Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-2022 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall—Council Chambers, 590 40th Ave NE Wednesday, September 07, 2022 6:00 PM AGENDA ATTENDANCE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC Members of the public who wish to attend may do so in-person, by calling 1-312-626-6799 and entering meeting ID 798 821 7248 or by Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7988217248. For questions please call the Community Development Department at 763-706-3670. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES 1. Approval of August 3, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2022. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) 4221 and 4217 Reservoir Boulevard NE MOTION: Move to waive the reading of draft Resolution 2022-78, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve draft Resolution 2022-78, approving a Minor Subdivision (lot line adjustment) for the properties located at 4221 and 4217 Reservoir Boulevard NE (Lots 5 and 6, Block 11, Auditor’s Subdivision of Walton’s Second Addition), within the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, subject to certain conditions stated in the resolution. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when the request is made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763-706-3610 to make arrangements. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall—Council Chambers, 590 40th Ave NE Wednesday, August 03, 2022 6:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Vice Chair Kaiser. Commissioners present: Connie Buesgens, Laurel Deneen, Stan Hoium, Tom Kaiser, Mark Vargas Commissioners absent: Clara Wolfe, Mike Novitsky, Eric Sahnow Also present: Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Director; Alicia Howe, Administrative Assistant; Bob Kirmis, Planning Consultant; Floyd Josnik, VFW Post 230 Representative; Kevin Gilbertson, City Resident APPROVE MINUTES 1. Approval of May 3, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2. Approval of June 7, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Motion by Vargas, seconded by Hoium, to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2022, and June 7, 2022. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Zoning Ordinance (Map Amendment) - Rezoning of Property Introduction: Chirpich reported that the City of Columbia Heights has initiated the rezoning of its three municipal liquor store sites from General Business (GB) to Public and Open Space (PO). Specifically, the rezoning of the following properties is proposed: Top Valu Liquor Store #1 located at 4950 Central Avenue NE, Top Valu Liquor Store #2 located at 2107 37th Avenue NE, and Top Valu Liquor Store #3 located at 5225 & 5233 University Avenue NE. The intent of the rezoning request is to apply zoning designations to the three liquor store sites which reflect their ongoing “public use.” The PO District specifically references “publicly owned and operated facilities” as a permitted use. Chirpich further noted that the two items before the commission tonight are related, as dynamic LED pedestal signs are only permitted within PO; Staff is unclear why these properties were left out of the rezoning previously. 2 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 2 To be noted is that the City’s parks, and other municipal building sites (including City Hall, the Library and Public Works building) were similarly rezoned to Public Open Space in 2008. Also, to be noted is that no changes in land use are proposed as a result of the rezoning. Comprehensive Plan: All three liquor store sites are guided for “commercial use” by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As previously indicated, no changes in land use are proposed as a result of the proposed rezoning. In this regard, the existing municipal liquor store uses will remain intact. Thus, the existing land uses are consistent with the directives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan which directs commercial uses upon the various sites. Zoning Ordinance - Lot Requirements: In consideration of the proposed zoning changes, it is considered worthwhile to examine the minimum lot requirements imposed in the PO zoning district to determine whether the rezoning action will result in the creation of non- conforming lot and/or setback conditions. A comparison of minimum lot requirements between the GB and PO districts were provided. While the lot area, width and parking setback requirements in the PO District are less restrictive than those imposed in the GB District, the building setback requirements in the PO District are more restrictive. Both Liquor Store #2 and Liquor Store #3 presently overlay two parcels of land and are occupied by buildings which are bisected by side property lines. As a result, the buildings do not meet the minimum 5-foot side yard setback requirement which is imposed in the PO District. To eliminate this issue, it is recommended that the two parcels which comprise each site be combined. Liquor Store # 2 exhibits a lot depth of 260 feet which, under PO District zoning, would result in a minimum rear yard setback requirement of 52 feet. With a rear yard setback of 28 feet, the existing building does not meet the rear yard setback requirement imposed in the PO District. Liquor Store #3 exhibits a lot depth of 128 feet which, under PO District zoning, would result in a minimum rear yard setback requirement of 26 feet. With a rear yard setback of 10 feet, the existing building does not meet the yard setback requirements imposed in either the GB or PO Districts. The existing setback was, however, legally established and therefore holds grandfather rights. Any new construction on the site would be subject to PO District development standards. Zoning Ordinance - Lot Combinations: As previously indicated, it is recommended that the two underlying parcels which comprise the Liquor Store #2 site and the Liquor Store #3 site, as described below, be legally combined. Top Valu Liquor Store #2 2105 37th Avenue 3 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 3 NE (PID’s 36-30-24-44-0025 & 36-30-24-44-0026) Top Valu Liquor Store #3 5225 University Avenue NE and 5233 University Avenue NE (PID’s 26-30-24-21-0093 & 26-30-24-21-0094) To be noted is that the lot combination action is considered independent of the rezoning action now under consideration. Dynamic LED Sign Requirements: While independent of the rezoning action, it is important to note that the proposed rezoning would result in a change to the dynamic LED sign requirements which would apply to the three liquor store sites. The GB, General Business District limits dynamic LED signs to monument signs for conditionally permitted uses. In contrast, dynamic signs located within PO Public and Open Space Districts are allowed upon existing pylon signs. Findings of Fact: Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Code requires that the City Council make each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment: 1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff comments: The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the three municipal liquor store sites for “commercial” use. No changes in use are proposed as a result of the rezoning. Thus, the proposed zoning change is consistent with the land use directives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. Staff comments: The City of Columbia Heights owns all parcels which are affected by the proposed zoning amendment. The proposed rezoning of the City’s municipal liquor sites is consistent with previous City actions involving the rezoning of other City owned public uses from a variety of zoning designations to PO, Public and Open Space. 3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a partic ular 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 comments: All three liquor store sites are located within commercially zoned areas of the City. The proposed zoning amendment will not result in any land use changes. In this regard, the existing and future land uses are considered compatible with surrounding uses. 4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning classification. 4 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 4 Staff comments: The City’s PO, Public and Open Space zoning district was created in 2008 for the purpose of creating a district which allows areas of the City to be retained and utilized for, public uses, open space and to provide a holding zone for future development. While most public uses in the City were subsequently rezoned to PO, Public and Open Space designations in 2008, the City’s municipal liquor store sites were not. The proposed zoning change represents a consistent application of the PO zoning district throughout the City. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: Approval of the rezoning of the following parcels (the City’s three municipal liquor store sites) from GB, General Business to PO, Public and Open Space: Top Valu Liquor Store #1 4950 Central Avenue NE (PID 26-30-24-14-0143), Top Valu Liquor Store #2 2105 37th Avenue NE (PID’s 36-30-24-44-0025 & 36-30-24-44-0026), and Top Valu Liquor Store #3 5225 University Avenue NE and 5233 University Avenue NE (PID’s 26-30-24-21-0093 & 26- 30-24-21-0094). Chirpich added that due to two of the properties having two separate parcels, which the City hopes to later combine, the buildings will be considered to have legally non- conforming setbacks; any new buildings or additions would need to abide the PO district standards. Deneen asked about the combining of the PIDs on University Avenue. Chirpich stated they would be combined into one PID and one address once the lot combination is completed. Hoium asked if the rezoning to PO wasn’t done in 2008 because it isn’t open space. Chirpich stated is it “public or open space”, so the parcels qualify because they are public. Conversation ensued regarding how the zoning change would allow the City to place a dynamic LED sign on a pylon once the rezoning was complete. Further conversation ensued regarding the types of messages that have been displayed in the past at other City sites with LED signs and the intent of there being City messages. Hoium asked about the intent of the LED sign for the liquor store. Chirpich stated it is to increase business for the liquor store and convey messages of general importance to the residents of Columbia Heights. Deneen asked about the differences between the monument and pylon sign, and if the monument sign was less intrusive. Chirpich stated it is a preexisting pylon sign, however 5 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 5 this item is just in regard to the rezoning, not the sign and should stand on its own and asked the Commission to review the rezoning proposal independently. Hoium asked if the rezoning has any other purpose other than allowing the sign. Chirpich stated that is currently the desire, but from the finance department’s perspective there is a an accounting and property taxation angle that makes it beneficial to have the sites clearly identified as public. Kaiser asked about other cities and how the municipal liquor stores are zoned. Chirp ich said that was not researched by Staff. Kaiser opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak. Motion by Kaiser, seconded by Vargas, to close the public hearing and waive the reading of draft Ordinance No. 1680 there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Deneen, seconded by Vargas, to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of draft Ordinance No. 1680 and the zoning amendments as presented. A roll call vote was taken. 3 Ayes, 1 Nay (Hoium opposed). MOTION PASSED. 4. Conditional Use Permit for Dynamic LED Sign Introduction: Chirpich reported that the City of Columbia Heights has requested approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the installation of a dynamic LED sign upon its Top Valu municipal liquor store #3 site located at 5225 University Avenue NE. The LED sign is proposed to comprise the bottom one-half of an existing pylon sign which presently exists upon the site. The existing sign measures 100 square feet in area (per side) and 25 feet in height. Currently, the pylon sign advertises the former Goodyear tire store and municipal liquor store #3. This conditional use permit request coincides with the planned expansion of the liquor store to include the former Goodyear tire store space. As a result of the liquor store expansion, the pylon sign will advertise the sole occupant of the building, that being Top Valu Liquor. The current, “Top Valu Liquor” sign will be moved to comprise the top one -half of the pylon sign. To accommodate the dynamic LED sign, the subject site was recently rezoned from GB, General Business to PO, Public and Open Space. Within the PO District, dynamic signs which are utilized on existing pylon signs are allowed by conditional use permit (per Section 9.106(P)(8) of the Sign Code). The GB only allows dynamic LED signs on monument signs (by CUP). 6 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 6 Comprehensive Plan: The City’s Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site for “commercial” use. The expanded liquor store use is considered commercial in nature and therefore is consistent with the land use directives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed dynamic LED sign component will allow the City to potentially convey information which is considered beneficial to the community (as a public use). This in turn, is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance: The subject site is zoned PO, Limited Business, within which dynamic LED signs which are affixed to an existing pylon sign are allowed by conditional use permit. The following is a listing of land uses and zoning designations which surround the subject site by zoning and land use: North - General Business, Commercial (Beauty Salon); South - General Business Commercial (dental office); East - R-2A, One and two Family Residential, Single family residential; West - Multi-family residential, City of Fridley. As shown on the submitted sign plan, the top one-half of the pylon sign will advertise the Top Valu Liquor store. This portion of the sign is to be two -sided, measure approximately 50 square feet in size (per side) and will not include a dynamic sign LED component. The lower half of the sign likewise measures 50 square feet in area (per side) and is to be comprised of dynamic LED signage. Dynamic LED signs are regulated by Section 9.106 (P)(8)(a) of the Sign Code which imposes the following requirements: 1. Dynamic LED signs are allowed only on monument signs for conditionally permitted uses in all zoning districts, with the exception of the PO, Public District, in which LED signage may be utilized in existing pylon signs. Motor fuel stations may display dynamic LED signs as part of the pylon sign to promote motor fuel prices only. Such motor fuel price signs do not require a conditional use permit. All dynamic LED signs may occupy no more than 60% of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capabilit y to have dynamic LED signs, even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. 2. A dynamic LED sign may not change or move more often than once every ten seconds for commercial, industrial uses, or public uses, and no more than once every ten minutes for religious and/or educational institution uses, except one for when changes are necessary to correct hour and minute, date, or temperature information. 3. A display of time, date or temperature information may change as frequently as once every five seconds, however information displayed not relating to the date, time or temperature must not change or move more often than once every ten seconds for commercial, industrial uses, or public uses, and no more than once every ten minutes for religious and/or educational institution uses. 7 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 7 4. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects. Motion, animation and video images are prohibited on dynamic LED sign displays. 5. The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. 6. Dynamic LED signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction shall occur. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards of this section. 7. Dynamic LED signs may not exceed a maximum illumination of 5,000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum brightness. Dynamic LED signs must have an automatic dimmer control to produce a distinct illumination change from a higher illumination level to a lower level for the time period between one-half hour before sunset and one half-hour after sunrise. 8. Dynamic LED signs existing on the effective date of Ordinance 1593, passed April 25, 2011, must comply with the operational standards listed above. An existing dynamic LED sign that does not meet the structural requirements may continue as a non-conforming sign subject to § 9.105(E). As a condition of conditional use permit approval, all applicable dynamic LED sign requirements of the Sign Code should be satisfied. Findings of Fact: Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines certain 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. Staff comments: Digital LED signs are specifically listed as a conditional use in the PO, Public and Open Space District. (b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. Staff comments: The use has been and will continue to be in harmony with the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. (c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. The Staff comments: City will need to abide by the specific development standards of the Sign Code related to LED signs. The standards were adopted for the purpose of limiting adverse impacts upon surrounding properties. Given the location of the existing pylon sign, its 8 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 8 orientation along University Avenue and that the sign presently exists, Staff feels that the use will not negatively impact neighboring properties. (d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. Staff comments: The use will of property will not be diminished as a result of the erection of the dynamic LED sign upon the subject site. (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. Staff comments: The City will need to abide by the specific development standards of the City Code related to dynamic LED signs. (f) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public facilities and services. Staff comments: The use and property upon which the liquor store is located is 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. Staff comments: The placement of an LED sign component upon the existing pylon sign will have no impact on traffic congestion. (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. Staff comments: The use will not have a negative cumulative effect upon uses in the immediate vicinity. (i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located. Staff comments: As a condition of conditional use permit approval, the LED sign must comply with applicable City Code requirements. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for property at 5225 University Avenue NE (PID’s 26-30-24-21-0093 & 26-30-24-21-0094) subject to the following conditions: 1. The dynamic LED sign shall not occupy no more than 60 percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign shall not have the capability to have dynamic LED signs, even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area shall be allowed on a sign face. 2. The dynamic LED sign shall not change or move more often than once every ten seconds, except for when changes are necessary to correct hour and minute, date, or temperature information. 9 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 9 3. A display of time, date or temperature information may change as frequently as once every five seconds, however information displayed not relating to the date, time or temperature shall not change or move more often than once every ten seconds. 4. The images and messages displayed shall be static, and the transition from one static display to another shall be instantaneous without any special effects. Motion, animation and video images shall be prohibited. 5. The images and messages displayed on the LED sign shall be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. 6. The LED sign shall be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction shall occur. The displays shall also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions. 7. The dynamic LED sign shall not exceed a maximum illumination of 5,000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candel as per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum brightness. 8. The dynamic LED sign shall have an automatic dimmer control to produce a distinct illumination change from a higher illumination level to a lower level for the time period between one-half hour before sunset and one half-hour after sunrise. Chirpich stated that that this item is dependent on the approval of the rezoning, which requires a first and second reading, so this item would be on the agenda when the second reading would be. Kaiser said that Heartland Tire has closed and asked about the expansion into the store. Chirpich said that the sale of the space was offered to the City first and it is the smallest of the three liquor stores; it is also a revenue generating business and could potentially offset the cost of acquisition. Deneen asked about the City messaging and if there any standards set, such as percentage of City messages. Chirpich stated that there isn’t a set percentage, but the Council could direct the liquor stores more on the City messaging. Kaiser stated that if there is an exception for PO zoned parcels to only be allowed to have dynamic LED signs, that there should be more defined standards on City messag ing. Chirpich clarified that dynamic LED are allowed on monuments, the difference in this zone is the allowed use on pedestal signs. Hoium said that the dynamic sign is going to be distracting on University Avenue and he thought there was an emphasis by MNDOT to minimize the distractions. Chirpich said that the city code is set up to try to minimize the distraction, but the sign is a conditional use which has a higher degree of scrutiny. 10 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 10 Vargas asked why no safety guards is surrounding the sign. Chirpich said the approval through the building department will look at the support of the sign. Hoium asked if the City was trying to get around a rule that other businesses cannot. Deneen discussed how it needs to be more defined on the City messaging to be able to justify that. Further conversation around the percentage of City messaging ensued. Chirpich stated that the Commission can propose a percentage that can be recommended to the Council. Chirpich discussed the difference between messaging and use in regard to the City only having municipal liquor stores; therefore there are not other liquor operations that are in competition versus other businesses wanting to have a similar type of sign, which would need to be discussed further. Chirpich stated that there are more discussions currently happening surrounding Central Avenue and University Avenue traffic. The commission discussed some of the issues and proposals. Kaiser stated he believes that if a business was coming to the City about this type of pylon sign, he wouldn’t be excited about it, and he doesn’t believe the City should be treated differently. Hoium said that he didn’t believe a business wanting a dynamic LED sign placed on a pylon wouldn’t even make it this far. Chirpich concurred. Kaiser opened the public hearing. Floyd Josnik, VFW Post 230 representative, and Kevin Gilbertson, City resident, addressed the commission. Gilbertson stated that this was discussed the week prior regarding Cen tral Avenue and the VFW wanted to replace their sign recently with a similar sign to the proposed liquor store sign, with the bottom portion being a dynamic LED. He said that it would display events and specials and they would be willing to display community events as well. Josnik stated they would be willing to put messaging for the City on their sign and they wanted to appear at the meeting so people would know what is going on within the community. Hoium asked for clarification on the VFW’s request and said they are currently not able to have a dynamic LED pedestal sign. Vargas asked about other sign options in other states that project the images onto the building. Vargas stated that the VFW’s option to move their sign would obstruct the sightline of pedestrians. 11 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 11 Kaiser stated he doesn’t believe this is fair to make an exception to the City. Chirpich said if it’s approved that it wouldn’t be an exception because it would be zoned as a PO district and allowed by conditional use. Kaiser asked if the commission doesn’t recommend approval if the Council would still consider it along with the rezoning. Chirpich stated this was the case. Deneen commented on University Avenue and how a higher sign may not be out of place with a higher amount of traffic going through. Hoium said he saw it oppositely because you don’t want people to stop. Vargas stated the opportunity to have a sign would be helpful for City messaging with daily traffic. Chirpich also said the City Hall has a similar sign. Vargas said he doesn’t like either sign type, but the VFW provides a community gathering place and same with the municipal liquor store in its own way; he added where there could be on sale too. Further comments were made about the future of the Central Avenue and University Avenue and the impacts of these decisions. Motion by Hoium, seconded by Vargas, to close the public hearing and waive the reading of draft Resolution 2022-68, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Hoium to not recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of draft Resolution 2022-68. No second motion was made. Commissioners discussed directing Staff in regard to making a recommendation to the Council on the percentage of community messaging and consideration of CUPs for other businesses that are seeking approval for a pylon sign. Chirpich stated the commission cannot make a recommendation in regard to the City Code for the PO district to the Council, but they can direct that to Staff for Council to consider. Kaiser said that this vote should be focused on that this sign would be on publicly owned property for the municipal liquor store. Hoium said this is still a business, even though it’s the City. Chirpich stated he appreciated the comments regarding the sign messaging and why the commission is torn in their decision, but the municipal liquor stores are unique in their own right. Further discussion ensued regarding other areas and businesses with pylon signs. Motion by Vargas, seconded by Deneen, to recommend that the Planning Commission 12 Item 1. City of Columbia Heights MINUTES August 03, 2022 Planning Commission Page 12 recommend to the City Council approval of draft Resolution 2022-68 subject to the conditions stated in the resolution and the additional condition that the dynamic LED sign display City messaging a certain percent of time. A roll call vote was taken. 3 Ayes, 1 Nay (Hoium opposed). MOTION PASSED. OTHER BUSINESS Chirpich commented on attendance and stated that if commissioners are unable to participate in- person, the City may be able to put out a notice in advance about the commissioner participating virtually so then the commissioner could attend. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Vargas, seconded by Deneen, to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 pm. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Alicia Howe, Administrative Assistant 13 Item 1. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SECTION PUBLIC HEARINGS MEETING DATE SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 ITEM: Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) 4221 and 4217 Reservoir Boulevard NE DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Aaron Chirpich – 8/31/22 CASE NUMBER: 2022-0901 DATE: September 1, 2022 TO: Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission APPLICANT: Michael Hamann LOCATION: 4217 and 4221 Reservoir Boulevard NE (Lots 5 and 6, Block 11, Auditor’s Subdivision of Walton’s Second Addition) REQUEST: Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) PREPARED BY: Bob Kirmis, Consultant City Planner INTRODUCTION Michael Hamman has requested approval of a Minor Subdivision, per City Code Section 9.104 (k), for abutting parcels of land located at 4217 and 4221 Reservoir Boulevard NE. The subject sites, both occupied by single family homes, are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and are surrounded by similarly zoned properties. The applicant, the owner of the 4221 parcel, has reached agreement with the neighboring property owner to the south to shift the shared side lot between the two lots such that a “pie -shaped” area of land measuring 3,430 square feet is size will be conveyed to the nor th property. Basically, the minor subdivision calls for the shared rear yard corner monument (between the two properties) to be shifted to the south a distance 40 feet. To be noted is that lot configurations along the west side of Reservoir Boulevard NE are characterized by side lot lines which run diagonally from the street right -of-way line (as opposed to more typical side lines which are perpendicular to streets). These side lot line conditions tend to create triangular -shaped side yards which oftentimes result in widely varied side yard structure setbacks and limited side yard usability. The proposed land conveyance will result in a new, more centrally located shared side lot line between the two homes. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Lot Requirements. In consideration of the minor subdivision application, a determination should be made that the newly created lots meet the minimum lot area and width requirements of the applicable R -1 zoning district. According to Section 9.109.C of the Zoning Ordinance, lots within R-1 Districts must have a minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet and a minimum width of 70 feet. 14 Item 2. Page 2 Presently, the north parcel (4221 Reservoir Boulevard) measures 16,107 square feet in size and has a width of 100 feet. As a result of the proposed lot line adjustment, the parcel would be increased to 19,317 square feet in size and increased in width to 106 feet. Presently, the south parcel (4217 Reservoir Boulevard NE), measures 16,035 square feet in size and likewise has a width of 100 feet. As a result of the proposed lot line adjustment, the parcel would be decreased to 12,825 square feet in size and decreased in width to 94 feet. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area and lot width requirements of the R-1 District. Setbacks. The proposed lot line adjustment will result in a change to side yard structure setbacks. According to Section 9.109.C of the Zoning Ordinance, lots within R-1 Districts must maintain side yard setbacks of not less than 7 feet. As a result of the proposed lot line adjustment, the structure setback on the north parcel (Lot 5) will be increased in from 9 feet to 23 feet while the side yard setback on the south parcel (Lot 6) will be reduced from 28 feet to 22 feet. Both proposed lots meet the minimum setback requirements of the R -1 District. Also of note is that more consistent side yard structure setbacks will result from the proposed minor subdivision. Easements. The submitted survey does not illustrate any drainage and utility easements upon the subject properties. Thus, it is not necessary to vacate an easement along the shared side lot line. Recording. As a condition of minor subdivision approval, the applicant will be responsible for the filing the approved subdivision with the Anoka County Recorder’s Office. If the minor subdivision is not filed with the Anoka County recorder’s Office within one year of the date of City Council approval, it will become invalid. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (K) of the Zoning Code outlines specific conditions in order for the City Council to approve a minor subdivision. They are as follows: 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will result in two conforming lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. No vacation of existing easements will occur as a result of the minor subdivision. 3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. Both newly created lots will conform to the lot width and lot area requirements of the applicable R -1 zoning designation. 4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. 5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this article. 15 Item 2. Page 3 The subject property has not previously been subdivided via a minor subdivision process. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed subdivision will not hinder the conveyance of land. 7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. The proposed subdivision is not expected to hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. 8. The proposed subdivision meets all the design standards specified in Section 9.115. As a condition of minor subdivision approval, all applicable design standards of Section 9.115 of the Zoning ordinance must be satisfied. RECOMMENDATION Staff review finds that the proposed Minor Subdivision (lot line adjustment) application meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision for the properties located at 42 21 and 4217 Reservoir Boulevard NE (Lots 5 and 6, Block 11, Auditor’s Subdivision of Walton’s Second Addition) subject to certain conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): MOTION: Move to waive the reading of draft Resolution 2022-78, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve draft Resolution 2022-78, approving a Minor Subdivision (lot line adjustment) for the properties located at 4221 and 4217 Reservoir Boulevard NE (Lots 5 and 6, Block 11, Auditor’s Subdivision of Walton’s Second Addition), within the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, subject to certain conditions stated in the resolution. ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Resolution 2022-78 Application Site Location Map Existing Conditions Survey Proposed Conditions Survey Consent From Owner of 4217 Reservoir Resident Correspondence 16 Item 2. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-78 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4221 AND 4217 RESERVOIR BOULEVARD NE (LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 11, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION OF WALTON’S SECOND ADDITION), WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2022-0602) has been submitted by Michael Hamann to the City Council requesting Minor Subdivision approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following sites: ADDRESSES: 4217 and 4221 Reservoir Boulevard NE. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: Lots 5 and 6, Block 11, Auditor’s Subdivision of Walton’s Second Addition. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: A Minor Subdivision for the properties located at 4217 and 4221 Reservoir Boulevard NE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on September 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of the City Staff regarding the effect of the proposed Minor Subdivision upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. 3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. 4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights -of-way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. 5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this article. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. 7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of 17 Item 2. records related to assessments. 8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in Section 9.115. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached conditions, survey, and other information shall become part of this Minor Subdivision and approval; and in granting this Minor Subdivision the City and the applicant agree that this Minor Subdivision shall become null and void if the subdivision has not been filed with the Anoka County Recorder’s Office within one (1) calendar year after the approval date. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: The Planning Commission approves the Minor Subdivision for 4217 and 4221 Reservoir Boulevard NE (Lots 5 and 6, Block 11, Auditor’s Subdivision of Walton’s Second Addition). 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 applicant shall be responsible for the filing the approved subdivision with the Anoka County Recorder’s Office. The approved minor subdivision shall become invalid if the subdivision is not filed with the Anoka County recorder’s Office within one year of the date of City Council approval. Passed this 12th day of September 2022 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Attest: Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor Sara Ion, City Clerk 18 Item 2. 19 Item 2. 20 Item 2. 21 Item 2. 22 Item 2. 23 Item 2. 24 Item 2. 25 Item 2. 26 Item 2.