Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-08 P&Z Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 8, 2017, 2017 7:00pm Columbia Heights City Hall th 590 40 Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 1. Call to Order and Roll Call a.Approval of October 3rd, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. 2. Public Hearings a.Case # 2017- 1101 , Conditional Use Permit (CUP), th 2301 37 Place NE. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Gammada Urgessa 3. Other Business a.Comprehensive Plan Update Review of work in progress, presented by Mark Koegler, HKgi, Inc. Adjourn 11-08-17 MINUTES 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) Car/van pooling and/or provision of employee or resident transit passes; (d) Superior pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit access. 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 to encourage more trips via non-motorized modes of travel (pedestrian, biking etc.) and less by automobile. Additionally, the proposal median income, specifically targeting higher density developments that provide workforce housing. DESIGN GUIDELINES uidelines. 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 th and 40 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 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. 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 -motorized modes of travel (pedestrian, biking 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 amende 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 bicy amenities, allowing for the added 30 surface parking rather than underground parking appears to be a reasonable request. 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: 1.Stop signs will be added at the development driveway exit(s). 2.The attached Landscape Plan indicates a number of landscaping improvements to the site. All th landscaping indicated on the submitted landscape plan dated September 29, 2017, will be installed no later than 4 months after the buildings are operational, or from such time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. th 3.The monument sign at the corner of 47 Avenue and Grand Avenue, along with the proposed sculpture, 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. 4.The building and site shall meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 5.The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form from the Fire Chief. 6.The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form and memo dated August th 30, 2017, from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 7.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. 8.Mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties and from public streets. 9.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. 10.All City Storm Water Management requirements, as well as Mississippi Water Management Organization (MWMO) plan requirements, shall be achieved for this property. 11.The applicant will provide space for snow removal on its own property. 12.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. 13.Access on the easternmost north/south private drive shall be restricted to emergency vehicles only. th 14.Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated September 29, 2017shall become part of this approval. 15.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 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 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, we 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 thth with increased traffic on Grand Avenue between 47 and 49 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 ing 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 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. th Elizabeth Herrmmann, 950 39 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 p and with that, they would face the same parking and traff 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 ut 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 and underground parking according to the original plan that was approved. th Brenda Ziemet, 4225 6 St. loves Columbia Heights. She said Millenials are finding it attractive. She believes the City needs to look at what we It should be embraced. thth Mary Granlund, 949 44 Ave is aware of traffic problems on 49 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 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 ose 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 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 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. live without a car in Minnesota. Public transportation is ok depending on where you are going. She told 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: 1.Stop signs will be added at the development driveway exit(s). 2.The attached Landscape Plan indicates a number of landscaping improvements to the site. All th landscaping indicated on the submitted landscape plan dated September 29, 2017, will be installed no later than 4 months after the buildings are operational, or from such time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. th 3.The monument sign at the corner of 47 Avenue and Grand Avenue, along with the proposed sculpture, 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. 4.The building and site shall meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 5.The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form from the Fire Chief. 6.The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the attached Review Form and memo dated August th 30, 2017, from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 7.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. 8.Mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties and from public streets. 9.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. 10.All City Storm Water Management requirements, as well as Mississippi Water Management Organization (MWMO) plan requirements, shall be achieved for this property. 11.The applicant will provide space for snow removal on its own property. 12.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. 13.Access on the easternmost north/south private drive shall be restricted to emergency vehicles only. th 14.Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated September 29, 2017shall become part of this approval. 15.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 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2017-1101 DATE: November 8, 2017 TO: Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission APPLICANT: DEVELOPMENT: Wine Production Shop LOCATION: 2301 37 th Pl. NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (PIN 36-30-24-44-0012) REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Assembly, Manufacturing and Processing PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Holmbeck, City Planner INTRODUCTION At this time, Gammada Urgessa Permit to allow for processing of Daadhii, a traditional Honey Wine, on the property located at th 2301 37 Pl. NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421. The applicant is proposing to lease the westernmost tenant space of the strip center. At this time, this tenant space is vacant. Historically however, the space has been used for commercial purposes. Assembly, manufacturing and/or processing require a Conditional Use Permit in the GB, General Business Zoning District. for over 20 years. While the wine has currently been like to start a small processing facility at the subject property. The applicant anticipates producing approximately 400 hundred 750 ml. bottles per month to be sold directly to distributors only. ZONING ORDINANCE th The property located at 2301 37 Pl. NE is located in the GB (General Business) Zoning District. The properties to the South and West are also located in the General Business District. The property to the North is zoned LB (Limited Business). The property borders the City of St. Anthony to the East, with both residential and commercial uses. The proposal to produce Daadhii falls under assembly, manufacturing, and/or production, and requires a Conditional Use Permit in the General Business Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Commercial uses. The Zoning Code allows for assembly, manufacturing, and/or production as a conditional use on the subject property. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Planning Report Page 2 Therefore, the proposed use of this property is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. DESIGN GUIDELINES The subject property is not located in the Design Guidelines Overlay District. SITE PLAN The applicant submitted a Site Plan for the interior tenant space which describes the proposed location of the production equipment and supplies (mixing, fermentation and bottling), storage of the finished product, and delivery of supplies associated with the production of this product. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines nine conditions that must 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. Assembly, manufacturing and/or processing are specifically listed as a Conditional Use in the GB, General Business Zoning District. (b)The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Commercial use. The proposed use is commercial in nature. (c)The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. According to the applicant, they anticipate producing approximately four hundred, 750 ml. bottles of Daahdii per month, and the finished product will only be sold to distributors. To ensure this, a condition has been added to the permit which prohibits any On/Off sale or sampling of the product on site. Due to the limited production, it is not anticipated that the use will impose any hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. small amount of residue generated by the production of the Honey Wine, which can, and will be disposed of in the regular trash receptacles provided on site. A condition of approval has been added to include the requirement of a screened trash receptacle located behind the building. (d)The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. Staff feels that to the contrary, since the space will now be occupied, the subject property is less likely to experience theft and vandalism. Also, this particular commercial strip center has historically seen tenant spaces vacant for periods of time and this new business will likely help to bring additional commercial activity and vibrancy to the strip center. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Planning Report Page 3 (e)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. Excluding tenant signage, there will be no physical changes to the appearance of the existing building to accommodate the Daahdii wine processing facility. Plans to change the exterior signage will be reviewed administratively. The interior renovations proposed at this time are minimal including general cleaning, and painting. Any interior renovations that will require permits are to be submitted to the Building Inspection Department. Staff will work with the applicant throughout the process to ensure proper permitting is obtained. (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 site will continue to utilize the existing ingress/egress routes. The applicant is only anticipating two-three persons at a time would be on site, which should have a minimal impact on the parking lot and overall pedestrian and vehicular function. Deliveries of supplies will be made via the door located on the Northwest corner of the property, located in the back of the building (shown in Map E attached). A condition has been added restricting the delivery and/or distribution of product to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Monday-Saturday), and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Sunday). (h)The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity. There is no anticipated negative cumulative effect associated with the addition of the Daahdii wine processing facility at the subject property. The proposed CUP would allow for the applicant to produce approximately 400 bottles a month, or approximately 31 barrels a year, or 961 gallons a year. Overall, staff believes that this amount of production will have a minimal impact on the other uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff has added 12 conditions to the permit to mitigate any potential impacts of the use. (i)The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located. This is correct. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Planning Report Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the th proposed Conditional Use Permit for the processing of Daahdii (Honey Wine) at 2301 37 Place NE., subject to certain conditions outlined below. Motion: Move to close the public hearing and waive the reading of Resolution 2017-116, there being ample copies available to the public. Motion: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2017-116, for a Conditional Use Permit for the processing of Daahdii (Honey th Wine) for the property located at 2301 37 Place NE. (PIN 36-30-24-44-0012), 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 required state, county and local codes shall be met and in full compliance. 2.The applicant must obtain necessary approvals from the Metropolitan Council (Sewer Accessibility Charge), the State of Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota Department of Health and/or Anoka County Health Department. The applicant will submit a copy of all necessary permits and allowances, prior to operation on the subject property. 3.All storage of waste material shall be located and screened in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant will submit a plan to the City Planner which shows how the trash receptacles will be screened. 4.The interior finish work is to be completed with review and if required, permits must be submitted to the Building Inspections Department. 5.If the tenant ever wishes to expand within the building, plans must be submitted to the Building Official for review and compliance with Building and Fire Code. Currently the applicant is proposing to occupy 1,500 sq. ft. of space in the building (commercial strip center). Occupying over 2,000 sq. ft. of space within the building would require a fire suppression system to be installed in the entire building. 6.All signage is issued administratively. Any signage for the business must be submitted to the Community Development Department to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 7.All production operations shall be within a completely enclosed structure (within the tenant space as outlined on the attached site plan). 8.By-products and waste from the production of the wine shall be properly disposed in an enclosed container. 9.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 (6) feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. 10.No retail sales or sampling of any alcoholic beverage shall take place on the premise (tenant space). 11.Deliveries shall be limited to occur between the hours of 8:00 AM-8:00 PM, Monday- Saturday, and 10:00 AM-6:00 PM on Sunday. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Planning Report Page 5 12.If the nature of the assembly, manufacturing, and/or processing use changes (currently wine production), the property owner shall apply to have the Conditional Use Permit amended. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017-116 Location Map Application Site Plan Pictures RESOLUTION NO. 2017-116 A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Conditional Use th Permit for assembly, manufacturing, and/or processing on the property located at 2301 27 Pl. Ne., Columbia Heights, MN 55421. Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2017-1101) has been submitted by to the City Council requesting a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS: (PIN 36-30-24-44-0012), known as 2301 27th Pl. Ne., Columbia Heights, MN 55421. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: A Conditional Use Permit per Code Section 9.110 (E) (3) (l), to allow th for assembly, manufacturing, and/or processing on the property located at 2301 27 Pl. Ne., Columbia Heights, MN 55421. Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on th November 8, 2017; Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning 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; Now, therefore, be it resolved, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines nine conditions that must 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. (b)The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. (c)The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. (d)The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. (e)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. (f)The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public facilities and services. (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. City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2 (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. (i)The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located. Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this Conditional Use Permit and approval; and in granting this Conditional Use Permit the City and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. The Conditional Use Permit is 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: CONDITIONS 1.All required state, county and local codes shall be met and in full compliance. 2.The applicant must obtain necessary approvals from the Metropolitan Council (Sewer Accessibility Charge), the State of Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota Department of Health and/or Anoka County Health Department. The applicant will submit a copy of all necessary permits and allowances, prior to operation on the subject property. 3.All storage of waste material shall be located and screened in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant will submit a plan to the City Planner which shows how the trash receptacles will be screened. 4.The interior finish work is to be completed with review by and if required, permits must be submitted to the Building Inspections Department. 5.If the tenant ever wishes to expand within the building, plans must be submitted to the Building Official for review and compliance with Building and Fire Code. Currently the applicant is proposing to occupy 1,500 sq. ft. of space in the building (commercial strip center). Occupying over 2,000 sq. ft. of space within the building would require a fire suppression system to be installed in the entire building. 6.All signage is issued administratively. Any signage for the business must be submitted to the Community Development Department to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 7.All production operations shall be within a completely enclosed structure (within the tenant space as outlined on the attached site plan). 8.By-products and waste from the production of the wine shall be properly disposed in an enclosed container. 9.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 (6) feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. 10.No retail sales or sampling of any alcoholic beverage shall take place on the premise (tenant space). 11.Deliveries shall be limited to occur between the hours of 8:00 AM-8:00 PM, Monday-Saturday, and 10:00 AM-6:00 PM on Sunday. 12.If the nature of the assembly, manufacturing, and/or processing use changes (currently wine production), the property owner shall apply to have the Conditional Use Permit amended. City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 3 ORDER OF COUNCIL th Passed this 13 day of November, 2017. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Donna Schmitt, Mayor Attest: Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary Proposed Site location 1 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 8, 2017 INTRODUCTION At the November 8 th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, we like to take some time to accomplish two things: 1) provide the Commission with an overview of the Comprehensive Planning process and progress to date and 2) solicit input on land use and redevelopment alternatives being de th Central Avenue, University Avenue and 40 Avenue. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan is being guided by the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee which is comprised of 15 people from the Columbia Heights community. The Committee includes representatives from the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission (Adam Schill). To date, the committee has met on three occasions to review materials and provide input and direction. Planning Process and Schedule Two items are included in this packet to provide background on the planning process and overall schedule. The first is the Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan Task Schedule which generally delineates the various tasks and identifies those that are complete and those that are in process. The schedule also includes a listing of major project meetings. The second attachment is the Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan Meetings and Activities Schedule. It includes a listing of all past and anticipated meetings related to the Comp Plan update. The full agenda is shown for all past meetings and for future meetings, the anticipated discussion topics are identified. This meeting list will be continually updated as meetings occur and to reflect any schedule changes that are required. Community Outreach The Comprehensive Plan helps direct the path of growth and change in Columbia Heights over the next one to two decades. Accordingly, it is important that the document includes the ideas and interests of local residents and businesspersons, consistent with regional requirements and policies established by the Columbia Heights City Council. The plan needs to be consistent with the requirements of the Metropolitan Council who establishes population, housing and employment projections as well as goals for the plan. 1 In order to encourage stakeholder involvement in the planning process, a number of approaches have been used. Initially, Social Pinpoint, an online tool was used to gather general input from the community. It provided insight into what residents like about the City and what they would like to see changed. Likes included: Parks Library Heights Theater/DQ HyVee Neighborhoods Local businesses Items identified that need change included: Mobility streets, sidewalks, trails, pedestrian crossings, etc. Parks Safety Trash Businesses and commercial areas Outreach efforts have also included attendance at a number of community events. The attached summary prepared by Jodi Griffin summarizes responses from these sessions. th On September 19, an open house was held at the Columbia Heights Library. The focus of the open house was to obtain feedback on concepts being considered for major roadway corridors. Input received at the open house is incorporated into the following discussion about the corridor concepts. Land Use - Corridor Concepts One of the key elements of the land use section of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be recommendations related to the improvement of the major roadway corridors that pass through th Columbia Heights. Specifically, the plan will examine University Avenue NE, Central Avenue NE and 40 Avenue NE. conceptual ideas for changes in land use, pedestrian circulation, and aesthetics and to get feedback from the Commission. We will continue to refine the ideas and then eventually incorporate them into the Land Use chapter of the plan. The following is a review of each of these areas: Central Avenue 40 th Avenue Intersection includes a mix of suburban architecture, it also includes street front retail on the west side of Central Avenue invoking the feeling of a traditional downtown area. Two concepts were offered for this area representing differing mixes of uses and building placements. They included the following: 2 Concept 1 Concept 1 illustrates the development of a mixed-use commercial/residential building in the northeast quadrant of the intersection served by a new above grade parking ramp. Immediately north of the mixed-use building are two areas of mid-density, townhouse units. The transit center remains in its current location. A new open public plaza is shown in the southeast quadrant of the intersection, adjacent to the now vacant office tower. 3 Concept 2 Concept 2 has two primary components; commercial retail and housing. This alternative reestablishes street facing retail on the east side of Central Avenue creating a line of continuous storefronts matching those on the west side of the street. Parking would be accommodated in a surface lot behind the retail building enhancing the pedestrian friendly nature of this block of retail uses. New multi-family housing with underground parking is located northeast of the retail uses. The transit center in this alternative could be integrated into the northern end of the retail center. Public Comments on the Central Avenue/40 th Avenue Area At the open house, public comments on these options were largely general in nature and not specific to the different mix of uses shown on the various concepts. Comments included: Can the northeast building get a facelift? Can the corner that faces 40 th be prettier? The northeast building is an eyesore as you enter the City. Good location for breweries or distilleries for theater goers. Turn the old library into a youth center. 4 Office tower cute shops, wine bar and coffee on first floor upper floors turned into apartments. Southeast corner create an outdoor green landscaped patio. Add pedestrian support and green space near the library and DQ create a viable, welcoming space along Central. Business hotel in Concept A behind the parking structure. Turn the office tower into a conference and training center. Leverage existing ramps to avoid new surface parking. Reduce required parking in the code. What do we call this place? We also asked meeting participants to suggest names for the commercial node at Central Avenue and 40 th Avenue. The following responses were noted: Name Suggestions; Boot Strap Corner Central Square Highland Central Upper NE 40 th & Central Heights Hub Central Heights (+1) Columbia Heights Central (CHC) Community Heights Nordeast Heights New Heights Better Heights Welcome Heights (could Requested Planning Commission Input: What are your thoughts and preferences for future uses at this key Columbia Heights intersection? Do you like any of the name suggestions? Central Avenue 49 th Avenue Intersection The southeast quadrant of Central Avenue and 49 th Avenue is currently the home of a Savers retail store. While there are no specific plans for any change or redevelopment of this site, it was identified as an area to explore given the dynamic nature of retailing these days. The current building is very suburban in its form with surface parking adjacent to Central Avenue with the building located on the east side of the site. The eastern touch down point of the above grade pedestrian crossing of Central Avenue is located on this property. The northern end of Central Avenue has uses that are more suburban in form than those located further to the south. Accordingly, the configuration of the current site is consistent with many of the surrounding properties and particularly, properties between this area and I-694. 5 Concept 1 This option places a series of retail and restaurant uses along Central Avenue with surface parking along the sides and rear of the buildings. Also shown is new housing in the form of mid-density townhomes on the eastern side of the site. 6 Concept 2 Concept 2 explores an office use on the subject site. Admittedly, the office market is challenging but some potential could exist in the long-term. The configuration shown would be a one story structure abutting Central Avenue that would be served by surface parking. A retail use could be substituted for the office use in this concept. Public Comments on the Central Avenue/49 th Avenue Area At the open house, public comments on these options were largely general in nature and not specific to the different mix of uses shown on the various concepts. Comments included: Like to see interesting shops and restaurants in addition to all of the new chain restaurants. I prefer improvements that optimize utility-pedestrian options, green spaces and community centers. I would prioritize those over signage and monuments. Would love to see a north/south bikeway off of Central. Not every empty space needs to be filled with housing. We need more commercial and industrial jobs for our citizens. Can MnDOT use signage to move some of the thru traffic off of Central to University which was designed as a highway? 7 Would love to see pollinator plantings along the boulevards. Get the State to turn Central Avenue into a County or City roadway then do traffic calming and streetscaping to encourage shopping. Regarding Concept C I like the parking in the back, away from Central Avenue creating a more welcoming streetscape. Requested Planning Commission Input: What are your thoughts and preferences for future uses at this Columbia Heights intersection? University Avenue 37 th Avenue to 40 th Avenue This area is the only significant portion of land in Columbia Heights along University Avenue that has th future redevelopment potential. The site lies on the west side of University, south of 40 Avenue. It is located immediately across University from the Huset Park development area which is a very successful residential development. Properties immediately along University include a mix of underutilized parcels on the north and aging, smaller industrial sites to the south. Three concepts were offered for this area representing a differing mixes of uses and building placements. They included the following: 8 Concept 1 This option includes a mix of new retail (or office) in the southwest corner of the intersection, multi- family housing west of the retail site and then mid-density townhomes to the south. To a degree, these uses would mirror those on the east side of University Avenue. 9 Concept 2 Concept 2 is an all-housing approach that looks at a smaller area of redevelopment. It includes two larger buildings on the north and townhomes to the south. 10 Concept 3 The origins of Concept 3 came from a discussion at a Review Committee meeting. This concept explores business uses for the overall area and no residential uses. This was a direct response to comments that focused on the need for added jobs in Columbia Heights, partially to offset those that were lost on the east side of University Avenue as part of the Huset Park redevelopment. One of the early ideas presented at the Open House was to establish a design theme based on the shipping containers that are frequently seen travelling along University to the rail yard in Minneapolis to the south. This area could 11 be the home of a business park that would convert retired shipping containers into buildings. While that idea may not be mainstream in the Twin Cities, it has been done in other areas as shown in the photos below. Public Comments on the University Avenue/40 th Avenue Area At the open house, public comments on these options were largely general in nature and not specific to the different mix of uses shown on the various concepts. Comments included: Prefer to keep University residential to minimize traffic issues during rush hour. Add business development along Central Avenue instead. Office including small businesses. We need more jobs, not more housing density. Lots of green to buffer commercial traffic noise. Prefer owner occupied buildings. Requested Planning Commission Input: What are your thoughts and preferences for future uses at this Columbia Heights intersection? th 40 Avenue - City Hall Site The City is examining options for possible construction of a future City Hall. If that were to occur in another part of the community such as Central Avenue, the site of the existing building would become a candidate for redevelopment. Two options for the redevelopment of the site were explored. th Regardless of which of these may occur (or other configuration of this site), improvements along 40 Avenue will take place. The reconstruction of the 40 th Avenue roadway in the next few years can accommodate landscaping improvements along this corridor. Additionally, sidewalk improvements should greatly enhance both the safety and attractiveness of pedestrian movements long this roadway. The redevelopment of the City Hall site can also provide more physical and visual connections to Huset Park immediately to the south. Two concepts were offered for this area representing a differing mixes of uses and building placements. They included the following: 12 Concept 1 This option explores retail and housing uses on the site. Retail would occur where the City Hall building sits today and a row of new townhomes could be built along Mill Street NE which could terminate in a new cul-de-sac. A plaza could create a stronger physical and visual connection to Huset Park. Concept 2 Concept 2 includes mixed-use buildings (housing over retail) along 40 th Avenue and townhomes along Mill Street NE. Like the concept above, it provides a stronger connection to Huset Park. 13 th Public Commentson the 40Avenue Area At the open house, public comments on these options were largely general in nature and not specific to the different mix of uses shown on the various concepts. Comments included: Like the plaza idea need one somewhere. This plan seems to cut off Mill Street. Include a brewery/taproom. Location for a performing arts center. We need to maintain 2 way access to Murzyn Hall for events weddings, etc. Use parking on Jefferson for arts center. Install bumpouts around parking on 40 th calm traffic. thth On 40 more green. Like the art idea a destination, not just a corridor to get to University. Have space along the sidewalk on 40 th for gatherings community grounds are as appealing as driving areas. More walking trails in Huset Park. Develop an indoor recreation space youth center laser tag, arcade something for kids during inclement weather. Prefer the boulevard approach bike lane vs. bus. Protected cycle track along the south side limit cross traffic. Two lanes only. Low traffic. Maintain mixed use try for Grand Avenue in St. Paul. Requested Planning Commission Input: What are your thoughts and preferences for future uses on and around the City Hall site? 14 Dpmvncjb!Ifjhiut!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!.!Qspkfdu!Tdifevmf UBTLNBSBQSNBZKVOKVMBVHTFQPDUOPWEFDKBO!3129GFCNBSBQSNBZ Voefstuboe!uif!Dpoufyu Dpnnvojuz!Fohbhfnfou! Voefstuboe!Xibu!jt!Eftjsfe Fyqmpsf!uif!Qpttjcjmjujft Dpnnvojuz!Fohbhfnfou! Sfwjfx!Bmufsobujwft Vqebuf!uif!Qmbo!Fmfnfout Dpnnvojuz!Fohbhfnfou! Dpotvmu!boe!Dpmmbcpsbuf Bttfncmf!uif!Gjobm!Qmbo!boe! Tffl!Bqqspwbmt Qsfqbsf!Qmbo!gps!Ejtusjcvujpo! boe!Bhfodz!Bqqspwbmt Nffujoht Sfwjfx!Dpnnjuuff Qbslt!boe!Obuvsbm!Sftpvsdft! Dpnnjttjpo Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo Djuz!Dpvodjm Qvcmjd!Nffujoht0Gpdvt!Hspvqt0 Gpsvnt Pomjof!Pvusfbdi Dpnqmfufe!Ubtlt Opuf;!!Uijt!tdifevmf!tvckfdu!up!dibohf 2104203128 Gvuvsf!ps!Jo!Qspdftt!Ubtlt Dpmvncjb!Ifjhiut!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!.!Nffujoht!boe!Bdujwjujft!Tdifevmf !QMBOOJOH!DPNNJTTJPO!NNBZ!2-!3129 !SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF!NPDUPCFS!34-!3128 !DJUZ!DPVODJM-!SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF-!QMBOOJOH!DPNNJTTJPO! Bhfoeb; BOE!QBSL!BOE!SFDSFBUJPO!DPNNJTTJPO!NNBZ!4-!3128 Bhfoeb; Ω!Sfwjfx!Esbgu!Qmbo Bhfoeb;Ω!Qspkfdu!Qspdftt!boe!Tdifevmf Ω!Xfmdpnf!boe!JouspevdujpotΩ!Mboe!Vtf!.!Dpssjeps!Dpodfqut !DJUZ!DPVODJM!NNBZ!25-!3129 Ω!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmboojoh!PwfswjfxΩ!Qbslt!boe!Usbotqpsubujpo Bhfoeb; .!Xibu!jt!b!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo@Ω!Ofyu!Tufqt Ω!Sfwjfx!Esbgu!Qmbo .!Sfhjpobm!Gsbnfxpsl !QMBOOJOH!DPNNJTTJPO!NOPWFNCFS!9-!3128 .!Qspdftt!boe!Tdifevmf Bhfoeb; Nffujoh!Lfz .!Dpnnvojuz!Fohbhfnfou Ω!Sfwjfx!pg!xpsl!jo!qspdftt .!Jttvf!boe!Pqqpsuvojujft DPNQMFUFE!NFFUJOHT!JO!JUBMJDT .!Ofyu!Tufqt !UBTUF!PG!DPMVNCJB!IFJHIOQ/N/!UP! Ω!Rvftujpot!boe!Dpnnfout GVUVSF!NFFUJOHT!JO!SFHVMBS :;41!QNVS[ZO!IBMM Bdujwjujft; !DPNNVOJUZ!QJDOJDSL Ω!Jogpsnbujpo!boe!Joqvu!po!uif!3151!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo Bdujwjujft; Uzqf!pg!Nffujoh Ω!Hsbqijdt!up!tvqqpsu!dpowfstbujpot!sfhbsejoh!fyjtujoh!boe!gvuvsf!mboe!vtf-!boe! !DJUZ!DPVODJM!NDFNCFS!22-!3128!Djuz!Dpvodjm dvssfou!efwfmpqnfou!qspkfdut Bhfoeb; !Sfwjfx!Dpnnjuuff Ω!Dpmvncjb!Ifjhiut!ïUpebz!boe!Upnpsspxñ!tvswfz Ω!Sfwjfx!pg!xpsl!jo!qspdftt !Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo !SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF!N !SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF!NDFNCFS!29-!3128 !Qbslt!boe!Obuvsbm!Sftpvsdft!Dpnnjttjpo Bhfoeb; Bhfoeb; Ω!Jouspevdujpot !Dpnnvojuz!Fohbhfnfou Ω!Fdpopnjd!Dpnqfujujwfoftt!boe!Sftjmjfodf Ω!Qmboojoh!Qspdftt!boe!Tdifevmf Opuf;!!Uijt!mjtujoh!pg!nffujoht!xjmm!cf!vqebufe!po!b!sfhvmbs!cbtjt!boe!ejtdvttjpo!upqjdt! Ω!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbujpo !SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF!N Ω!Dpnnvojuz!Fohbhfnfou!Sfqpsu Bhfoeb; beefe!bt!xfmm/ Ω!Dpnnvojuz!Wjtjpo!boe!Njttjpo Ω!Jnqmfnfoubujpo Ω!Ofyu!Tufqt !QBSLT!BOE!SFDSFBUJPO!DPNNJTTJPO!N !OBUJPOBM!OJHIU!PBVHVTU!2-!3128 3129 2104203128 Ipjtjohupo!Lpfhmfs!Hspvq!Jod/ Bdujwjujft; Bhfoeb; Ω!Obujpobm!Ojhiu!Pvu!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!qptufs Ω!Sfwjfx!esbgu!nbufsjbmt!ò!Qbslt!boe!Pqfo!Tqbdf!Dibqufs Ω!Ejtusjcvuf!nbufsjbmt !QMBOOJOH!DPNNJTTJPO!NGFCSVBSZ!7-!3129 !SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF!NBVHVTU!39-!3128 Bhfoeb; Bhfoeb; Ω!Sfwjfx!pg!xpsl!jo!qspdftt Ω!Jouspevdujpot !DJUZ!DPVODJM!NGFCSVBSZ!23-!3129 Ω!Qspkfdu!Tdifevmf!boe!Nffujoht0Bdujwjujft!Vqebuf Bhfoeb; Ω!Jojujbm!Dpoufyu!Dibqufs!esbgu Ω!Sfwjfx!pg!xpsl!jo!qspdftt Ω!Dpssjeps!Dpodfqut! Ω!Dfousbm!Bwfovf!OF !SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF!NGFCSVBSZ!37-!3129 Ω!51ui!Bwfovf!OF Bhfoeb; Ω!Vojwfstjuz!Bwfovf!OF Ω!Sfwjfx!Esbgu!Qmbo Ω!Dpnnvojuz!Fohbhfnfou Ω!Ofyu!Tufqt !DPNNVOJUZ!PVUSFBDI!FNBSDI-!3129 Bdujwjujft; !DPNNVOJUZ!PQTFQUFNCFSQ Ω!Up!cf!efufsnjofe DPMVNCJB!IFJHIUT!MJCSBSZ Bdujwjujft; !DPNNVOJUZ!PVUSFBDI!FBQSJM-!3129 Ω!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!Cbdlhspvoe Bdujwjujft; Ω!Dpmvncjb!Ifjhiut!ïUpebz!boe!Upnpsspxñ!Tvswfz Ω!Up!cf!efufsnjofe Ω!Dpnnvojuz!Dpssjeps!Dpodfqut !SFWJFX!DPNNJUUFF!NBQSJM!34-!3129 Bhfoeb; Ω!Sfwjfx!Esbgu!Qmbo Uif!Djuz!pg!Dpmvncjb!Ifjhiut!jt!vqebujoh!uif!dvssfou! Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo"!Uif!vqebufe!qmbo!xjmm!ifmq!tfu!uif!tubhf! gps!uif!Djuzît!gvuvsf!efwfmpqnfou-!hspxui!'!qvcmjd!jogsbtusvduvsf! jowftunfou!pvu!up!uif!zfbs!3151/!Uif!qmbo!jt!ubljoh!b!mppl!bu!uisff! pg!Dpmvncjb!Ifjhiutî!nbkps!spbexbzt-!Dfousbm!Bwfovf-!Vojwfstjuz! ui Bwfovf-!boe!51!Bwfovf/!Jnqspwfe!mboetdbqjoh!boe!tjefxbmlt!bsf! fowjtjpofe!bmpoh!bmm!pg!uiftf!spvuft/!Beejujpobmmz-!uif!qmbo!jt!fyqmpsjoh! qpttjcmf!sfefwfmpqnfou!boe!sfjowftunfou!jefbt!bu!b!ovncfs!pg! lfz!joufstfdujpot!bmpoh!fbdi!pg!uiftf!spvuft/!Uiftf!dpodfqut!!pomz! sfefwfmpqnfou!qmbot/! Xf!xbou!up!ifbs!gspn!zpv"!Qmfbtf!ufmm!vt!xibu!zpv!uijol!bcpvu! uif!jefbt!cfjoh!fyqmpsfe/!Gpmmpx!uif!jotusvdujpot!cfmpx!up!mph!jo! up!Tvswfz!Npolfz!boe!ublf!b!csjfg!tvswfz!uibu!qsftfout!bmm!pg!uif! dpodfqut!boe!tfflt!zpvs!gffecbdl/!Ju!pomz!ublft!b!gfx!njovuft!up! dpnqmfuf!uif!tvswfz/! 1 Hp!up!xxx/tvswfznpolfz/dpn0s0DI3151Dpssjeps 2 !Ublf!b!mppl!bu!uif!jefbt!qsftfoufe!gps!fbdi!pg!uif!uisff! spbexbz!dpssjepst!boe!mfu!vt!lopx!xibu!zpv!uijol/!Zpv!dbo! qspwjef!pqjojpot!po!bmm!pg!uif!dpssjepst!ps!kvtu!uif!pof!uibu! 2 joufsftut!zpv!nptu/! Wjtju!uif!Djuzît!xfctjuf!)xxx/dj/dpmvncjb.ifjhiut/no/vt*!up!mfbso! npsf!bcpvu!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Q pqqpsuvojujft!up!hfu!jowpmwfe"