Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOct 3, 2017, 2017 minMINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCT 3, 2017 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Szurek. Commission Members present- Novitsky, Fiorendino, Hoium, Schill, and Szurek Also present were Elizabeth Holmbeck (Planner), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), John Murzyn (Council Liaison), and Jim Hoeft (City Attorney). Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium, to approve the minutes from the meeting of Sept 6th, 2017. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2017-0901 APPLICANT: Owen Metz, Dominium Development & Acquisitions LLC LOCATION: 1069 Grandview Way and 4729 Grand Avenue REQUEST: Amended Site Plan with a Waiver to the Zoning Code Holmbeck reminded members that Dominium has made a request for Site Plan Review with a waiver to a certain standard of the Zoning Code, to the City of Columbia Heights, for the properties located at 1069 Grandview Way and 4729 Grand Avenue (Subject Properties). The applicant is requesting approval of the proposed Site Plan in order to allow for two apartment homes to be constructed on the subject properties. The applicant first came before the Planning and Zoning Commission in September with their application which included waivers to the density requirements, parking requirements, and drive aisle width. At the meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to table the application requesting that the applicant modify the plan to decrease the proposed density and provide an increased ration for underground parking. The minutes from the previous meeting were included in the packet for reference. The applicant has amended the proposed site plan by reducing the density and ratio of surface parking. The current proposal is for 148 apartment units divided between two buildings, with (one) three story building containing 60 units, and (one) four story building with 88 units. The new proposal is 25 units less than the original 173 unit proposal. The applicant has amended the proposed parking plan. The proposal now calls for 134 parking stalls underground divided between the two buildings, and 88 surface parking stalls. The new proposal has 47 less surface parking stalls than the original proposal which had 135 surface parking stalls. The applicant is still requesting a waiver to the parking lot drive aisles width, which is required to be 24 ft. wide. The proposal calls for the drive aisles to be 20 ft. wide. In regards to the current density and parking requirements, the original proposal exceeds the maximum density and surface parking generally allowed. However, the amended proposal is within the parameters established in the City Ordinance which states: 9.112 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (E) (2) The maximum non-residential density is 6.0 FAR and the maximum residential density is 20 units/acre. Maximum densities may be increased by up to 50% at the sole discretion of the City Council if one of more of the following are provided:          (a)   At least 50% of the required parking is provided by underground parking or parking in ramps;          (b)   Housing is provided above ground floor retail/service commercial and the total floor area of the housing is at least twice the floor area of the retail/service commercial use; P & Z Minutes Page 2 Oct 3, 2017          (c)   Office space is provided above ground floor retail/service commercial and the total floor area of the office space is at least twice the floor area of the retail/service commercial use;          (d)   At least 50% of the building ground coverage is concentrated in structures four or more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the mixed-use development area. 9.112 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (E) (5) Cumulative parking requirements may be reduced by up to 30% of required spaces at the sole discretion of the Council if one or more of the following are provided:          (a)   Joint or shared parking arrangements between uses;          (b)   Proof of parking;          (c)   C ar/van pooling and/or provision of employee or resident transit passes;          (d)   Superior pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit access. As outlined in the City’s Zoning Code, the City Council has some discretion when reviewing development proposals located in a Mixed Use Zoning District, and provided certain conditions are met, the densities can be increased and the parking requirement can be reduced. The applicant has made the argument in the attached narrative, that they meet at least one of the required findings above for both the density increase of 50 % and the parking decrease of 30%. It appears that the amended application meets the following findings: 9.112 (E) (2) (d) At least 50% of the building ground coverage is concentrated in structures four or more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the mixed-use development area, and (a) that at least 50% of required parking is provided underground. 9.112 (E) (5) (d) Superior pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit access. ZONING ORDINANCE The subject property is located in the Mixed Use Zoning District. The properties to the north and west are located in the Mixed Use Zoning District and the General Business Zoning District. The properties to the south are located in the R-3 Multiple Family Residential Zoning District and the properties to the east are located in the R-2B Built as Duplexes Zoning District. The proposed residential development is a permitted use in the Mixed Use District. The purpose of the Mixed Use Development District is to promote efficient use of existing city infrastructure; ensure sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods; create linkages between compatible areas of the city; provide appropriate transitions between uses; ensure high quality design and architecture; create good pedestrian circulation and safety; promote alternative modes of transportation; and increase the quality of life and community image of Columbia Heights. The intent of this district is to encourage a flexible high-quality design strategy for development and/or redevelopment of specific areas within the community. The Zoning Ordinance specifically identifies the subject property to be used for Transit Oriented Mixed Use Development. The purpose of the Transit-Oriented Mixed Use is to promote development and redevelopment that facilitates linkages and interaction of transit services, housing and neighborhood services. The focus of land use within this district is to ensure a pedestrian friendly environment and pedestrian connections to and from residential development and transit facilities. P & Z Minutes Page 3 Oct 3, 2017 The applicant is currently in the final phases of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) funding request to Metropolitan Council. Also, the proposal shows sidewalks throughout the site which will provide connections to nearby streets and transit shelters as well as adjacent commercial and residential areas. The site will have crosswalks, and signage which will encourage pedestrian activity and provide a safe environment for residents. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Transit Oriented Development. It appears that the proposal for apartment homes, meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal for additional housing on a high frequency transit service route along the Central Avenue corridor, meets the City’s goal to encourage more trips via non-motorized modes of travel (pedestrian, biking etc.) and less by automobile. Additionally, the proposal meets the City’s goal to incorporate housing in Mixed Use Developments that is affordable at 60% of the area median income, specifically targeting higher density developments that provide workforce housing. DESIGN GUIDELINES The subject property is located within the Design Guideline Overlay District, and is governed by the “Highway District” standards within the Design Guidelines. The intent of the Design Guidelines is to make the City more aesthetically appealing, by requiring a set of minimum standards for new construction along Central Avenue and 40th Avenue. In general, the proposed buildings meet the design guidelines. The following components are requirements of the Design Guidelines Highway District and how the applicant has attempted to meet the guidelines: Buildings may be set back a maximum of 85 feet from the sidewalk, in order to allow for two rows of parking and drive aisles plus landscaped frontage. The proposed building will be located approximately 14 feet from the sidewalk along Grand Avenue meeting this guideline. The primary facade(s) of buildings of 40 feet or more in width should be articulated into smaller increments through the techniques such as using of different textures or contrasting, but compatible, materials; dividing storefronts with separate display windows and entrances or incorporating arcades, awnings, window bays, balconies or similar ornamental features. The proposed building shows the façade articulated into smaller increments with varying colors and materials meeting this guideline. Building height shall be a minimum of 22 feet. The proposed buildings will be 47.4 feet tall (four story building), and 36 feet tall (three story building), meeting this guideline. Where commercial or office uses are found on the ground floor, at least 20 percent of the ground floor facade fronting Central Avenue and 15 percent of any two side or rear facades shall consist of window and door openings. The proposed plan does not include commercial or office space on the ground floor. The building should have a well-defined front facade with primary entrances facing the street. P & Z Minutes Page 4 Oct 3, 2017 The proposed building will have a well-defined front façade, with the primary entrance facing the private roads. Building colors should accent, blend with, or complement surroundings. The colors that are proposed are neutral, and should complement the surrounding area. The building was designed to be architecturally similar to the adjacent condominium building. No more than two principal colors may be used on a façade or individual storefront. Bright or primary colors should be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent of building facades, except when used in a mural or other public art. The proposed building will consist of neutral colors, grey, charcoal, and beige, with a red like mortar (primary color) brick. The design is consistent with existing adjacent development. All buildings should be constructed of high-quality materials, including the following: Brick, Natural Stone, Stucco Precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that surfaces are molded, serrated or treated with a textured material in order to give the wall surface a three dimensional character. Jumbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any façade, provided that it is used only on the lower third of the building wall. The proposal meets this guideline. The building will be constructed with mortar brick, fiber cement lap siding, flush metal panels surrounding the windows, and a rock face block base. Architectural details such as ornamental cornices, arched windows and warm-toned brick with bands of contrasting color are encouraged in new construction. The proposal generally meets the intent of this guideline. Parking areas adjacent to public streets or sidewalks shall be screened with a combination of landscape material and decorative fencing or walls sufficient to screen parked cars on a year-round basis while providing adequate visibility for pedestrians. The proposed landscape plan includes a variety of trees and shrubs to be planted around the perimeter of the site, which should provide adequate screening. SITE PLAN The Site Plan was included in the agenda packet and was available for review to the public. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (N) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four findings of fact that must be met in order for the City to approve a Site Plan. They are as follows: a. The Site Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. The amended site plan does not meet one of the applicable requirements of the Zoning Code, as the proposal shows a 20’ wide drive aisle rather than a 24’ drive as required. The Fire Department believes this width will suffice for emergency vehicles, providing that the road along the east side of the building going north and south is connected to Grandview Way N. In an effort to reduce hard surface on the site, staff supports the drive aisle width reduction. P & Z Minutes Page 5 Oct 3, 2017 b. The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes the proposed Site Plan for the property is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal for additional housing on a high frequency transit service route along the Central Avenue corridor, meets the City’s goal to encourage more trips via non-motorized modes of travel (pedestrian, biking etc.) and less by automobile. Additionally, the proposal meets the City’s goal to incorporate housing in Mixed Use Developments that is affordable at 60% of the area median income, specifically targeting higher density developments that provide workforce housing. c. The Site Plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no area plan for this parcel. d. The Site Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. The amended plan is within the parameters of the City’s Ordinance, should the City Council grant the increase in density and decrease in parking. The Fire Department has stated that the 20 ft. drive aisle will suffice for emergency vehicles. Therefore, it appears that the amended plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and public right-of-way. CONCLUSION Holmbeck explained that if the City Council were to grant the exception it would mean that the proposed development could have 30 units per acre. Parking requirements are determined by the number of bedrooms per unit and based on the proposed unit count (61) one bedroom, (45) two bedroom, and (42) three bedroom, the proposal would be required to have 164 enclosed parking stalls. The amended plan has 222 parking stalls total divided between surface (88 parking stalls) and underground (134 parking stalls). The applicant has stated that due to easement constraints on the property, it cannot expand the underground parking, and has instead chosen to reduce the surface parking stalls which reduces the visual impact and increases green space. In addition, the applicant has added pedestrian and bicyclist amenities to the amended site plan and argues that the development is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle use. There will be enclosed bike parking included in every parking stall as well as at the entrance to each parking garage, and bike racks on the exterior of each building. Also, each parking garage will have a bike repair stand with basic tools for repairing bicycles. Finally, the buildings will contain amenities such as clubrooms, a fitness facility, outdoor play areas, grilling stations, and a dog run. With the reduction of the surface parking, and increased pedestrian and bicyclist’s amenities, allowing for the added 30 surface parking rather than underground parking appears to be a reasonable request. In regards to the remaining waiver request for the 20 ft. drive aisle, according to the City’s Fire Chief, the minimum drive aisle is 20 ft. by the Fire Code. The Fire Department believes that the 20 ft. drive aisle will be sufficient, providing the road that runs north and south on the east side of the development is connected for emergency vehicles. Certain neighbors have expressed concern over the increase in traffic driving through the private roads to the north. The proposal now includes a discrete road connecting to Grandview Way N., which will be landscaped and have a break away chain, to allow for emergency access only. Holmbeck said the Fire Chief may require this to be paved instead of landscaped, and the developer has stated they will do whatever is required by the Chief. P & Z Minutes Page 6 Oct 3, 2017 Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the proposed development for the properties located at 1069 Grandview Way and 4729 Grand Avenue subject to certain conditions of approval: Stop signs will be added at the development driveway exit(s). The attached Landscape Plan indicates a number of landscaping improvements to the site. All landscaping indicated on the submitted landscape plan dated September 29th, 2017, will be installed no later than 4 months after the buildings are operational, or from such time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The monument sign at the corner of 47th Avenue and Grand Avenue, along with the proposed sculpture, will require a sign permit and be approved by the City’s Communication Committee. The monument sign and the sculpture must be installed no later than 4 months after the buildings are operational, or from such time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The building and site shall meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form from the Fire Chief. The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form and memo dated August 30th, 2017, from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Trash and/or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties and from public streets. All exterior lighting shall be downcast so as not to adversely impact neighboring residential properties. The applicant must submit a detailed lighting plan for review by the Building Official, prior to construction. All City Storm Water Management requirements, as well as Mississippi Water Management Organization (MWMO) plan requirements, shall be achieved for this property. The applicant will provide space for snow removal on its own property. The applicant will enter in to a Development Agreement with the City of Columbia Heights, which will govern construction methods and timing, as well as the establishment of public and quasi-public infrastructure. The Development Agreement must be approved by the City of Columbia Heights before construction can commence. Access on the easternmost north/south private drive shall be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated September 29th, 2017 shall become part of this approval. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Questions from Members: Fiorendino clarified the process of the request before them. He stated that the Commission must determine whether this meets our Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements. Then the Commission makes a recommendation based on that to the City Council who ultimately makes the decision on whether to approve the proposed Site Plan. P & Z Minutes Page 7 Oct 3, 2017 Hoium questioned how the number of parking spaces was determined and why they reduced parking even more since that was one of the issues discussed at last month’s meeting. Holmbeck stated that they still exceed the number of parking spaces required (134 stalls underground and 88 surface spaces, totaling 222 parking spaces). The code requires that at least 50% of the spaces be provided underground and this plan meets that requirement. The amended plan reduced the number of surface parking in order to meet the ratio and was accomplished by reducing the plan by 25 units. Owen Metz from Dominium stated that this is a Transit Oriented Site and based on other projects they have, they feel this is more than adequate. Tenants they draw use a combination of cars, public transportation, bikes, and walking to get around. They tend to have fewer cars per unit than suburbia homeowners due to income levels and lifestyle choices. The amended plan also provides wall mounted bike racks in the underground parking garage, as well as bike racks in various places for residents to use, which also encourages alternative means of transportation. Fiorendino asked if the Fire Chief had approved the 20 foot drive aisles. Holmbeck stated that he had approved that width, as it is used throughout the existing development there now, but that he would require the developer to pave the access road on the east side instead of the landscaped discrete road mentioned in the plan. Novitsky questioned how the density ratio was determined. Holmbeck said that was detailed in the narrative provided by the developer and that if Novitsky had further questions they should be directed to the applicant. Public Hearing Opened: Owen Metz from Dominium was present to answer more questions. Schill noted that Dominium held several meetings with neighbors of this proposed development, and he asked Metz how many of the changes were made to meet the code and how many were to accommodate the neighbors. Metz stated they made changes for both reasons. They would have liked to have had more density, but adjusted the number of units to meet the code requirements. Hoium asked why they reduced the number of parking spaces. Metz stated that they reduced the number of units and therefore could also reduce the number of required parking spaces. This enabled them to add more green space for the project. By providing 222 parking spaces they have exceeded the requirement, and have also exceeded what they normally plan for this sized development by 15 spaces. Metz stated they do require residents to have permits (stickers) to use the surface parking spaces. Szurek asked if the parking ratio was similar to other projects they own. Metz stated they are “over providing” parking compared to other projects so they are very comfortable with the numbers. Szurek asked if residents would be charged more for the underground spaces and he said they would be, but they are generally taken by the residents. She asked how many other projects they have where this ratio has worked. He told them of three others in the metro area that are very similar. He said they are basing it on the highest need possible and that he thinks the demand will actually go down over time due to lifestyle changes and transportation trends. Fiorendino asked Metz about the road modification that the Fire Chief wants in relation to the access road to the east. Metz said they will do whatever is required by the Fire Chief. If he wants a paved road rather than a landscaped access with a break away chain, they will accommodate that. Who will be responsible for plowing the roads including keeping the access road open. Metz said Dominium would be the responsible party. P & Z Minutes Page 8 Oct 3, 2017 Hoium asked if the Police Dept is ok with this plan and the access on site. Holmbeck stated that the Building Official, Fire Chief, Public Works, and Community Development staff are the ones who review plans. The Police Dept. is not typically included in the process. Szurek asked if there is room for snow storage on site. Metz said there should be enough green space to handle the snow, but if needed they will haul off site. Metz thanked staff and the Commission for their comments to guide the revisions to their plan. He briefly reviewed and compared the new plan to the original site plan from 2004. Basically it amounts to 1 more unit/acre than the original plan. Residents now got up and spoke. Metz responded to these comments later in the meeting. Tom Kurak, 1070 Grandview #406 said the 15 acres mentioned in the site plan included the commercial piece and they are adding more than 15 units from the original condo plan. The condo building provided one underground parking space per BR, why can’t they. He doesn’t want the Commission to grant any variances from what was originally planned which was two more condo buildings that would have a master HOA to provide amenities to the entire development. He said the HOA found a developer that has offered to buy the site from Dominium to build condo buildings now, so Dominium will not lose anything. Warren Danger, 1070 Grandview #112 noted there was 30% less parking in the amended plan and the requirement to pay for underground parking will cause more people to use the surface parking. He is concerned about where they will put snow. The condo owners pay to have snow removed. He wants to know if the condo owners will be responsible for street maintenance and snow removal costs or if the apartments will share in those expenses. He said this issue has not been addressed in any of the discussions. Danger was also concerned with increased traffic on Grand Avenue between 47th and 49th Ave and that it is extremely busy in the morning and evening rush hour, and with the addition of two more buildings, this will increase. John Bush, 1070 Grandview #203, said he understands times change. He questioned whether the density was figured on buildable acreage or total acreage. He didn’t feel the retaining wall and roads should be included in the base size. He thought additional parking should be provided for guests and should be based on the highest possible time of need such as Holidays, etc. He believes with Minnesota winters more people will have cars and require parking then Dominium thinks. He asked if non-residents would be able to rent underground garage space. Bush said it seems the residents are fighting their own city where they pay their taxes to and that they don’t really have any voice. Roger Johnson, 1070 Grandview, wanted to know if the Fire Chief thinks he can get his trucks through the development if there is snow piled up. Elizabeth Herrmmann, 950 39th Ave #6, welcomes the proposal. The site has been vacant for 14 years. She is now a renter and is a huge advocate of public transportation. She said the site has good bus service within one block. She said she thinks the condo neighbors are just used to not having neighbors. The waivers for the road width are the same as they presently have for the rest of the existing development, so that shouldn’t be an issue. Herrmmann went on to say that it’s true that this proposal does add density, but so would two condo buildings, and with that, they would face the same parking and traffic concerns. And, the condo residents shouldn’t be so quick to judge having rental nearby, when many of the units in the condo building are being rented out. P & Z Minutes Page 9 Oct 3, 2017 Dennis Shelstad, 1070 Grandview, there’s only one way in or out of development and by adding more units, traffic will be worse. Because of surface parking now, only one lane of traffic can maneuver the streets as it is. He said the Condo HOA has to pay all the expenses now and owners were hoping that new condo building owners would eventually help contribute to maintaining the development. Many of the condo owners invested there based on that promise, so he would like to see the Commission reject the proposal. Tom Kurak, #406, told members that extra parking for guests of the condo building is handled by using the Community Center parking lot. He would rather have two new condo buildings added so they could share the expenses of the Community Center and maintenance as stated above by others who have spoken. Tom Kurak said that the current owner Dave Klober sold to who he could get the most money from. He asked the Commission to deny the application and to let the HOA find a developer who will build condo buildings. Tony Bodway, 1070 Grandview #318 asked the Commission not to grant the variances. He said rules are in place for a reason. He stated the Condo building has adequate underground parking, but when they clean the garage there is not enough surface parking and this will make it more difficult. He noted that if sticker/permits are required to park around the apartment buildings, then guests will use the condo surface parking because they won’t have a sticker. He told members that whatever is built they should stick to the original number of units and underground parking according to the original plan that was approved. Brenda Ziemet, 4225 6th St. loves Columbia Heights. She said Millenials are finding it attractive. She believes public transportation is becoming more popular and more “green”. She said the City needs to look at what we are becoming, and not hold on to the past and what was. She said they shouldn’t vote no, out of fear of change. It should be embraced. Mary Granlund, 949 44th Ave is aware of traffic problems on 49th Avenue. She said the City, County, and School District are working together on this. She is a social worker and works with people who would love an upscale apartment like this. People her age want this type of housing. This is a needed product for people who work, still don’t make enough money to come up with a down payment for a house due to student loans, or have decided they don’t want to own and maintain a home of their own. They want to be a part of a community, even if it is as renter. For many it is a lifestyle choice. Commission members sought clarification from the Planner and City Attorney on the reference to the term “variance” being used by many of those who spoke thus far. Szurek asked if the width of the roads was the only waiver/variance the Commission was to consider. She was under the impression that all other requirements have been met. Holmbeck said the only waiver being considered is the width of the drive aisles. The other two waivers have been met after reductions were made according to the Zoning Code language. City Attorney Hoeft clarified that no variances were being requested at this time. The waiver for the road width can only be approved by the City Council based on the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Planning & Zoning Commission bases their decision on the review and approval from City Staff, and in this case, the Fire Chief has approved the width. He reiterated that the density and parking issues are not under consideration by this Board as they meet the parameters of our code. Page 10 Kathy Ahlers, 4010 Hayes St, asked if staff had any data on how many young people would prefer ownership of a condo unit versus renting an apartment. She said maybe it’s possible that they would rather build equity in a condo than to pay rent. She said the ones benefitting in these projects are the developers who obtain tax credits so they can get financial assistance in building these low to moderate income projects. Then they get to manage them for years and reap the profits as the properties then continue to increase in value. She thought this issue should be studied and that the City shouldn’t rush into this necessarily. Pat Kennedy, 1070 Grandview, #409, recently moved into her condo unit. She was under the impression that Columbia Heights had more rental than they wished and that it was having a problem getting residents to actually invest in their own home. She said she is against the project for this reason. Kennedy said people can’t live without a car in Minnesota. Public transportation is ok depending on where you are going. She told members that if underground parking is a requirement of the city code that people shouldn’t have to pay extra for that space. John Bush, #203, said if the City is looking for more affordable housing, then they should hold out for the condo buildings. He said it is more affordable to own a condo unit than to rent one of the proposed apartments. Szurek stated that the City has not seen any plans from any developer wanting to build condo buildings on this site since the original one went up in 2004. She went on to say that some people prefer to rent these days rather than being a homeowner and that the City of Columbia Heights lacks any newer, more modern apartment options. Szurek said that all she can do is decide if the requirements of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan are met. She said the recommendation will be sent to the City Council for consideration at the meeting October 9, 2017. Owen Metz responded to some of the statements made. *They will do a traffic study to ensure traffic is able to flow within the development. *He reiterated that this is only 15 more units than originally approved in 2004. *There is a balance of surface and underground parking that meet code. *This development is close to schools and bussing will not be required. *Majority of those opposed to this are the condo owners. And traffic and parking would be similar whether it is condo buildings or apartment buildings. *Dominium has not received an offer to purchase this site. No one has contacted them as stated. *The building will be fully sprinkled and fire trucks will be able to access both buildings. *They have addressed parking, guest parking, surface parking and are providing more than the condo buildings. *They cannot expand the underground parking spaces due to easement restrictions and building placement due to the easements in place. *There is a bus stop 200 feet out the front of the site. *The apartment units are larger than other market rate apartments in the metro area. *This site was released by the association and no matter what is built, they do not have to belong to the existing HOA. *Workforce housing is needed throughout the metro area. Rents are not raised based on wages, but on the average income of the area. *This plan meets the Comprehensive Plan and is very similar to the original plan from 14 years ago. *Dominium said they are willing to work with the HOA and share expenses for roads and retaining wall contrary to what has been said by Board members. *Underground garage spaces are generally taken by renters and make the apartments more marketable. If a huge excess of spaces were available, Metz said they possibly could be rented out legally to non-residents, but it is highly unlikely. P & Z Minutes Page 11 Oct 3, 2017 Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium to waive the reading of Resolution 2017-0109 there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill, to recommend approval of the proposed Site Plan for the properties located at 1069 Grandview Way and 4729 Grand Avenue subject to the following conditions: Stop signs will be added at the development driveway exit(s). The attached Landscape Plan indicates a number of landscaping improvements to the site. All landscaping indicated on the submitted landscape plan dated September 29th, 2017, will be installed no later than 4 months after the buildings are operational, or from such time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The monument sign at the corner of 47th Avenue and Grand Avenue, along with the proposed sculpture, will require a sign permit and be approved by the City’s Communication Committee. The monument sign and the sculpture must be installed no later than 4 months after the buildings are operational, or from such time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The building and site shall meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form from the Fire Chief. The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form and memo dated August 30th, 2017, from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Trash and/or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties and from public streets. All exterior lighting shall be downcast so as not to adversely impact neighboring residential properties. The applicant must submit a detailed lighting plan for review by the Building Official, prior to construction. All City Storm Water Management requirements, as well as Mississippi Water Management Organization (MWMO) plan requirements, shall be achieved for this property. The applicant will provide space for snow removal on its own property. The applicant will enter in to a Development Agreement with the City of Columbia Heights, which will govern construction methods and timing, as well as the establishment of public and quasi-public infrastructure. The Development Agreement must be approved by the City of Columbia Heights before construction can commence. Access on the easternmost north/south private drive shall be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated September 29th, 2017 shall become part of this approval. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Roll Call: All ayes. MOTION PASSED. This will go to the City Council at the meeting of October 9, 2017. P & Z Minutes Page 12 Oct 3, 2017 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other new business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary