HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2020 Planning Commission PacketCOLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF CONDUCTING MEETING BY A COMBINATION
OF IN-PERSON AND TELEPHONIC MEANS
Following a determination by City Manager Kelli Bourgeois, and emergencies declared
by the United States, The State of Minnesota, and the Columbia Heights Mayor & City Council,
the Columbia Heights Planning Commission Meeting Scheduled for Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at
6:00 pm will, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.021, occur by a combination of in-person and
telephonic means. Members of the public who wish to attend may do so by attending in-person
in the Council Chambers at the Columbia Heights City Hall or by calling (425) 436-6356 and
entering access code 739-578 at the scheduled meeting time. Comments can be submitted
ahead of the meeting to ehammond@columbiaheightsmn.gov or by calling (763) 706-3670.
If there are any questions about this notice or attending/calling in to the meeting,
please contact the Community Development Department at (763) 706-3670. The meeting
location for this meeting is the Council Chambers at Columbia Heights City Hall located at 590
40th Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 2020 6:00 p.m.
Columbia Heights City Hall
590 40th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
5-5-2020 Planning Commission Agenda
1. Call to Order
a. Roll Call
b. Approval of March 4, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
2. Public Hearings
a. Interim Use Permit, Renaissance Fireworks-4005 Central Ave NE
b. Vacation of Easement, Alatus-3989 Central Ave NE
c. Conditional Use Permit and Variance, Friends of Prodeo-4141 University Ave NE
3. Other Business
a. Purchase of 4441 Central Avenue NE
b. Update from Community Development Director
c. Reminder: next Planning Commission meeting - Tuesday, June 2, 2020, 6:00 p.m.
4. Adjourn
MINUTES OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 4, 2020
6:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chair Szurek.
Commission Members present- Sahnow, Novitsky, Fiorendino, Hoium, Schill, Kaiser, and Szurek.
Also present were Aaron Chirpich (Community Development Director), Ryan Grittman (Consulting Planner),
Christy Bennett (Secretary), and Connie Buesgens (Council Liaison).
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Motion by Schill, seconded by Sahnow, to postpone officer elections until the April 2020 meeting.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill, to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 4, 2020.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER: 2020-0301
APPLICANT: THOMAS BRAMA
REQUEST: TEXT AMMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 1661, AMMENDING CITY CODE OF
2001, RELATING TO WALL HEIGHT LIMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Grittman explained that Thomas Brama has applied for an ordinance amendment to remove language from
the zoning ordinance that limits accessory structure wall height to nine feet. The application is a result of a
construction error that has caused a single-family home in the City to be non-compliant. The home is still
under construction at this time.
The accessory structure wall height limitation was created in 2001 as a way to prevent properties with one
story homes from creating oversized garages that are not proportionate to the home. At the time, most
homes in the City would have been one story homes with detached garages; new home construction today
includes larger homes with attached garages. It should be noted that the height limitation applies to both
attached and detached accessory structures.
In review of past meeting minutes related to the 2001 update, the ordinance amendment was adopted as part
of a larger ordinance update. Unfortunately, the meeting minutes from that time do not mention the nine
foot accessory structure wall height limit since the amendment was part of a larger update.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Generally, the Comprehensive Plan supports the maintaining and the redevelopment of its housing stock. In
this regard, the ordinance update is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals by providing flexibility in
the design of new construction, or rehabilitation of existing sites. This is discussed further in the Findings of
Fact section of this report.
ZONING ORDINANCE
1. Ordinance History. The original accessory structure ordinance was adopted in 1974. That ordinance
read:
No accessory building in the “R” District shall exceed the height of the principal building.
However, in the “R-1”, “R-2” and “R-3” District no accessory building shall exceed fifteen (15)
feet in height, except Private Garages as defined herein cannot exceed 18 feet in height.
The ordinance was later updated in 2001 to its current language of:
(f) The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the principal structure or
18 feet in height, as measured to the highest point, whichever is less.
(g) The wall height of an accessory structure shall not exceed nine feet in height.
Staff feels that the intent of the ordinance is to create garages and accessory structures that are proportionate
to the principal structure (home) on the property. This was done by limiting the overall height of the
accessory structure, and the height of the walls. When the ordinance was written, most garages and
accessory structures in the City were detached garages. Today, new construction usually contains an attached
garage. The accessory structure wall height limit of nine feet has been problematic in recent cases, usually
related to new construction and attached garages.
2. Building Height and Structure Height. The zoning ordinance does not have a clean way of calculating
building and structure height. Staff is recommending a new method of calculation for buildings and structures
that utilizes the average finished grade of the property as a benchmark. This update can be found in the
attached ordinance draft. The existing maximum building height for each residential district is as follows:
District R-1 R-2A R-2B R-3 R-4
Maximum Height 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Staff is recommending that the R-1, R-2A, and R-2B districts be changed to 30 feet in height for their height
limit. This is due to a change in the calculation of building height (discussed later in this report).
3. Definitions. The ordinance update is proposing several new definitions to be added to the zoning
ordinance along with changes to some existing definitions. The purpose of the changes is to allow for a
specific height calculation; a definition of average existing grade; and average finished grade. Staff has also
provided image examples for some of the new definitions to better illustrate the ordinance and its intent.
These images will be codified into the ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
This will provide City Staff with an easier calculation for both structures and buildings. In review of the actual
definition of buildings and structures, staff is not recommending any changes.
4. Accessory Structure Building Height. Currently, accessory structure height is limited to 18 feet or the
height of the principal structure, whichever is less. This ordinance ties in with accessory structure wall height
(discussed below). Staff is recommending a change to the zoning ordinance that limits the accessory structure
building height to 18 feet for pitched roofs, and 12 feet for flat roofs. In addition, Staff is recommending
keeping the requirement that the accessory structure may not be taller than the principal structure. This will
allow flexibility with new construction and the rehabilitation of existing sites.
5. Accessory Structure Wall Height. Currently, the zoning ordinance contains a provision that accessory
structure wall height cannot exceed nine feet in height. This ordinance was created as a way of limiting the
size of accessory structures in comparison to principal homes that are common in Columbia Heights. The
ordinance was passed at a time when homes in the City were mainly one and one and a half story homes. The
City sought an ordinance that would restrict the size of garages to match the principal home.
Today, the City has seen some new construction, and the redevelopment of existing sites. Some of these
projects include an attached garage. The new construction often comes with an attached garage. The nine
foot wall restriction has become problematic for some home designs that cannot accommodate that low of a
height. This problem has mainly been seen in relation to attached garages.
The ordinance update seeks to remove the height restriction on walls, and instead, create a building height
calculation that goes from a calculation point on the ground to a point on the roof.
6. Accessory Structure Square Footage. Accessory structures are limited to 1,000 square feet in area.
This is a cumulative number, meaning the total between any and all detached garages, attached garages,
sheds, etc. The proposed changes to the accessory structure height along with the square footage limitation
will allow accessory structures to remain proportionate to the principal structure. No changes to the square
footage limitation are proposed.
7. Structure Height. In review of the City’s existing structure height definitions, Staff is recommending
some changes to this ordinance to better reflect the City’s topography. Staff is proposing to combine the
definitions of structure height calculation and building height calculation. The key changes are:
Structure Height Calculation. The existing ordinance calculates building height using the elevation at
the curb or the front of the home, whichever is higher. Staff feels this is an unfair calculation as homes
that have a slope down to the home will have an advantage in their building height calculation.
Instead, Staff is recommending that the building height be calculated using elevations around the
structure only. A calculation using the curb will be removed.
Building Height Calculation. The existing ordinance has a similar means of calculating building height as
it does with structure height. Staff is recommending using the same calculation for building height and
structure height.
Building Height Limits. Staff is recommending that the single and two family residential districts be
changed to allow a building height of 30 feet. This is due to the fact that the building height calculation
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
will raise existing building calculations since the current calculation only uses the curb or front of the
home. The new calculation will lower the “starting point”. As a result, the building height needs to be
raised in order to accommodate this change in calculation.
Average Existing Grade. Staff is proposing to add a definition of average existing grade. The average
existing grade is calculated by taking the elevations of the corners of a property before construction
begins and finding an average. This number is then used as the average existing grade, which is then
used to calculate building height. Exhibit A attached to this report helps illustrate the intent of the
ordinance. This calculation is not used in determining building height in the City, but it’s included in
the ordinance update for reference.
Average Finished Grade. Staff is proposing to add a definition of average finished grade. The average
finished grade is calculated by taking the elevations of the corners after the completion of a project on
a property and finding an average. This number is then used as the average finished grade, which is
then used to calculate building height.
In addition to the above changes, Staff is recommending that the maximum height limitations be separated
into two parts, building height and structure height. This will help clarify which height should be used when
determining height of buildings and structures. While most districts will use the same height for buildings and
structures, the new tables provide more clarity.
8. Previous Variance Request. In 2019, the City processed an application for a variance to exceed the
nine foot accessory wall limitation, and the overall accessory height limitation of 18 feet. This request was
denied by the City. Prior to the City receiving the application, Staff had encouraged the applicant to apply for
an ordinance amendment. The applicant moved forward with the variance request instead. While the City
cannot use past approvals or denials for justifying current applications, the previous variance request is an
example of how the nine foot accessory wall height limit has been problematic in the past.
It should be noted that to receive a variance, the applicant must prove a hardship. A hardship is usually the
result of an irregular shaped lot, legal non-conforming lot, etc. In the case of a height variance, a hardship can
be difficult to prove.
9. Staff Review. The Fire Department and the Public Works Department were notified of the proposed
zoning ordinance amendment. Neither department had any comments or concerns on the proposed
ordinance update.
10. Nearby Community Research. Staff researched other communities that are nearby to see what
regulations and calculations they have for building height. Some key findings are:
City of Fridley. The City of Fridley uses the following definition for calculating building height:
The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of a finished grade at the front of the
building to the highest point in the case of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; and to
the mean distance between eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
Exhibit B attached to this report shows illustrations on how building height is calculated.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
The following table shows the height limitations for the single and two family residential
districts in the City of Fridley:
District Height Limit
R-1 - One Family 30 feet
R-2 - Two Family 30 feet
The City of Fridley also has a requirement that the accessory structure may not be taller than
the principal building. However, no wall height limitation exists in their ordinance. In review of
the ordinance, Fridley does not appear to have an additional limitation on accessory structure
height, only the requirement is that the accessory structure is less than the principal home (the
principal home cannot exceed 30 feet in height).
City of Blaine. The City of Blaine has a similar definition for building height calculation as the
City of Fridley:
The vertical distance to be measured from the grade of a building line to the top, to the cornice
of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point of the roof directly above the highest
wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean
distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.
Exhibit C attached to this report illustrates how building height is calculated in the City of
Blaine.
The following table shows the height limitations for the single and two family residential
districts in the City of Blaine:
District Height Limit
R-1 - Single Family 30 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-1AA – Single Family 30 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-1A – Single Family 35 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-2 – Two Family 30 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-1B – Single Family 35 feet or 2 ½ Stories
As with the City of Fridley, the City of Blaine does not allow accessory structures to be taller
than the principal structure, and no limitation on wall height exists.
City of Spring Lake Park. Spring Lake Park has a similar building height calculation as Blaine and
Fridley:
The vertical distance measured from the average elevations of the finished grade along the
front of the building to the highest point of the roof surface in a flat roof, to the deck line of
mansard roofs, and to the mean height level between eaves and the ridge of gable, hip, and
gambrel roofs.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
Exhibit B attached to this report illustrates how building height is calculated in the City of Spring
Lake Park.
Building Height is limited by the following in the City of Spring Lake Park:
No accessory building shall exceed 18 feet in height or the height of the principal structure,
whichever is less. No detached accessory structure may exceed 15 feet in height.
The following table shows building heights in the single family districts:
District R-1 R-2 R-3
Height Limit 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is greater
In each of the three examples above, the ordinances have a way to calculate building height and a limitation
on building height. None of the examples above have a limitation on accessory wall height. The design of the
accessory structures appears to be left up to the property owner, and not regulated by the ordinance. If the
City of Columbia Heights were to remove the nine foot wall limitation, it would be consistent with surrounding
communities. It should be noted that the proposed ordinance change would also be consistent with other
communities in the area.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Council shall make each of the following findings before granting approval of a request to amend the
Zoning Ordinance.
(a) The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create diverse single-family housing that promotes a
variety of life cycle housing; retains residents; and promote reinvestment in the City’s housing stock.
The ordinance amendment will help promote these goals by offering more flexibility in housing
construction and rehabilitation. In this regard, the ordinance amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals.
(b) The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner.
Staff Comment: While the ordinance amendment application stems from an issue at a single property,
Staff has supported a change in the ordinance for several years prior to this application. Overall, the
amendment will benefit the public interest by allowing flexibility in the design and construction of both
attached and detached accessory structures.
(c) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use
of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in
question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
Staff Comment: The applicant is not requesting a change to a zoning classification; therefore, this
requirement does not apply.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
(d) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a
change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which
has taken place since such property was placed in its current zoning classification.
Staff Comment: The applicant is not requesting a change to a zoning classification; therefore, this
requirement does not apply.
In review of the ordinance requirements for an ordinance amendment, the application is consistent with the
requirements.
SUMMARY / RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has applied for a zoning ordinance text amendment to remove language that restricts the
accessory structure wall height to nine feet. The purpose of the application is to correct a construction error
on a single family home. The home is currently under construction and construction has been idle since this
error has occurred. In addition to providing a reasonable solution to this construction error, staff is supportive
of the text amendment as the proposed changes bring clarity to the height measurement calculation process
for all new construction projects within the City. Staff also finds that the current wall height limitation is acting
as a barrier to welcoming modern home designs for in-fill construction within the City.
The accessory structure wall height ordinance was adopted in 2001 as part of a larger update. At that time,
existing properties in the City contained a detached garage. Typically, new construction includes an attached
garage and no longer contains a detached accessory structure. The nine foot wall height limitation has
become problematic for new construction that usually contains an attached garage. Staff has supported an
ordinance amendment for several years, but has not moved forward with a formal request. Instead, a private
application has been made to update the ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1661, being an
ordinance amending City Code of 2001, relating to accessory structure wall height within the City of Columbia
Heights. The intent of the update is to eliminate the wall height limitation; maintain the overall height
requirement; and provide a concise building height calculation. This will provide flexibility in the design of
accessory structures, while keeping accessory structures in proportion to principal structures.
Questions from Members:
Sahnow asked about the process for the ordinance amendment (whether it goes onto city council after
Planning Commission). Chirpich explained that it would go to City Council for 2 readings, with the first being a
public hearing on March 9. Sahnow then also expressed approval for the changes being proposed.
Novitsky asked if this means that garages can be built with 9ft walls and a 4/12 pitch. Grittman explained that
this is what is currently allowable, but that the amendment would get rid of the 9ft wall limit, while still having
the total accessory structure limitations, including total height limitations. The current ordinance has been
problematic with new construction, mainly related to attached garages. When the current ordinance was
adopted, it was mainly looking at detached garages and the cities current housing stock. Current construction
usually has attached garages, where the 9ft wall height has been very limiting.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
Novitsky asked if this meant that you could have 10ft walls inside now if it’s built into the house, so they could
have more head room. Grittman stated that this is the case, but that the exterior limit of 12ft for flat roofs and
18ft for pitched roofs is still in place. Novitsky then asked if this would allow people to put hoists in their
garages. Grittman explained a car lift would be tight, as there are still other limitations, including a 1,000 sq ft
max and accessory structure height limits. The ordinance is re-tooled to still keep accessory structures in
proportion.
Fiorendino and Szurek said the ordinance change sounds very reasonable.
Hoium recalled a request for 2nd story inside a garage a couple years prior that was denied. Szurek recalled this
as well, and stated it was because the garage would have been a lot higher than the house. Szurek questioned
if the ordinance changes would still not allow a 2 level garage. Chirpich said it would be very difficult, given
that the accessory height can’t be higher than the primary structure and also has its own height limit.
Fiorendino asked if rooms above a garage would be allowed. Chirpich said he feels this would be allowed, as
we don’t have a limitation on living space over a garage. It could potentially be built into the attic space of a
standalone garage. Living space in a 2 story house above a tuck under garage would also be allowed, as long as
it met the house building height.
Fiorendino was confused by the building height limit, as 28ft and 30ft are both referenced. Grittman explained
that the ordinance proposal includes a slight increase to the building height limit, from 28ft to 30ft. Chirpich
shared that they had looked at some modeling of current pitched roof styles, as well as how it would affect
different floor plans, particularly walkouts, to arrive at that number. The 30ft height limit is also more in line
with the ordinances of nearby communities.
Novitsky asked about barn-style roofs. Chirpich said this would fall under the “other” roof styles, which
doesn’t have a specific measurement diagram, but the highest peak can’t be taller than 18ft. Novitsky
questioned how much more space you could have inside with this style of roof. Chirpich stated that, if the
concern is a shop operating out of a garage, that there are protections within the home occupation ordinance
for the city to limit and enforce against a single family auto shop. Any other nuisance characteristics that might
be associated with that, like outdoor storage, can be addressed through other code enforcement angles. This
did come up in conversations, as they wanted to make sure that with a flat roof, you couldn’t just build a box
that you could drive a motor home into in the single family district or to put a hoist into a simple structure like
that. Chirpich said that if we become inundated with hoists and it does turn into an issue, we can look at the
ordinance again and make additional tweaks to it. He also shared that these updates are more reflective of
modern home design and that in looking at surrounding communities, they could not find any ordinances that
had a wall height limit on accessory structures.
Novitsky questioned whether people could add a deck on top of a flat roof garage. Chirpich said he didn’t
know that we had anything prohibiting this. Szurek said that this likely would have to be based on design, but
that these updates give more flexibility for newer homes being built. She also mentioned it would have helped
with the topography issue of the house that requested the variance last year. She asked Brama if he built that
house and he stated that he sold him the lot. Brama also commented that because that developer didn’t
follow Aaron’s recommendations, the house that was built has a very steep driveway.
Hoium took issue with the fact that the house was under construction, but then sat idle since the error was
detected.. Szurek explained that when Brama became concerned about the height, he came to the city, which
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
is what brought us to this place. Hoium stated it makes sense to get rid of archaic language from the
ordinance.
Schill mentioned he had a question about salt box roofs (which the City of Blaine has measurement guidelines
for), and if we’re not seeing enough examples of them to put the time and effort into a measurement for that
style of roof or if it’s also using surrounding communities as a guideline. Grittman explained his thought is to
have guidelines around pitched roofs, mansard roods and flat roofs, and then everything else gets lumped into
the “other” category, which goes by the highest point on the roof, rather than trying to figure out all the
possible roof types and creating calculations for each of them.
Kaiser had no questions.
Szurek then questioned applicant Brama about what transpired that caused him to have to come to the city to
ask for help. Brama responded that it dates back to a decision made my Larry Pepin, the previous building
official, relating to the first home Brama built, 4340 Stinson Blvd. Brama stated that this house does not meet
the accessory wall height in large part due to the current ordinance being hard to interpret. According to
Brama, Pepin interpreted the accessory wall height for that house, which is almost identical to the house
under construction (including the accessory wall height) as being acceptable. With current staff doing the plan
review of the blueprints for the new house, it was determined that it did not meet the accessory wall height
limitation.
According to Brama, the house under construction has 10’6” garage walls currently, with the intent to have a
little more storage space over vehicles or to accommodate newer larger, larger vehicles more easily. The new
house, like 4340 Stinson, has a 3 car attached garage at the front of the house.
Public Hearing Opened
Robert Kirwin of 4410 Stinson Blvd expressed frustration about a plot division that took place in 2016 (the
house under construction that prompted this ordinance amendment proposal is being built on one of the sub-
divided plots), stating that he and his father are “doing a review of the whole entire project”. He had trouble
expressing exactly what he wanted to communicate at this meeting, jumping around to numerous topics,
including mentioning City Attorney Hoeft multiple times, frustration with construction trucks parking in front
of his house, and that “promises” were not kept regarding driveway length. Chair Szurek asked him to keep
any comments relevant to the case being considered on the current agenda. He was not in favor of the
ordinance change and felt like the change was for Brama. Szurek explained it is changing requirements for
future development throughout the city, so that we don’t have similar problems with the more modern
designed houses that are being built. Kirwin maintained that he was not in favor of this amendment passing.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1661, there being ample
copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Fiorendino , seconded by Sahnow, to recommend the City Council approve Ordinance 1661 as
presented. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
The attached Ordinance will go before the City Council at the March 9th meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 1661
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE OF 2001 RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WALL HEIGHT
WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1
9.103 City Code of 2001, is hereby amended to read as follows:
AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE. The Average Existing Grade is measured as the existing elevation (prior to any
construction alterations) at each corner of the structure and calculating an average.
AVERAGE FINISHED GRADE. The Average Finished Grade is measured by taking the finished elevation (after
any construction alterations) at each corner of the structure and calculating an average; see example images
below:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
HEIGHT, BUILDING. The distance measured from the mean curb level along the front lot line or from the mean
ground level for all of that portion of the structure having frontage on a public right-of- way, whichever is
higher, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly
above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean
distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.
HEIGHT, STRUCTURE OR SIGN. The distance measured from the mean curb level along the front lot line or
from the mean ground level for a structure having frontage on a public right-of-way, whichever is higher, to
the uppermost portion of the structure or sign.
BUILDING. Any roofed structure that may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel.
HEIGHT, BUILDING. Building Height is measured as the distance from the average finished grade to the tallest
point of a flat roof; or the peak of a pitched or mansard roof; or the highest point on all other roof types.
HEIGHT, SIGN. Sign Height is measured as the distance from the average existing grade to the tallest point on
the structure or sign, whichever is taller. For Pylon Signs, the average existing grade is taken from the
elevation where the pole meets the existing grade.
HEIGHT, STRUCTURE. Structure height is measured as the distance from the average finished grade to the
tallest point on the structure.
ROOF HEIGHT, FLAT. The height of a flat roof is measured as the average finished grade to the highest point
on the roof (see example below):
Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
ROOF HEIGHT, PITCHED. The height of a pitched roof is measured at the average finished grade to the mean
distance between the eaves and the highest point of the roof (see example below):
ROOF HEIGHT, MANSARD. The height of a mansard roof is measured as the average finished grade to the
highest peak on the mansard roof (see example below):
ROOF HEIGHT, OTHER. All other roof heights are measured as the average finished grade to the highest point
or area on the roof.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires more or less permanent location on
the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground. When a structure is
divided into separate parts by an unpierced wall, each part shall be deemed a separate structure.
Section 2
9.106 (C) City Code of 2001 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the principal structure or 18 feet in
height as measured to the highest point, whichever is less.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 13
(f) Unless a height limitation is specifically stated, the height of an accessory structure shall not exceed
the lesser of:
1. The height of the principal structure.
2. Twelve (12) feet above average finished grade for flat roofs.
3. Eighteen (18) feet above average finished grade for pitched roofs, mansard roofs, and all other
roofs.
(g) The wall height of an accessory structure shall not exceed nine feet in height.
Section 3
9.109 (C) Maximum Height of the City Code of 2001 is hereby amended to read as follows:
District R-1 R-2A R-2B R-3 R-4
Residential Buildings 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Non-Residential Buildings 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Residential Structures
28 ft. 30 ft.
unless
specified
elsewhere
28 ft. 30 ft.
unless
specified
elsewhere
28 ft. 30 ft.
unless
specified
elsewhere
35 ft.
unless
specified
elsewhere
35 ft.
unless
specified
elsewhere
Non-Residential Structures
35 ft. unless
specified
elsewhere
35 ft. unless
specified
elsewhere
35 ft. unless
specified
elsewhere
35 ft.
unless
specified
elsewhere
35 ft.
unless
specified
elsewhere
Section 4
9.110 (C) Maximum Height of the City Code of 2001 is hereby amended to read as follows:
District LB GB CBD
Maximum Building Height 35 ft. 35 ft. None
Maximum Structure Height 35 ft. Unless specified
elsewhere
35 ft. Unless specified
elsewhere
None.
Unless
specified
elsewhere
Section 5
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 14
OTHER BUSINESS
Updates:
Chirpich shared that we are through the planning approval process for the new City Hall and mixed use project
at 40th & Central and working to finalize the finer points of the agreements related to how the building site will
function. The hope is to tie everything up in time for a May demolition of the old bank building and parking
structure. Szurek asked if we will get the building cleared by then. Chirpich explained that there are multiple
strategies in place and he is confident that we can meet that timeline. All told, the construction phase of the
project will take about 2 years, so it is important that we get things going this year and get enough of a head
start to be in a good place by winter. Chirpich thanked the commission for their hard work on the project.
Chirpich also shared that Prodeo Academy is moving along well. The roofing structure and windows are going
in and the floor for the main structure is being poured. Their hope is to open the school for this coming school
year.
Chirpich stated that we won’t have a case for the ordinance update from the Arcade that we were anticipating
for April, as the application deadline has passed and they weren’t able get it together in time. Szurek asked if
they are still planning on going ahead with their project. Chirpich said that’s the plan and that we’re hopeful.
They are getting closer to coming to terms on the finer points of the lease with the building owner, but they
still some work to do, too.
Fiorendino proposed that the wording for the motion to postpone elections be changed from “the April 2020
meeting” to “the next meeting”, so that the commission would not be required to meet in April if there were
no other items on the agenda.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill, to postpone officer elections until the next meeting.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The next Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 6 pm.
Motion by Schill, seconded by Kaiser, to adjourn the meeting at 6:43pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Christy Bennett
Secretary
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2020-0501
DATE: May 5, 2020
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Renaissance Fireworks
DEVELOPMENT: Temporary Fireworks Tent
LOCATION: 4005 Central Avenue NE., Columbia Heights MN, 55421
REQUEST: Interim Use Permit for Seasonal Fireworks Sales
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Hammond, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
Renaissance Fireworks, Inc. has applied for an Interim Use Permit to allow the operation of a
seasonal fireworks sales tent at 4005 Central Avenue. The specific development standards for
outdoor fireworks sales/display are found in Section 9.107 (C) (22) of City Code, and will be
added as conditions of approval for this permit. The attached property and tent location map
illustrates the configuration and orientation of the fireworks tent to Central Avenue. The Fire
Chief and Building Official will conduct a site inspection of the tent.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The property located at 4005 Central Avenue is located in the CBD, Central Business District.
The properties to the north, south and west are also zoned Central Business and the properties
to the east are zoned in the R-4, Multiple Family Residential District. Seasonal Fireworks Sales is
allowed as Interim Use in the Central Business Zoning District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial use. The proposal for seasonal
fireworks sales is consistent with the intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (I) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines seven findings of fact that must be met in
order for the City to grant an interim use permit. They are as follows:
1. The use is one of the interim uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is
located, or is a substantially similar use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 5, 2020
Planning Report Page 2
Fireworks tents are specifically listed as an Interim Use in the Central Business District, and
are considered retail sales, which are permitted.
2. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial use, including retail sales.
The proposal is consistent with the intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
3. The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
The proposed temporary use should not have hazardous or disturbing influence on
neighboring properties because of its proximity to Central Avenue and because it’s shielded
from adjacent residential uses by the surrounding commercial buildings.
4. The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
The fireworks tent shouldn’t diminish the use of the adjacent properties.
5. The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is
compatible with the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding
area.
The Fire Chief and Building Official will conduct an on-site inspection prior to any temporary
sales. All State and City requirements regarding fireworks sales will be achieved.
6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public
streets and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
The traffic generated by the fireworks tent will not significantly increase the traffic on the
public streets, and the site is large enough to handle additional interior traffic.
7. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect on other uses in the immediate vicinity.
The fireworks tent should not have a negative impact on other uses in the immediate
vicinity, which are all zoned commercial.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit to allow the
operation of a seasonal fireworks sales tent at 4005 Central Avenue, subject to conditions of
approval outlined below.
Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2020-PZ02, there being ample copies
available to the public.
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 5, 2020
Planning Report Page 3
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2020-PZ02, being a Resolution approving an Interim Use
Permit for a fireworks tent at 4005 Central Avenue NE, from June 22, 2020 to July 10, 2020,
subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the
public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance, including:
1. The fireworks tent, display area, access aisles, and surrounding area shall be reviewed
by the Fire Department prior to operation. The applicant must contact the Fire
Department to set up an inspection prior to any sales occurring on the property.
2. The applicant must obtain a Building Permit from the Building Official, and a site
inspection must be conducted prior to operation. The applicant must contact the
Community Development Department to obtain to Building Permit and schedule an
inspection prior to any sales occurring on the property.
3. The sale of fireworks shall meet all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Fire Code and
NFPA Chapter 1124.
4. The fireworks tent shall be accessory to a commercial use.
5. Fireworks tents located within the public right-of-way are prohibited.
6. All goods shall be displayed on a designated impervious surface area.
7. All goods shall be displayed in an orderly fashion, with access aisles provided as needed.
8. Music or amplified sounds shall not be audible from adjacent residential properties.
9. The fireworks tent shall not reduce the amount of off-street parking provided one-site
below the level required for the principal use.
10. An appropriate transition area between the use and adjacent property shall be provided
by landscaping, screening or other site improvements consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
11. Signage shall be limited to two (2) professionally made signs, with a combined square footage
not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet.
12. Fireworks tents may be allowed for a maximum of 90 days per calendar year.
13. Any electrical use associated with the temporary sales, will require an Electrical Permit
and is required to be inspected by the State Electrical Inspector.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2020-PZ02
Application/Narrative
Tent Location Map
Tent Layout Drawing
Lease Agreement
Certificate of Flame Resistance
Material Safety Data Sheet
Product List
Product Storage Information
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-PZ02
A resolution of the Planning Commission for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2020-0501) has been submitted by Renaissance Fireworks to the Planning
Commission requesting an Interim Use Permit from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4005 Central Avenue NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: An Interim Use Permit to allow for the operation of a seasonal
fireworks sales tent on the subject property.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City of Columbia Height’s
Zoning Code on May 5, 2020;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of City staff regarding
the effect of the proposed Interim Use upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its
Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air,
danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of
the City of Columbia Heights, the Planning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The use is one of the interim uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is a
substantially similar use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
2. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
4. The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
5. The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is compatible with
the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area.
6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets and
to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic.
7. The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the
cumulative effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the City and the applicant agree that this
permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the
approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. Further, the 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:
City of Columbia Heights – Planning Commission Resolution Page 2
CONDITIONS
1. The fireworks tent, display area, access aisles, and surrounding area shall be reviewed by the Fire
Department prior to operation. The applicant must contact the Fire Department to set up an inspection
prior to any sales occurring on the property.
2. The applicant must obtain a Building Permit from the Building Official, and a site inspection must be
conducted prior to operation. The applicant must contact the Community Development Department to
obtain to Building Permit and schedule an inspection prior to any sales occurring on the property.
3. The sale of fireworks shall meet all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Fire Code and NFPA Chapter
1124.
4. The fireworks tent shall be accessory to a commercial use.
5. Fireworks tents located within the public right-of-way are prohibited.
6. All goods shall be displayed on a designated impervious surface area.
7. All goods shall be displayed in an orderly fashion, with access aisles provided as needed.
8. Music or amplified sounds shall not be audible from adjacent residential properties.
9. The fireworks tent shall not reduce the amount of off-street parking provided one-site below the level
required for the principal use.
10. An appropriate transition area between the use and adjacent property shall be provided by
landscaping, screening or other site improvements consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
11. Signage shall be limited to two (2) professionally made signs, with a combined square footage not exceeding
thirty-two (32) square feet.
12. Fireworks tents may be allowed for a maximum of 90 days per calendar year.
13. Any electrical use associated with the temporary sales, will require an Electrical Permit and is required
to be inspected by the State Electrical Inspector.
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION
Passed this 5th day of May, 2020.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Chair
Attest:
Secretary
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING REPORT
3989 Central Avenue NE
CASE NUMBER: 2020-0502
DATE: May 5, 2020
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Alatus, LLC
DEVELOPMENT: Columbia Heights City Hall/Mixed Use Development Project
LOCATION: 3989 Central Ave NE
REQUEST: Easement Vacations
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Hammond, Planner
INTRODUCTION
Alatus, LLC has requested to vacate easements on the property located at 3989 Central Avenue
NE. (subject property). The subject property is the site of the future planned mixed use
development project, which was approved by the City Council earlier this year. The applicant
identified roadway, and sidewalk and landscape easements that will need to be vacated as part
of the redevelopment of the site. Attached are the legal descriptions of these easements to be
vacated. Once approved, the applicant is responsible for filing the vacations with Anoka County.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The Zoning Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the
application for the vacation of a street, alley, or other public right-of-way and submit its
recommendation to the City Council. The property is zoned mixed use and the surrounding area
is zoned commercial, with limited multiple family residential to the east.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Transit Oriented Mixed Use Development. The
redevelopment of the site to include a mix of residential, institutional and commercial uses is
consistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Council shall make each of the following findings before vacating a street, alley, or
other public right-of-way:
a) No private rights will be injured or endangered as a result of the vacation.
This is correct.
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 5, 2020
Planning Report Page 2
b) The public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation.
This is correct.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the roadway, and sideway and landscape easement vacations for
the property located at 3989 Central Avenue NE.
Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2020-44 and Resolution No. 2020-45
there being ample copies available to the public.
Motion: Move to recommend that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2020-44 and
Resolution No. 2020-45, vacating roadway, and sidewalk and landscape easements at 3989
Central Avenue NE. subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions of all easements that
are subject to be created. Said descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for filing the easements vacations with the Anoka
County Recorder’s Office.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2020-44
Resolution No. 2020-45
Application
Narrative
Easement Vacation Legal Descriptions
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-44
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving an easement
vacation for property located in the City of Columbia Heights, MN, legally described as:
The West 5.00 feet of Lots 30, 31, and 32, Block 6, Reservoir Hills; and the West 5.00 feet of Lots 26, 27, and
28, Block 1, Walton's Rearrangement of Lots 33 and 34, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, according to the recorded
plats thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota
AND
That part of said Lot 30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, which lies northwesterly of a line drawn northeasterly from a
point on the west line of said Block 6 distant 30.00 feet southerly from the northwest corner of said Lot 30, as
measured along said west line, to a point on the north line of said Lot 30 distant 30.00 feet easterly from said
northwest corner, as measured along said north line.
AND
The east 10.00 feet of the west 15.00 feet of Lots 30, 31, and 32, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, and the east 10.00
feet of the west 15.00 feet of the above referenced Lots 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 32.
AND
That part of Lot 30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, which lies northwesterly of a line drawn northeasterly from a point
distant 22.00 feet southerly and 15 feet westerly from the northwest corner of said Lot 30, to a point on the
north line of said Lot 30 distant 37.00 feet easterly from said northwest corner, as measured along said north
line, which lies southwesterly of the permanent easement for road purposes described above.
Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2020-0502) has been submitted by Alatus, LLC to the City Council requesting an
easement vacation at the following site:
ADDRESSES: 3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Easement vacation per Code Section 9.104. (J), of the above legally
described easement.
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held an informal public hearing as required by the City Zoning
Code on May 5, 2020;
Whereas, the City Council held a formal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on May 11, 2020;
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed easement vacation 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, 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:
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. No private rights will be injured or endangered as a result of the vacation.
2. The public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this
easement vacation; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the easement vacation shall
become null and void if the resolution is not recorded with Anoka County within one (1) calendar year after
the approval date, subject to petition for renewal.
CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions of all easements that are subject to
be created. Said descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the easement vacations with the Anoka County
Recorder’s Office.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 11th day of May, 2020
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Donna Schmitt, Mayor
Attest:
Nicole Tingley, City Clerk/Council Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-45
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving an easement
vacation for property located in the City of Columbia Heights, MN, legally described as:
The north 4.00 feet of the west 232.00 feet of Lots 27-30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills.
And together with that part of Lots 30-32, Block 6, Reservoir Hills and Lots 26-28, Block 1, Walton's
Rearrangement of Lots 33 and 34, Block 6, Reservoir Hills described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, thence east along the north lot line of
said Lot 30 a distance of twelve (12.0) feet; thence southerly and parallel with the west line of said Block 6 a
distance of one hundred thirty (130.0) feet; thence southwesterly in a straight line to a point two hundred
twenty-five (225.0) feet from said northwest corner of Lot along the west line of Block 6, Reservoir Hills and
Block 1, Walton's Rearrangement of Lot 33 and 34, Block 6, Reservoir Hills; thence north two hundred twenty-
five (225.0) feet to the point of beginning.
Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2020-0502) has been submitted by Alatus, LLC to the City Council requesting an
easement vacation at the following site:
ADDRESSES: 3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Easement vacation per Code Section 9.104. (J), of the above legally
described easement.
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held an informal public hearing as required by the City Zoning
Code on May 5, 2020;
Whereas, the City Council held a formal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on May 11, 2020;
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed easement vacation 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, 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
1. No private rights will be injured or endangered as a result of the vacation.
2. The public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this
easement vacation; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the easement vacation shall
become null and void if the resolution is not recorded with Anoka County within one (1) calendar year after
the approval date, subject to petition for renewal.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2
CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions of all easements that are subject to
be created. Said descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the easement vacations with the Anoka County
Recorder’s Office.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 11th day of May, 2020
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Donna Schmitt, Mayor
Attest:
Nicole Tingley, City Clerk/Council Secretary
Page 1 of 2
Community Development Department
590 40th Ave. NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
STREET, ALLEY OR EASEMENT VACATION APPLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. 9.104 (J)
This application is subject to review and acceptance by the City. Applications will be processed only if all
required items are submitted.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Project Address/Location: _________________________________________________________________________
Anoka County Property Identification Number (PIN#): __________________________________________________
Legal Description of Street, Alley, or Easement to be vacated: ____________________________________________
Type of Vacation (street, alley and/or public easement): ________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER (As it appears on property title):
Name (please print): ___________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: ____________ Zip: _________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Phone: __________________________________
E-mail Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: ______________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Company Name (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Contact Person (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State:_____________ Zip: _________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Phone: __________________________________
Email Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: _____________________________________________________________________________
Chris Osmundson
Page 2 of 2
REASON FOR REQUEST (Please submit a written narrative that describes the need or desire for the proposed street,
alley, and/or public easement vacation. Please attach additional sheets if necessary.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO: _______________________
APPLICATION REC’D BY: ________________________ DATE APPLICATION REC’D: _______________
$150.00 APPLICATION FEE REC’D: _____________________ RECEIPT NUMBER: ____________________
Approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on __________
Approved by City Council on _____________________________
Revised June 2017
Sidewalk and Landscape Easement Vacation Description
Vacating the roadway, sidewalk and landscape easements as contained in the final certificate per
Document Nos. 481861.002 and 1973084.002, on file and of record in Anoka County,
Minnesota. Said easement area is described as follows:
The West 5.00 feet of Lots 30, 31, and 32, Block 6, Reservoir Hills; and the West 5.00 feet of
Lots 26, 27, and 28, Block 1, Walton's Rearrangement of Lots 33 and 34, Block 6, Reservoir
Hills, according to the recorded plats thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota
AND
That part of said Lot 30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, which lies northwesterly of a line drawn
northeasterly from a point on the west line of said Block 6 distant 30.00 feet southerly from the
northwest corner of said Lot 30, as measured along said west line, to a point on the north line of
said Lot 30 distant 30.00 feet easterly from said northwest corner, as measured along said north
line.
AND
The east 10.00 feet of the west 15.00 feet of Lots 30, 31, and 32, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, and
the east 10.00 feet of the west 15.00 feet of the above referenced Lots 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 32.
AND
That part of Lot 30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, which lies northwesterly of a line drawn
northeasterly from a point distant 22.00 feet southerly and 15 feet westerly from the northwest
corner of said Lot 30, to a point on the north line of said Lot 30 distant 37.00 feet easterly from
said northwest corner, as measured along said north line, which lies southwesterly of the
permanent easement for road purposes described above.
Sidewalk and Landscape Easement Vacation Description
Vacating the roadway easement as contained in Document Nos. 636379 and 131492, on file and
of record in Anoka County, Minnesota. Said easement area is described as follows:
The north 4.00 feet of the west 232.00 feet of Lots 27-30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills.
And together with that part of Lots 30-32, Block 6, Reservoir Hills and Lots 26-28, Block 1,
Walton's Rearrangement of Lots 33 and 34, Block 6, Reservoir Hills described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 6, Reservoir Hills, thence east along the
north lot line of said Lot 30 a distance of twelve (12.0) feet; thence southerly and parallel with
the west line of said Block 6 a distance of one hundred thirty (130.0) feet; thence southwesterly
in a straight line to a point two hundred twenty-five (225.0) feet from said northwest corner of
Lot along the west line of Block 6, Reservoir Hills and Block 1, Walton's Rearrangement of Lot
33 and 34, Block 6, Reservoir Hills; thence north two hundred twenty-five (225.0) feet to the
point of beginning.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING REPORT
4141 University Ave NE
CASE NUMBER: 2020-0503
DATE: May 5, 2020
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Friends of Prodeo (Prodeo Academy)
DEVELOPMENT: Fence for k-8 Educational Facility
LOCATION: 4141 University Ave NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (PID 35-30-24-24-0191)
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit, Variance
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Hammond, Planner
INTRODUCTION
Friends of Prodeo (Prodeo Academy), has applied for a Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for
the property located at 4141 University Ave NE. In September of 2019, the City Council
approved the Conditional Use Permit and plans allowing for the school to be constructed on the
subject property. At that time, the landscape plans indicated that the play area on the southern
end of the property would be surrounded by a fence.
Along a portion of the fence, the applicant would like to have ten (10) feet in height section,
running north and south (76 feet in length) between the southwestern edge adjacent to the
school’s entrance drive and in middle of the property. The fence would extend from the south
end of the southwest corner of the building, down to the south property line (as shown in red
on the attached plan). The purpose of the fence would be to prevent play objects (balls,
Frisbees etc.) from rolling down the hill and entering the drive way and parking area on the
west side of the property where there is a grade change.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The subject property is located in the R-3, multiple-family residential zoning district as are the
surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west. K-12 Schools, public or private are
permitted in this zoning district. Fences exceeding 6 feet in height require a Conditional Use
Permit. The Zoning Ordinance further requires that fences cannot exceed 7 feet in height.
Because the proposed fence exceeds this height, a Variance is requested.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for institutional development, which includes
religious facilities, public and private educational facilities, fire stations, libraries, water system
facilities, and any other City, County, or State use. The redevelopment of the subject property
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 5, 2020
Planning Report Page 2
to include a new educational facility with landscaping and storm water improvements meets
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
SITE PLAN
The applicant submitted a plan showing the location and configuration of the fence. The area
where the fence is proposed to be 10 feet in height is identified in red on the plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines findings of fact that must be met in order for
the City to approve 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.
This is correct. A fence exceeding 6 feet in height is specifically listed as a Conditional Use for
this district.
(b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for institutional use. Installing a fence in
conjunction with the new educational facility is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties.
The addition of the fence at the proposed location shouldn’t cause hazards or disturbing
influences on neighboring properties.
(d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
The addition of the fence shouldn’t diminish the use of the 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.
The fence will match the rest of the fencing surrounding the property in design and color,
however, this section is proposed to be (5.5) five and a half feet taller in height. Also, due to
the proposed height of the fence, it will required engineered plans, which will be reviewed
and approved by the Building Official.
(f) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential
public facilities and services.
This is correct.
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 5, 2020
Planning Report Page 3
(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.
This is correct. The fence shouldn’t affect traffic congestion on public streets or on-site traffic
circulation.
(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.
This is correct. The fence shouldn’t cause a negative cumulative effect.
(i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is
located.
This is correct. The fence will be constructed of approved fencing materials per the Zoning
Ordinance and State Building Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five conditions that must be met in order for
the City Council to grant a Variance. They are as follows:
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration,
topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence
to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the
zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance.
This is correct. The variance request is reasonable given the topography of the parcel,
particularly on this side of the parcel where the elevation changes.
(b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of
land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same
zoning classification.
This is correct. This appears to be the only educational facility in the area with this type of
topography. Given that the fence will be surrounding an area where school children will be
playing, the conditions are unique to this parcel.
(c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been
created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property.
This is correct. The variance allowing additional height on the fence will help to keep play
equipment from rolling down the hill on the west side of the property. Having a shorter
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission May 5, 2020
Planning Report Page 4
fence on this stretch of the parcel could result in play equipment ending up in the drive aisle,
parking lot or University Avenue frontage road.
(d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The property is guided for institutional use such as a k-8 educational facility. Schools should
have adequate outdoor space with play areas for the children that attend the school. The
proposed use of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements
in the vicinity.
This is correct. It does not appear that the taller fence in this location would be detrimental to
the public welfare or affect the overall enjoyment, use or value of the property in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approves
the request for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for the property located at 4141
University Ave NE. subject to the conditions listed below.
Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2020-46, there being ample copies
available to the public.
Motion: Move to recommend that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2020-46, approving
the conditional use permit and variance for a portion of a fence (as shown on the plan)
to be ten (10) feet in height, in conjunction with an educational facility to be located on the
property at 4141 University Ave NE., subject to certain conditions of approval.
1. The site plan included in this submittal shall become part of this approval.
2. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
3. The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the letter from the Building Official
dated, April 17, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2020-46
Applications
Narrative
Building Official Letter dated, April 17, 2020.
Site Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-46
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Conditional Use
Permit, and a Variance for 4141 University Ave NE. Columbia Heights, MN 55421, (PID 35-30-24-24-0191).
Whereas, a proposal (Case #2020-0503) has been submitted by Friends of Prodeo to the City Council
requesting a Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance to allow for a portion of a fence to be ten (10) feet in
height at the following site:
ADDRESS: 4141 University Ave NE. Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Conditional Use Permit, Variance
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on
May 5, 2020;
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, and Variance 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, 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 (Conditional Use)
(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 the 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.
(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.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2
(i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the districts in which it is located.
FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance)
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of
this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The
applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the zoning ordinance.
(b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classification.
(c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created
by any person currently having a legal interest in the property.
(d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements
in the vicinity.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this
Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan approval; and in granting this Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan
approval with variances, 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. This approval is subject to certain conditions 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. The site plan included in this submittal shall become part of this approval.
2. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
3. The applicant will meet the requirements outlined in the letter from the Building Official dated, April
17, 2020.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 11th day of May, 2020.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 3
Donna Schmitt, Mayor
Attest:
Nicole Tingley, City Clerk/Council Secretary
Page 2 of 3
REASON FOR REQUEST (please attach a written narrative describing the intended use of the property and justification
for your request. Describe any modifications and/or limitations of the use that have been made to insure its
compatibility with surrounding uses and with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO: _______________________
APPLICATION REC’D BY: ________________________ DATE APPLICATION REC’D: _______________
$500 APPLICATION FEE REC’D: _____________________ RECEIPT NUMBER: ____________________
Approved by Planning & Zoning Commission on ____________
Approved by City Council on _____________________
Rev
Revised June 2017
Page 2 of 2
REASON FOR REQUEST (Please attach a written narrative describing the Variance being requested. The narrative
should fully explain the hardship (s) that justifies variation from the strict application of the Code. The terms
“hardship” or “undue hardship” typically refer to physical characteristics of the property, such as shape, soil
conditions, or topography. Neither mere inconvenience, nor reduction in value alone, is sufficient to justify a
variance. The inability to put property to its highest and best use is not considered a hardship or practical difficulty.
The problem that justifies the variance must be caused by conditions unique to the property and beyond the control
of the applicant. The applicant cannot create the condition that requires the variance.)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO: _______________________
APPLICATION REC’D BY: ________________________ DATE APPLICATION REC’D: _______________
$500.00 APPLICATION FEE REC’D: _____________________ RECEIPT NUMBER: ____________________
Approved by Planning & Zoning Commission on ____________
Approved by City Council on _____________________
Revised June 2017
P:\2019 Projects\019062.00 Prodeo Academy\E - Construction\Correspondence\Fence CUP\Fence CUP Narrative.docx
Page 1 of 1
3479 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
MEMO
project Prodeo Academy
project # 19062.00
date 03/06/2020
subject Fence CUP/Variance Narrative
from Chris Kroeger, DSGW
to Elizabeth Hammond, City of Columbia Heights
cc Columbia Heights City Council; City of Columbia Height Planning Commission
Prodeo Academy is seeking a Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Variance to install a 10ft. vinyl-coated chain link fence along the western boundary of its greenspace play area. The fence will be located atop an existing hill on the property and having a 10 foot tall fence will help ensure that playground equipment items (balls, frisbees, etc.) stay within the play area and do not disrupt vehicular traffic down the hill in the parking lot or along University Avenue Service Road. Setback significantly from the street, the fence will be located in the middle of the property in the East-West direction between two larger buildings.
END OF MEMO
tel 218-727-2626 fax 218-722-7467 www.dsgw.com
City of Columbia Heights | Community Development
590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 ▪ Ph: 763-706-3670 ▪ Fax: 763-706-3671 ▪ www.columbiaheightsmn.gov
4/17/2020
Re: Prodeo Academy fence
Dear applicant:
MN Rules Chapter 1300.0120 Subp. 4. A. Building (2) requires fences over seven feet tall to
obtain a building permit. Fences over 7ft in height shall be of an engineered design that
addresses the applicable wind loads.
If the CUP is approved a permit shall be applied for and the plans submitted shall have the
signature of a licensed Engineer.
If you have any questions please call (763)706-3677.
Sincerely,
Ryan Smith
Building Official
Éå
ê
á
Å
Ü
á
å
Ö
Åç
ã
ã
ì
å
á
í
á
É
ë
íÜ
ê
ç
ì
Ö
Ü
~ê
Å
Ü
á
í
É
Å
í
ì
ê
É
Çì
ä
ì
í
Ü
=
G
=
î
á
ê
Ö
á
å
á
~
G
=
í
ï
á
å
=
Å
á
í
á
É
ë
ïï
ï
K
Ç
ë
Ö
ï
K
Å
ç
ã
éê
ç
à
É
Å
í
=
@
Ç~
í
É
êÉ
î
á
ë
á
ç
å
=
L
=
á
ë
ë
ì
É
ëÜ
É
É
í
=
å
ì
ã
Ä
É
ê
çÑ
4/6/2020 10:12:20 AM
Pr
o
d
e
o
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
41
4
1
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
N
E
Co
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
2
1
01
9
0
6
2
.
0
0
Fe
n
c
e
C
U
P
1
1
1"
=
3
0
'
-
0
"
1
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
10
'
-
0
"
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
FE
N
C
E
-
1
1
/
2
"
M
E
S
H
,
VI
N
Y
L
C
O
A
T
E
D
T
O
6
'
-
0
"
VFY. W/ FLAG POLE MFR.
3'-0"1"
=
1
'
1
Fl
a
g
2
ASI
FL
A
G
P
O
L
E
S
IN
S
T
A
L
L
P
E
R
D
E
T
A
I
L
1
/
L
A
1
.
0
,
IN
S
T
A
L
L
U
P
L
I
G
H
T
O
R
T
O
P
P
O
L
E
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
SO
L
A
R
L
I
G
H
T
3'-
0
"
3'-0"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
E
A
N
D
S
L
A
T
S
T
O
B
E
RE
M
O
V
E
D
.
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
W
I
T
H
V
I
N
Y
L
C
O
A
T
E
D
F
E
N
C
E
A
N
D
PR
I
V
A
C
Y
S
L
A
T
S
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
E
N
C
E
P
O
S
T
S
A
N
D
F
R
A
M
E
TO
B
E
R
E
U
S
E
D
/
R
E
P
A
I
R
E
D
A
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
.
EG
A
9
10
ASI
10
'
-
0
"
V
I
N
Y
L
C
O
A
T
E
D
CH
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
E
-
1
1
/
2
"
M
E
S
H
76'-0"
1"
=
5
0
'
-
0
"
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PLANNING REPORT
4441 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
CASE NUMBER: N/A
DATE: May 5, 2020
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: N/A
DEVELOPMENT: N/A
LOCATION: 4441 Central Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
REQUEST: Review the Proposed Acquisition of 4441 Central Ave NE, and
Determine if it Conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Hammond, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
In July 2017, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) initiated the
Commercial Revitalization Program (the “Program”) with the approval of EDA Resolution 2017-
18, a program which was created to revitalize the commercial corridors throughout the City of
Columbia Heights (the “City”), specifically through the acquisition of properties identified as
nonconforming under the current zoning code of the City. Nonconforming properties acquired
through the Program are held for the purposes of eventual redevelopment. However, pursuant
to State Statue, Section 462.356, Subdivision 2, the Planning and Zoning Commission (the
“Planning Commission”) in and for the City is required to review and ultimately determine that
the proposed acquisition of real property conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Therefore, the EDA has requested that the Planning Commission review the acquisition of 4441
Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (the “Subject Property”) to determine if its
acquisition conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed acquisition of the Subject Property responds to several goals and policies
adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of the City, specifically in Chapter 2: Land Use and Chapter
4: Economic Development. Below are the specific goals and policies from the Comprehensive
Plan that directly and indirectly correlate to the conformity of the proposed acquisition.
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT
Goal: Preserve and enhance the existing viable commercial and industrial areas within the
community.
City of Columbia Heights May 5, 2020
Planning Report Page 2
Goal: Provide mechanisms for successful redevelopment of vacant lands and targeted areas
within the community.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Goal: Enhance the economic viability of the community.
1. Encourage the continuation and enhancement of existing industries within the
community.
2. Rehabilitate, or where necessary, redevelop substandard and/or functionally obsolete
commercial development through private means or, if necessary, public means.
Goal: Promote reinvestment in properties by the commercial and industrial sectors.
2. Encourage existing industries and businesses to expand within the community.
4. Promote high quality development and redevelopment opportunities within the
community.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2020-PZ03 a resolution finding that the proposed
acquisition of certain land for redevelopment purposes by the Columbia Heights Economic
Development Authority is consistent with the City of Columbia Heights’ Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map (1 Page)
2. Resolution 2020-PZ03 (2 Pages)
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-PZ03
A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND FOR REDEVELOPMENT
PURPOSES BY THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY
OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS’ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) proposes to purchase
certain property (the “Property”) located at 4441 Central Avenue NE, (PID 36-30-24-22-0042) in the City of
Columbia Heights (the “City”) and described on the attached Exhibit A, for the purposes of eventual
redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, subd. 2 requires the City Planning and Zoning Commission to
review the proposed acquisition or disposal of publicly-owned real property within the City prior to its
acquisition or disposal, to determine whether in the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, such
acquisition or disposal is consistent with the comprehensive municipal plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed acquisition of the Property, and has
determined that the Property is located in an area of the City designated for transitional development within the
City’s comprehensive plan, that the Authority’s purpose is to redevelop the Property consistent with this use,
and that the proposed acquisition is therefore consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights,
that the acquisition of the Property by the Authority is consistent with the City’s comprehensive municipal plan,
and will promote the correction of a nonconforming property and redevelopment consistent with the
transitional development designation of the Property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be communicated to the Board of Commissioners of the
Authority.
ORDER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Passed this 5th day of May, 2020
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Marlaine Szurek, Chair
Attest:
Christy Bennet, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
Description of Property
LOTS 22 & 23 BLK 1 RESERVOIR HILLS, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
Location Map: 4441 Central Avenue NE