The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-02-05i = e RM 590 - 401h Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 -3878 (763) 706 -3600 TDD (763) 706 -3692 Visit our tvebsite at; wwiv el cotinnbio- hdglits.uni.ns PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 -40TH AVENUE NE 1. Roll Call Minutes January 2, 2013 meeting 2. Public Hearings: MEMBERS: Marlaine Sniek, Chair Rob Fiorendino Chris Litdo Tracey Kinney Case #2013 -0102, Preliminary Plat Approval, Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements, Site Plan Approval Tier 2 Funding 47t11 and Central Cottages at Grandview 3. New Business 4. Other Business 5, Adjourn 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. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40 " Avenue NE, Colnnrbia heights, MN 55421 -3878 (763) 706 -3600 '1'DD (763) 706 -3692 Visit our website at: tviviv ci cotumbin- beiebta uw.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 - 40TH AVENUE NE 1. Roll Call Minutes January 2, 2013 meeting 2. Public Hearings: MEMBERS: Marlainc Swick, Chair Rob Fiorendino Chris Little Tracey Kinney Case #2013 -0102, Preliminary Plat Approval, Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements, Site Plan Approval Tier 2 Funding 47t" and Central Cottages at Grandview 3. New Business 4. Other Business 5. Adjourn 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 JANUARY 2, 2013 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Little, Fiorendino, Kinney, and Szurek Also present were Sheila Cartney (Asst. Community Development Director), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Little, to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 4, 2012. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2013 -0101 APPLICANT: Saynab Yusuf LOCATION: 4347 Central Ave NE REQUEST: Variance for Parking Requirements for a Daycare Center INTRODUCTION Cartney explained that at this time, the applicant is requesting a variance to the parking requirement in association with operating a daycare business located at 4347 Central Avenue NE. The variance request is as follows: 1. A variance to minimum parking spaces required per Code Section 9.106 (L)(10). They have nine parking stalls onsite and 13 are required. The applicant wishes to locate her business in the former Anderson's Healing and AC building located at 4347 Central Avenue. Currently, there is no striped parking on the premises. Because the change of use requires more parking than the type of business previously at that location, the new business would have to comply with all the minimum requirements of the City Code pertaining to off - street parking. In July 2012 a variance to the drive aisle width and the side yard setback for parking was approved for this property. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 4347 Central Avenue is zoned GB, General Business District, as are the properties to the north, south east and west. The City's Code requirements pertaining to parking and drive aisle widths are as follows: 1. Code Section 9.106 (L)(10) requires one parking stall per every employee, plus one drop off space for every 5 enrollees. There are 35 students planned and 6 employees requiring 13 parking stalls. With the passed variances granted the applicant can accommodate 9 parking stalls onsite requiring a 4 stall parking variance. P & Z Minutes Page 2 January 2, 2013 CONSIDERATIONS. The preexisting placement of the building on the undersized parcel demonstrates an undue hardship on the property, justifying the parking setback and drive aisle width variances. The need for the 4- stall parking variance is strictly a function of the type of business that wishes to locate on the premises. The previous use of the building as an office /retail facility only needed to supply 1 parking stall for each 300 square feet of office /retail area. Given the dimensions of the building, the previous use would have needed 9 parking stalls. The accompanying site plan indicates that 9 parking stalls could be placed on the parcel with the parking and drive aisle width variances. The applicant has indicated she is going to provide transportation services to most of the children attending this daycare, thus lessening the need for parking. She has also obtained 6 more parking spaces from the adjacent property (Sarah's Tobacco) for her employees to park. Code Section 9.106 (L)(9) allows shared parking if five conditions are met. (9) Shared parking, the City Council may approve the use of a required off - street parking area for more than one principal use on the same or an adjacent site if the following conditions are met: (a) Location. The use for which the application for shared parking is being made is located within 300 feet of the use providing the parking facilities. (b) Nighttime uses. Up to 50% of the off - street parking facilities required for a bowling alley, nightclub, school auditorium, theater or similar nighttime use may be supplied by off - street parking facilities provided primarily for daytime use. (c) Sunday use. Up to 75% of the off - street parking facilities required for a place of worship or similar Sunday use may be supplied by off-street parking facilities provided primarily for a daytime use. (d) Daytime use. For the purposes of this provision, the following uses are considered daytime uses: financial institutions, offices, retail stores, personal service facilities and similar uses. (e) Contract. A legally binding instrument for the shared use of the 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 daycare and the adjacent Tobacco store meet the criteria for shared parking. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Commercial. The proposed variances would enable a business to locate in a vacant commercial space. For this reason, the proposals are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. P & Z Minutes Page 3 January 2, 2013 The 4 -stall parking variance cannot be avoided with the type of business that is willing to operate from this location because there is not physically enough room on the property to place 4 more parking stalls. Side setback and aisle width variances have already been granted due to the physical shape and configuration of this lot. 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 many undersized commercial properties along Central Avenue in The GB, General Business District. The uniqueness of this particular parcel is the placement of the building on the properly in relation to the existing driveway openings and property lines. Physically, there is no way to accommodate the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code for parking without the need of a variance. e) 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 provisions of the article require a certain number ofparking stalls. The properly at 4347 Central Avenue is too small to accommodate these requirements. The hardships have not been created by persons 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. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Commercial. The proposed variances would enable a business to locate in a vacant commercial space. For this reason, the proposals are consistent with 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 granting of the variances should not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or the use of'the properties in the vicinity. The variance requests will have conditions imposed on them to help ensure this. Staff recommends approval of the 4 -stall parking variance. The applicant has done a sufficient job in attempting to limit the degree of the parking stall variance in that she has permission from the adjacent property for 6 parking stalls for her employees. Staff recognizes the site is compact and already has two variances for the drive aisle and parking setback acknowledging the challenges to bring the parking lot into compliance. Cartney reminded members that back in July of 2012 a parking variance was granted for a business that never went into this business site, therefore, that variance never went into effect. P & Z Minutes Page 4 January 2, 2013 Questions from members: Szurek asked if sharing spaces at Sarah's Tobacco would impact that business. Cartney said that Sarah's had more than enough parking spaces for their business so there wouldn't be a problem. Szurek then asked if this property would stay on the tax rolls if operated as a daycare. Cartney said that it would. Kinney asked what happens if the business at the 4347 Central Avenue site changes use in the future. Cartney said the variance would remain in effect. Once the striping is done and the conditions are met, the variance would become effective and remain with the site. Kinney then asked if the variance would be affected if the contract is rescinded in the future with the neighboring site due to the expiration of the contract or the sale of Sarah's Tobacco. Cartney said it wouldn't affect the variance for this site and depending on the new use for the neighboring property the amount of parking should still be adequate. If it remains a retail business they have more than enough. Fiorendino had no further questions since his had already been answered. Little asked how long the contract with Sarah's would be in effect. If it terminates how would it affect the variance. Cartney explained that the "shared parking contract" is really a separate matter that will be brought to the City Council for approval. A "shared parking" arrangement is an allowed use according to City Code if the City Council grants approval. The variance is not actually contingent on the agreement, but it is another tool that makes granting the variance easier to approve since other accommodations have been arranged to make the site work for this type of use. Little said he thinks this is a better use of the property than the last request that was considered. Public Hearing Opened: No one wished to speak on this matter. Public Hearing closed. Motion by Tiorendino, seconded by Kinney, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the variance to allow four (4) less parking stalls than the minimum requirement per Code Section 9.106 (L)(10) of the City Code and to approve shared parking with the adjacent property, 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. P & Z Minutes Page 5 January 2, 2013 2. A contract for the shared parking 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. 3. At least 75 square feet of outside play area shall be provided for each child under care. 4. Short -term parking of vehicles engaged in loading and unloading of children shall be provided as close as practical to the principal entrance. All Ayes. MOTION PASSED. This will go before the City Council at the January 14t" meeting. RESOLUTION NO.2013 -XX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR SAYNAB YUSUF WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2013 -0101) has been submitted by Saynab Yusuf to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 4347 Central Avenue NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A variance to allow four (4) less parking stalls than the minimum requirement per Code Section 9.106 (L)(10). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on January 2, 2013; 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: P & Z Minutes Page 6 January 2, 2013 1. 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. 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. 2. A contract for the shared parking 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. 3. At least 75 square feet of outside play area shall be provided for each child under care. 4. Short -term parking of vehicles engaged in loading and unloading of children shall be provided as close as practical to the principal entrance. Passed this 10' day of January, 2013 Offered by: Seconded by: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Attest: Tori Leonhardt City Clerk P & Z Minutes Page 7 January 2, 2013 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2013 -0102 DATE: February 5, 2013 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: Tier 2 Funding LOCATION: Grand Central Lofts 2nd Addition (47th and Central) REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval, Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements, Site Plan Approval PREPARED BY: Sheila Cartney, Assistant Community Development Director INTRODUCTION At this time, the applicant is requesting three approvals to build 9 detached single family homes. They are as follows: 1. A Preliminary/Final Plat approval. 2. The vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements. A Site Plan Approval. The original plan was approved for 11 attached townhome units. BACKGROUND In 2003, a site plan was approved for three condominium buildings containing 66 units each and 21 townhomes in six groupings, with associated open space and a community center. The request is to replat the townhome lots and outlot (leaving the condos and community center as is). The townhomes were originally platted as Lots 1 -4, Block 1, Lots 1 -4 Block 2, Lots 1 -2 Block 3, Lots 1 -3 Block 4, Lots1-4 Block 5, Lots 1 -4 Block 6, and Outlot B, Grand Central Lofts Second Addition. The community center is Lot 1 Block 7, Grand Central Lofts Second Addition. Ten townhouses have been built at this time. The townhouses were approved with a stucco and stone veneer finish with a half- timber decorative accent. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission February 5, 2013 Cottages at Grandview Case # 2013 -0102 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is guided Transit Oriented Development in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Transit - oriented development land use areas typically include a mix of retail, office and higher density residential uses, and are located along University Avenue and Central Avenue due to the frequency of transit service along these corridors. Replacing townhomes with small lot single family homes is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and goals. ZONING ORDINANCE The subject site is zoned MDX, Mixed Use District as are the properties to the south. The properties to the east are zoned R -2A, One and Two Family Residential and the properties to the north are zoned R -1 Single Family Residential, the properties to the west are zoned GB. General Business. Preliminary /Final Plat As stated before the applicant is proposing the reduce the remaining 11 townhouse lots down to 9 single family lots, by way of Preliminary and Final Plat. This will also cause some drainage and utility easements to be vacated. The townhouses that are built will remain as originally platted as well as the community center. The new Plat Cottages at Grandview will create Lots 1 -9 Block 1, Outlot A and Outlot B. Each house will be platted on their own lot. The majority of the lots will be 4,050 square feet while two lots will be 4,350 square feet (originally 2,460). The existing drainage and utility easements for Lots 1 -3 Block 4, Grand Central Lofts Second Addition will be vacated and rededicated with the Cottages at Grandview Plat. The roads will remain private, but will be installed in accordance with Engineering standards plates. Site Plan Approval As previously explained the applicant is proposing a new plat to create 9 single family lots replacing the 11 previously approved attached townhouses. The subject site is located in the Highway District of the Design Guidelines. The new single family homes will be part of the association however the exact details have not been worked at the time this report was written. LOTS: The subject property is zoned Mixed Use and does not have specific lot size and setback requirements. The average proposed lot is 4,050 square feet and two lots are 4,250 square feet. The proposed setbacks are front =15 feet, rear= 10 feet, sides =5 feet. Each lot will have their own driveway and garage for parking. BUILDING DESIGN: The design guidelines specifically allow the following materials for residential development in the Highway District: wood, consisting of horizontal lap siding with an exposure no Page 2 r of Columbia Heights Plan Cottages at Grandview Commission February 5, 2013 Case # 2013 -0102 greater than 5 inches or wood shakes; surfaces must be painted; Synthetic wood (fiber cement) siding resembling horizontal lap siding, such as Hardiplank and similar materials. As proposed the single family homes will meet this requirement. A hardboard LP siding is proposed with wood and shake accents similar to what is on the townhouses now. The color scheme is neutral (attached). LANDSCAPING: A majority of the original landscaping requirements have been met. The applicant will install 8 -9 evergreen trees in the backyard of the new lots. FINDINGS OF FACT Preliminary Plat Section 9.104 (K) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires thatthe City Council make each of the following findings before approving a preliminary plat: 1. The proposed preliminary plat conforms to the requirements of §9.115. Code Section 9.115 is the Subdivision Regulations. The preliminary plat application meets all the requirements outlined in this section. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Replacing townhomes with small lot single family homes is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and goals. 3. The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. The preliminary plat reduces the number of lots and units in the same area in an attempt to promote good planning design principles. Vacation Section 9.104 (1) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following findings before vacating a street, or other public alley or right -of -way: No private rights will be injured or endangered as a result of the vacation. Drainage and utility easements are being vacated with the new plat on account of the new lot configuration. These easements serve the same purpose as originally approved. 2. The public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation. The drainage and utility easements that are being vacated are due to lot Page 3 Ci f of Columbia Heights Planni Cottages at Gra Commission 2013 Case # 2013 -0102 configuration and new drainage and utility easements will placed on the new lots, therefore serving the same purpose; there is no loss or inconvenience. 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: The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article The site plan conforms to parameters of the Mixed Use Zoning District and the Design Guidelines, and conforms to all other applicable requirements of the code. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. The site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it is a redevelopment initiative that will provide housing along the Central Avenue corridor and provide a mixed use near transit. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no applicable area plan for this section of the city. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. The subject site is surrounding by residential and commercial uses. The proposal reduces the number of units and lots lessening the impact to the area. RECOMMENDATION Motion: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat based on following 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. Each lot will require erosion control measures — they need to be installed and inspected by the City prior to any site activities beginning (as lots are built). 2. Catch basin inlet protection shall be provided on the downstream catch basins. 3. All work within public easement shall be inspected by the City Engineering Department. 24 -hour advance notice of an inspection is required. 4. At the street cuts — the street restoration shall be in accordance with Engineering standard plates. The pavement wear course was placed in 2012, which requires curb to curb pavement restoration. 5. Curbing installation shall meet City standard plate requirements. Page 4 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission February 5, 2013 Cottages at Grandview Case # 2013 -0102 6. New sewer and water service installations and service disconnects shall be inspected by Public Works. Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested vacation of drainage and utility easements. Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2013 -PZ01, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to adopt Resolution No. 2013 -PZ01, being a resolution approving a site plan for 9 single family lots located at Grandview Cottages subject to the following conditions: 1. The approved plans are limited to 9 detached single family homes 2. The styles of homes are limited to the three plans that are shown as Plan A,B,C on Concept Elevations Sheet received December 3, 2012 3. Exterior color package is limited to the colors presented on color package sheet dated received on December 3, 2012 Attachments • Location Map • Preliminary Plat • Original Plat Concept Elevations Exterior Color page • Overview • Engineering Notes Page 5 t .LS 32�f_1W771� m 0 o rn N T M ems} N T 0 C Q� ooU U o 3 a 1260 '> 00 a) 73 -r L41 �a a� Mt C7 m W OZZ4 F"" OZZL it, 94 00 4 eot4� OOZt 9024 OW &944 OM 49tt 09tL O94t 9544 1y7 a1 UZ.tt 1 �y9 9,��J 1155 r 'r � 1153 +l{ 0046 4544 8m NQ�' � y� o 44 LE44 0£tt T 4 J r K w U om, LZ44 0444 t a aot4 4041 OOtt y5sy � I �1 ^ 09a t9oc zsot ssso °c isN70d t toot as at s�snF t OV0 4204' pZOL o M oaoE T Ln �r N oo a o o T wooirn oo. 'T .- �y. jp T T 3 lu IS URIAI 056 UJ Es9r � U � w 3AV TMLN33 3AV 'lVd.LN33 v z ff y0 ¢ w V ® 0 � � n h M1 i-i K 8424 9LZl 9aZ4 .0024 ppL4 E94t = [W ^0qqyj03g 1 C a�8 Q9 F =i 1 ON� p�p pp _Y I o y ® gill F'+pF 11 - �6 yl C I l LIJ C P8: sj I t_ fd a N I � \ I $ h IV / bJ $ hf L_ ex�l I e gal r 4R c 11 ;u V vll I \�I_JI .I H il� L Lai I'\I- I -�LJ^ a louno; „,.�Mm m..E^ry a -m.. x\a K1L;"I'J mF je¢k y- j �/g RyRy 33 f! I �I I t O i SC09 S y O � [D tt1 m � T in E i 8 tln�� sga a M HAW �3RNg kk� I HIM 11 F y- SC09 S y O � [D tt1 m � T in E i 8 tln�� sga a M HAW �3RNg kk� I HIM 11 Ep4 Cottages at Grandview — Concept Elevations/Floor Plans Front Elevation Main Level Upper Level Plan A li' U;W; `1 1 ON MIN! R Will NI Plan B Plan C 711-� ro �[ V�'�7f- INS091OW iF Deck A IM I L *** Basement (Lookout/Full) levels may be included, but are not shown. DEC - 3 2012 Will fiUl I F 2 ISOM IS Mx SUITI: I B. Fill DEC - 3 2012 Cottages at Grandview Plat Overview January 30`", 2013 Summary of Request : As the City & residents are aware, portions of the Grand Central Loft project has been distressed for some time. This past summer, Tier 2 & its affiliates contracted 11 finished, developed townhome lots abutting the Grand Central Lofts project. Overthe past 3 months, Tier 2 has met several times with City staff to review & discuss the proposed concept of re- plating the property to 9 single family detached lots. On Nov. 5`h, Tier 2 presented the concept plan to members of the EDA /City Council for review. Overall, the comments were supportive. The positive feedback encouraged Tier 2 to move forward with the proposed plat. Tier 2 seeks City support of the Site Plan, Preliminary Plat, & Final Plat. If plats are approved, it is Tier 2's intent to move forward with home sales & construction as soon as the process allows. Existing Conditions : Separate from the condo /loft portion of the original project, 21 townhome pads were approved & platted. Of these 10 townhomes were built prior to the remaining 11 pads falling into a distressed status. Due to dramatic shifts in market demand these pads have sat vacant for several years. Given market conditions, location, demographics, & area supply /demand, it is unlikely the market will support construction of additional attached townhome units in the foreseeable future on this site. Photos to Right: • Top: Aerial view of project area • Bottom: Existing townhome building The Plat : Cottages at Grandview Tier 2 seeks to re -plat the 11 existing townhome pads and the abutting outlot into 9 detached single family home lots. The proposed homes include 3+ floor plans which range from approx. 1,800 -2,000 above ground sq. ft. with the potential for an add'i 725 -950 sq. ft. in the basement. While the proposed homes will be detached single family lots, similar to the existing townhomes, the 9 SF lots will participate in the existing association's common elements & lot maintenance (proportionate to the 11 lots share). The HOA TH members have been supportive of the proposal. Tier 2 & the HOA are working through the details of the final agreement and the updates to the HOA docs. The Proposed Lots : • The lots are generally consistent with the existing townhome pads. Since the townhome pads were platted as zero lot line units to the rear wall line, the SF lots will replat the abutting outlot to account for the rear yard setbacks as typical in SF lots. • 7 lots are 45w x 90d (buildable pad of 35'w x 65'd) • 2 lots are 50'w x 85'd (buildable pad of 40'w x 60'd o Setbacks: Front = 15' Rear = 10' Sides = 5' • Based on engineering review, the proposed homes will generally be able to take advantage of existing sewer /water stubs. We ask that the City work with Tier 2 allow service connections & terminations which avoid reconstruction of the private street. Photos to Right: • Top: Concept plan layout (with existing plat lines below proposed) • Middle: Concept home front elevation (color packages in earth tones to complement existing lofts & townhome buildings). See plan sheet for detail. • Bottom: Main & 2nd floor plans (bsmt not shown) FFONT FLWeATION j b MAIN FL002 SECOkO FLOOR General Benefits: Consistent with our discussion with City staff & concept plan discussion with the EDA /City Council, Tier 2 believes several benefits exist to the City & the HOA — including: • Vacant, distressed lots built & occupied • SF homes differentiate from existing product ( & limit oversupply) e Completed units will more fully contribute to the Homeowners Association and City tax base. • Market based solution to distressed property not seeking outside subsidy or City participation. About The Applicant: Tier 2 Funding is a locally owned & operated real estate investment firm. Through relationships with affiliates, the company is vertically integrated to provide the following activities: land development, financing, home construction, building products, mortgage financing, & realty services. Tier 2 & its affiliates have a history of successful development & construction. The company currently owns lots in Woodbury, Rosemount, & Prior Lake. They use this lot inventory for in -house homebuilding as well as resale to individuals or builders. In addition to multi -lot developments, they also build homes on individual lots. Photos to Right : • Top: Sample home Tier 2 /Regal in Burnsville (200 Krestwood Blvd) • Middle: Sample home Tier2 /Regal in Minneapolis (3310 E. 54" St.) • Bottom: Sample project -12 lots in Prior Lake (Jeffer's) CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Public Works Department TO: SHEILA CARTNEY, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: KEVIN HANSEN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR /CITY ENGINEER DATE: January 31, 2013 SUBJECT: Cottages at Grandview addition I have reviewed the preliminary plan submittal packet dated January 27d', 2012, and have the following requirements /comments for final plat approval: Grading /Erosion Control • Each lot will require erosion control measures — they need to be installed and inspected by the City prior to any site activities beginning (as Tots are built). • Catch basin inlet protection shall be provided on the downstream catch basins. • All work within public easement shall be inspected by the City Engineering Deparnnent. 24 -hour advance notice of an inspection is required. General • At the street cuts — the street restoration shall be in accordance with Engineering standard plates. The pavement wear course was placed in 2012, which requires curb to curb pavement restoration. • Curbing installation shall nicer City standard plate requirements. • New sewer and water service installations and service disconnects shall be inspected by Public Works. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at (763) 706 -3705. C: Lauren McClanahan, Public Works Superintendent Kathy Young, Assistant City Engineer K1l:kh G: \UsersTublic Works \plan reviews\2013\Conages at Grandview_013111doc Cottages at Grandview — Exterior Coior Packages Siding Soffit /Facia Accent — shakes /board - batten Color Pkg. #1 Color Pkg. #2 Color Pkg. #3