue NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF An 11 -foot corner side yard setback variance for parking per Code Section 9.110 (C). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on December 6, 2011; 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, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. 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 practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. 4. 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. Resolution No. 2011 -XX 2 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. CONIDTIONS ATTACHED: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. Approval of the variance request in contingent on the approval of the Site Plan for the O'Reilly Auto Parts Store located at 3700 Central Avenue. Passed this 12 °i day of December, 2011 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Ayes: Nays: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Attest: Patricia Muscovitz, CMC City Clerk r,; 01 ro 3935 3931 3923 3901 3I 9UU 3855 850 3849 3850 I 1 O o 3844 N o N 0 M 0 M 0 O 3825 3824 3821 3800 3815 o m v 1055 3 3801 3710 3728 37os 3722 3700 3716 3709 3700 3701 N 10 O� o t0 V O O O m N b 6 -61 950 1121 3989 m o 0000000 GOULD 3959 J E F3940 0- 3951 Cn W 3939 W p 0 3853 3854 N 0 O o N e N o N 0 M 0 M 0 O 3800 3801 o m v 1055 3 _ n w 3718 D m 3853 3854 W Z ; Q J Z W U 3853 940 950 3851 3847 30 3827 3841 383 3837 3 0 30 ?B ?0 0 074 30 3701 300 �\� 3j 4 J 7 3> � 3 ?7 3701 >7 > 961 3844 3828 3800 3801 3722 3710 37os 3700 307 V� '017 , q 9 7 9 36, 7 19 U O 30 O u' '7 3 ?S i >33 3 >7 2p 3 >? 33 3> 3 S 3 > 3 >73 ^ 0 >0 4 H Q a7n0 1 '7 1036 7 0 1000 3912 319 O ?S 3919 ` 3y ?3 0 7 0 3 971 � 3 0 u' O > S 3901 00? v 3900 3905 O 1121 39TH AVE 7 1102 3868 70 0 DO r '� 3A_? SO 3 Location Map