HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 2, 2000CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS~ MN ,5542 !-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 MEMBERS
Tom Rams~ell, Chair
Kevin Han~on
Ted Ye~
Step~n · Johnson
Da~l Shattuck
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2000
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
590 N.E. 40'r" AVENUE
1. Roll Call
Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of April 4, 2000.
NEW BUSINESS: Petitions, letters and requests.
Public Hearing
Setback Variance
Case #2000-0510
Public Hearing
Two Variances
Case #2000-0511
Matthew Heath
4252 Washington St. N.E.
Columbia Heights, Mn.
Richard Kinnan
819 N.E. 49t" Avenue
Columbia Heights, Mn.
4. Staff Reports.
5. Adjourn.
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Case: 2000-0510
Page: 1
Case #:
Owner:
Address:
Phone:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE MAY 2, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING
GENERAL INFORMATION
2000-0510
Matthew Heath
4252 Washington St. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
(763) 782-0936
Parcel Address: 4252 Washington St. NE
Zoning: R-2, One and Two Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan: LDR, Low Density Residential
Applicant: same
Surrounding Zoning
and Land Uses:
Zoning
North: R-2
South: R-2
East: R-2
West: R-2
Land Use
North: Residemial
South: Residential
East: Residential
West: Residential
BACKGROUND
Explanation qf Request:
This is a request for a 17 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 528 square
foot garage 3 feet from the rear property line at 4252 Washington Street NE. Section 9.104(5) of
the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that the distance between the vehicle entry
door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle
entry door is facing a street or alley.
Case Histo~_ :
There are no pertinent zoning cases on the lot or in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS
Surrounding ProperS_:
The surrounding property in all four directions is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential
Case: 2000-0510
Page: 2
and is used residentially.
Technical Review:
Accessory structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Requirements are as follows.
· No accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure or fifteen (15)
feet, whichever is less - the proposed garage will be roughly 13 feet in height.
· No accessory structure or combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square
feet - the proposed garage will be 528 square feet which meets this requirement.
· Any lot less than 6,500 square feet may have a lot coverage of up to 35% - the lot
coverage will be approximately 22% which meets this requirement.
· Detached accessory structures must be six (6) feet or more from the principal structure -
the proposed location of the garage is roughly 40 feet from the principal structure.
· Whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley,
the distance between the door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more - as mentioned
earlier, the vehicle entry door will be 3 feet from the rear lot line so a variance is
necessary.
· Accessory structures shall be a minimum of 3 feet from the side lot lines as approved by
the Building Official - the proposed location of the garage is 4 feet from the north side lot
line and 12 feet from the south side lot line.
The primary purpose of the 20 foot setback requirement is to allow enough room on the property
for a vehicle to park in the driveway without encroaching into the street or alley right-of-way.
Please note that the applicant has informed staff that he intends to utilize an existing parking pad
located to the south of the proposed garage.
Section 9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "In recommending a variance,
it shall be found that by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of lot or where by reason of
exceptional topography, soil conditions, tree number or location or water conditions the owner of
such lot would have an undue hardship in using his lot in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the rules of the zoning district." In order for a variance to be granted,
hardship needs to be established.
There is an existing Linden tree located roughly 27 feet east of the rear property line which
would need to be removed if the garage were constructed at the required 20 foot setback.
According to the definition of hardship provided in the Zoning Ordinance, tree location is a
legitimate hardship. Also, the City has granted variances due to tree location in several other
instances. The following briefly summarizes two similar cases.
· Case 9805-24 was a variance of 7 feet at 5055 Madison St. NE to allow the construction
of a garage with the vehicle entry door 13 feet from the property line. This request for a
variance was approved due to tree location and number on the lot.
· Case 9810-45 was a variance of 8 feet at 2303 Maiden Ln. NE to allow the construction
of a garage with the vehicle entry door 12 feet from the property line. This variance was
Case: 2000-0510
Page: 3
granted because tree location and topography on the property created a hardship.
One option that staff has considered is the possibility of rotating the garage so that the vehicle
entry door faced south instead of west. If this were done, the proposed location would meet
minimum setback requirements. However, there would only be 12 feet between the vehicle entry
door and the south property line which would make it difficult to maneuver a vehicle in and out
of the garage. Please note that there is an existing garage and lean-to in the same location as the
proposed garage which will be removed. The vehicle entry door of the existing garage faces
south, but the applicant has stated that there is not enough room to maneuver his vehicle in and
out of the garage due to the proximity to the south property line.
Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan:
The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential
Development. The proposal does not impact the goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive
Plan.
Summary:
The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows:
1. The proposal will improve the property by replacing an existing garage and lean-to.
The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows:
1. Any vehicles attempting to park in front of the vehicle entry door would be partially
located in the alley right-of-way.
CONCLUSION
Sta_ff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request as tree location on the property appears to create a
legitimate hardship.
Recommended Motion:
Move to recommend City Council approval of the 17 foot setback variance at 4252 Washington
Street NE because tree location on the property creates a hardship.
Attachments:
· Completed application form; Survey; Site Plan; and Public Notice
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHT&
~--A~plication For:
~ezonin&
Variance ~
Privacy Fence
Conditional Use Permit ._._.
Subdivision Approval .
Site Plan Approval
O:her
Application Date, F/X/mO
o....o: Jooo -
6. ZoninK~
Applicable City Ordinance Number
Present Zoning ~"~"
Present, Use fi' (~ :' ~'-~"' '~ ~
Proposed Zoning
Proposed Use
AcknowledRment and 5iRnature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the
penalties of lay, for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia Heights to take the
action herein requested, tha: all statements herein are true and that all york herein
mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the Ci%y of Columbia Heights
and the lays of ~he S:ete/~,,~,~~~
Signature of Applicant: /~./ ~9 ./. ~/ - Da~e:__
· Taken
g'LLE
!,'~ LE
\L"~L6
~q
X
X
,O'L
/~ ,,0~,/0.00 N
,00'0~'
....,...,.,...-..,.,:,:,:.:,:,:
::::: .....:.::.:
::::...:::.:::...
":.1:.:,:,:.:.:.::.:"
· .i:i :::::::i
!:: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::
3 ,,l~t,L~.O0 S
,00'01~
0
0
c)
cD
Z
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 4OTH AVENUE N.E:., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-28OO TDD 782-2806
PLEASE NOTE: CITY HALL PHONE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED.
NEW NUMBERS ARE: MAIN NUMBER (763) 706-3600; TDD (763) 706-3691
Members
Tom Ramsdell, Chair
Kevin Hanson
Ted Yehle
Daniel Shattuck
Stephen Johnson
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing
in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 40t" Avenue NE, at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 2,
2000. The order of business is as follows:
A request for a 17 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the
construction of a 528 square foot garage 3 feet from the rear property line
at 4252 Washington Street NE. Section 9.104(5) of the Columbia Heights
Zoning Ordinance requires that the distance between the vehicle entry
door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more whenever a garage is
designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley.
For questions you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 763-706-3673.
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Walt Fehst
City Manager
jh
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or
access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request,
accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of
Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons
are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call
the City Council Secretary at 706-3611 to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or
hearing impaired only.)
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Case: 2000-0511
Page: 1
Case #:
Owner:
Address:
Phone:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE MAY 2, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING
2000-0511
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: same
Richard Kinnan
819 49th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
(763) 571-5744
Parcel Address: 819 49th Avenue NE
Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan: LDR, Low Density Residential
Surrounding Zoning
and Land Uses:
Zoning
North: R-1
South: City of Hilltop
East: R-1
West: R-1
Land Use
North: Residential
South: I.S.D. # 13
East: Residential
West: Residential
BACKGROUND
Explanation of Request:
This is a request for an 824 square foot variance to allow the construction of a two-level 18' x 24'
addition onto the existing detached garage at 819 49th Avenue NE. Section 9.104(5) of the
Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that no accessory structures, including attached
garages, or any combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet in area.
Currently, there is 960 square feet of accessory structure on the property, and an additional 864
square feet is proposed. As a result, the 824 square foot variance is being requested. This is also
a request for a 3 foot height variance. Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that no
accessory structure can exceed 15 feet in height, as measured to the highest point. Plans indicate
that the proposed addition will be 18 feet in height which requires a 3 foot variance.
As stated on the application, the purpose of the request is to provide additional space for
auto/boat parking, and also to allow space to pursue the applicants retirement hobby of furniture
restoration.
Case: 2000-0511
Page: 2
Case Histori:
There are no pertinent zoning cases on the lot or in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS
Surrounding Property:
The surrounding property to the north, east and west is zoned R-I, Single Family Residential,
and is used residentially. The property to the south across 49th Avenue NE is in the City of
Hilltop and is used by Independent School District # 13 for Valley View Elementary and Central
Middle School.
Technical Review:
Accessory structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Requirements are as follows.
· No accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure or fifteen (15)
feet, whichever is less - plans indicate that the proposed garage will be 18 feet to the
highest point which requires a variance.
· No accessory structure or combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square
feet - the proposed addition will be two levels at 432 square feet per level for a total of
864 square feet. The existing detached garage is 624 square feet and there is an existing
attached garage which is 336 square feet. The cumulative square footage for accessory
structures on the property will be 1,824 square feet.
· Any lot over 6,500 square feet in size may have a lot coverage of up to 30% - the lot
coverage will be approximately 23% which meets this requirement.
· Detached accessory structures must be six (6) feet or more from the principal structure -
the existing detached garage is approximately 25 feet away from the principal structure
and the proposed addition will be behind the existing detached garage.
· Whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley,
the distance between the door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more - the existing
detached garage is roughly 95 feet from the front lot line which meets this requirement.
· Accessory structures shall be a minimum of 3 feet inside the side and rear lot lines as
approved by the Building Official - the existing detached garage and proposed addition is
3 feet from the side lot line and the addition will be 5 feet from the rear lot line.
Section 9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "In recommending a variance,
it shall be found that by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of lot or where by reason of
exceptional topography, soil conditions, tree number or location or water conditions the owner of
such lot would have an undue hardship in using his lot in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the rules of the zoning district." In order for a variance to be granted,
hardship needs to be established.
As indicated on the plan labeled East View, the topography of the property drops from
Case: 2000-0511
Page: 3
approximately 100 feet in elevation at the front of the existing garage to roughly 92.5 feet at the
back of the proposed addition. This change in elevation appears to create a legitimate hardship
on which to base an approval of the height variance. However, it does not seem to create a
hardship which would require the excess accessory structure space.
As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing the addition to the existing detached garage to
create additional space for auto/boat storage and to have a workshop to restore furniture as a
hobby. One issue that should be identified is the possibility of this hobby becoming a home
occupation. Home occupation is defined as any gainful operation or profession engaged in by an
occupant of a dwelling unit. Such use must be clearly incidental and secondary to the principal
use of the dwelling for residential purposes and shall not change the residential character of the
dwelling or have an adverse effect on adjacent properties nor constitute a nuisance or safety
hazard. Please note that home occupations are permitted as an accessory use in the R-1 District
provided they register with the City. Also, no outside storage of products, materials or
equipment connected with the home occupation is allowed, and if the home occupation is
conducted in a garage, the minimum amount of required garage parking spaces shall be
maintained for parking. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of two off-
street parking spaces for single family dwellings, one of which shall be in a garage. In addition,
Section 5A.207(1)(f) of the Housing Maintenance Code states: "Outside storage of articles,
equipment, construction materials, items not designed for exterior use, and miscellaneous items,
including but not limited to, lawn mowers and other lawn maintenance equipment shall not be
allowed."
Considering that there is also an attached garage on the property, the parking requirement can be
met without the construction of the addition. However, the additional space may be necessary to
comply with the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Code. Please note that according to
the Columbia Heights Fire Department no violations of the Housing Maintenance Code on the
subject property have been reported to the City.
As mentioned above, hardship needs to be established for a variance to be granted. Section
9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance also states that the Commission shall hear requests for
variances from the literal provisions of this Ordinance in instances where their "strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual
property under consideration and to recommend variances only when it is demonstrated that such
action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance".
Section 1 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Four of
the purpose statements are identified below:
· protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare;
· dividing the City into zones and districts restricting and regulating therein the location,
height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot
which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, and the density and
distribution of population;
Case: 2000-0511
Page: 4
· providing adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property; and,
· preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating the
use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land and buildings
surrounding them.
Staff is aware of one previous case where a variance was granted to allow accessory structures in
excess of the maximum allowed. The following briefly summarizes this case.
· Case 9807-34 was a variance of 2,072 square feet at 4015 Stinson Boulevard to allow the
total square footage of all existing and proposed accessory structures on the lot to be
3,072 square feet. Unusual topography and potential loss of trees and shrubbery around
the existing garage were identified as a hardship. At the time of the request, the property
had the following accessory structures: One 462 square foot garage (2¥ x 22'); One 154
square foot shed (7' x 22'); and, a 576 square foot guest cabin. The proposal indicated a
new two-level attached garage would be constructed, totaling 1,880 square feet (940
square feet per level). The applicant demonstrated that due to the topography on the lot a
two story garage was necessary, or a large amount of fill would need to be brought in to
elevate the main floor of the garage to the same level as the house. Also, if the existing
accessory structures were required to be removed, there would be a substantial loss of
existing trees and shrubbery on the subject parcel and adjacent property.
Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan:
The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential
Development. The proposal does not impact the goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive
Plan.
Summa~_ :
The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows:
1. The proposal will create additional space for auto/boat storage, and the proposal will also
allow space for the applicant to pursue his retirement hobby of furniture restoration.
The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows:
1. The proposal is in excess of the maximum square footage allowed for accessory
structures.
CONCLUSION
Sta_ff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the request because there does not appear to be a legitimate hardship
on which to base approval of the size variance, although topography of the property does create a
hardship for the height. It is staff's opinion that because minimum lot coverage and setback
requirements will be met, the property will not be overcrowded, and adequate light, air, and
convenient access to the property will be maintained, so the proposal seems consistent with the
spirit and intent of the Ordinance. However, the property will exceed the minimum number of
Case: 2000-0511
Page: 5
parking spaces required, and hardship still needs to be established to grant the variance.
Recommended Motion:
Move to recommend City Council denial of the variance request because a legitimate hardship
has not been established.
Alternative Motion Recommending Approval:
Move to recommend City Council approval of the 3 foot height variance and the 824 square foot
variance at 819 49th Avenue NE because topography of the property creates a hardship and the
proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance.
Attachments:
· Completed application form; Site Plan; Elevation View; and Public Notice
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Application For:
~ezoning
Variance
Privacy Fence
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision Approval
Site Plan Approvai
Other
Fee: /~ Date Paid
Street Address of Subject Property:
Addres s: ~ / g - ~ r~ ~- Address:
Description of l~equest:
Z oninK:
Applicable City Ordinance Number
Present ZoninE ~- (
Present Use ~ f4{~,t~- ~
Proposed Zoning
Prop.ed Use
Exhibits Submitted (maps, diagrams, etc.)
Acknowledgment and SiKnature: The unders'iTned hereby represents upon all of the
penalties of lay, for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia Heights to take the
action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all york herein
mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City o£ Columbia Heights
and the laws 'of the State of Hinnesota.
Signature of Applicant:
Date:
Taken BT: .....
ELK RIVER OONGRETE PRODUOT$ · 8421 WAYZATA BOULEVARD · MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 5~42~
(SI2) S41-8~/2 · INWARD WATS -- 100 + 5S2-1IB ..~,','~'~'~' ,, ~F ~,
DA'II
c./- II- ~c:)
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 4OTH AVENUE N.E:., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 5542. !-3878 (612) 782-28OO TDD 782-2806
PLEASE NOTE: CITY HALL PHONE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED.
NEW NUMBERS ARE: MAIN NUMBER (763) 706-3600; TDD (763) 706-3691
Members
Tom Ramsdell, Chair
Kevin Hanson
Ted Yehle
Daniel Shattuck
Stephen Johnson
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing
in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 40th Avenue NE, at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 2,
2000. The order of business is as follows:
A request for an 824 square foot variance to allow the construction of a two-
level 18' x 24' addition onto the existing detached garage at 819 49th Avenue NE.
Section 9.104(5) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that no
accessory structures, including attached garages, or any combination of
accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet in area. Currently there is
960 square feet of accessory structure on the property, and an additional 864
square feet is proposed. As a result, the 824 square foot variance is being
requested.
This is also a request for a 3 foot height variance. Section 9.104(5) of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that no accessory structure can exceed 15 feet in
height, as measured to the highest point. Plans indicate that the proposed
addition will be 18 feet in height which requires a 3 foot variance.
For questions you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 763-706-3673.
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Walt Fehst
City Manager
jh
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or
access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request,
accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of
Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons
are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call
the City Council Secretary at 706-3611 to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or
hearing impaired only.)
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806
MEMBERS
Tom Ramsdell, Chair
Kevin Hanson
Ted Yehle
Stephen Johnson
Daniel Shattuck
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
6:30 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
590 N.E. 40TM AVENUE
1. OPEN HOUSE
6:30 PM
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 PM
Introduction by Kenneth R. Anderson, Community Development
Director
Presentation by Klm Lee, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Questions, Comments, and Discussion
Close Public Hearing
3. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
4. ADJOURN
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: MAY 4, 2000
TO:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FROM:
RE:
JOE H O LL M AN, C IT Y PL ANNE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
As you know, the City of Columbia Heights has been involved in an extensive process to update
the City Comprehensive Plan. The following is intended to provide the Commission with some
background information regarding the planning process.
The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency for the seven-county metropolitan
region. In order to coordinate development within the region through the year 2040, the Council
has developed a Regional Blueprint. This Blueprint includes goals, policies and action steps that
are to be used as a framework for communities in the development of individual comprehensive
plans. All communities within the region, including the City of Columbia Heights, are required
to develop comprehensive plans that conform to the regional goals found in the Regional
Blueprint.
The Comprehensive Plan for Columbia Heights sets a baseline for development and
redevelopment, and serves as a guide document for decision-makers for the next 20 years. The
Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies for each Plan element. Goal
statements are designed to focus on the major issues that have been raised during the work with
the Planning Advisory Committee and public participation components of the planning process.
Goal statements are broadly worded, highlighting the primary value or establishing the vision.
Policy statements help to define the goals in "real world" terms and are typically stated as official
positions on particular issues. Implementation Strategies will commonly direct a specific course
of action that responds to and works to support the official position stated by policy. The
Strategies define activities that the City may initiate or continue to achieve the Goal statements.
Public participation has been a key element in the development of the Goal statements. The
following briefly summarizes the public participation process which was used during the
preparation of the Plan.
· May 1 and 2, 1998 - The public process began when the Minnesota Design Team visited
Columbia Heights.
· June 10, 1998 - A meeting was held with the Planning Advisory Committee which was
established to help guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan.
· July 29, 1998 - A public meeting was held with the Columbia Heights business
community.
· July 30, 1998 - A public meeting was held for the general public.
· August 5, 1998 - A joint meeting of all the advisory commissions to the City Council was
held.
· September 10, 1998 - The Planning Advisory Committee met to discuss the results of the
May 4, 2000
Comprehensive Plan
Page 2
public meetings.
March 23, 1999 - The Planning Advisory Committee met to review and discuss the draft
Plan.
After the March, 1999, Planning Advisory Committee meeting, the City initiated a second long-
range planning process to complete a Master Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Columbia
Heights. Note that it was the City's position that the Master Redevelopment Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan needed to be consistent, so adoption of the Comprehensive Plan was
delayed until after the Master Redevelopment Plan was complete or nearly complete as is the
case. A Task Force was created to help guide the development of the Master Redevelopment
Plan, and the following briefly summarizes that process.
· July 14, 1999 - An initial Task Force meeting was held.
· September 29, 1999 - A second meeting of the Task Force was held to review project
objectives and begin work on downtown land use alternatives.
· October 28, 1999 - A Task Force meeting was held to review and discuss the final
concept alternatives.
· November 17, 1999 - A Town Meeting Open House was held to facilitate public
comment on the proposals.
· December 15, 1999 - A final Task Force meeting was held to select final concept
alternatives and discuss streetscape design.
· January 17, 2000 - The Master Redevelopment Plan was informally presented to the City
Council.
Please note that certain elements of the Master Redevelopment Plan have been referenced in the
draft Comprehensive Plan. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to take
action on just the Comprehensive Plan and not the Master Redevelopment Plan during the May 9
public hearing. The Master Redevelopment Plan will be presented to the Commission at a later
date.
On January 14, 2000, the Comprehensive Plan was circulated to adjacent jurisdictions and
affected school districts for the required 60 day review and comment period. The Rice Creek
Watershed District is the only jurisdiction which submitted comments (attached).
As required by State Statute a legal notice was published in the Columbia Heights Focus News
on April 27, 2000 (attached), and a notice is being aired over the local govemment access cable
channel (attached).
Recommended Motion:
Move to recommend that the Columbia Heights City Council adopt Resolution 2000-43 which is
a resolution adopting the City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan, subject to final review
and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Attachments:
~..-... RESOLUTION 2000-43
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW
AND APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WHEREAS, State Statutes (Minn. Stat. 473.175-473.871 (1996)) requires that cities review and revise
their comprehensive plans for consistency with Metropolitan Council policy plans; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has amended its policy plans; and has provided system
statements outlining Council policy relative to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights is required to review its comprehensive plan for consistency
with the amended policy plans and to prepare a revised comprehensive plan for submission to the
Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights has scheduled and budgeted to complete a major review and
update of its comprehensive plan, and has proceeded diligently to complete its comprehensive plan for
Metropolitan Council review; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights facilitated an extensive public participation process to assist
in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2000, the City of Columbia Heights circulated the revised document to the
adjacent governmental units and affected school districts for review and comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 9,
2000, to review the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Columbia Heights City
Council adopt the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Columbia Heights City Council hereby adopts the
Comprehensive Plan, subject to final review and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
PASSED THIS
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
DAY OF ,2000.
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
" RECEIVED
2O0O
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN';
Rice Creek Water:
3585 N. LEXINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 330
ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 55126-8056
PHONE (651) 766-4191 · FAX (651) 766-4196
March 15, 2000
Mr. Joe Hollman, City Planner
City of Columbia Heights
59040th Avenue N.E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878
SUBJECT:
City of Columbia Heights
Stormwater Management Plan
Dear Joe:
drewrOI3'l @tc.t
Board of Managers
Regular Meetings:
2nd and 4th Wednesdays
at Shoreview City Hall
KATE DREWRY, District Admin.
BONITA TORPE, Admin. Assist.
We have completed our review of the City of Columbia Heights Draft Comprehensive Plan dated January
14, 2000, received January 19, 2000. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the Rice Creek
Watershed District's (RCWD) questions and concerns regarding the Surface Water Management Plan.
We feel the plan is very comprehensive and well done, especially the quantitative analysis of the
drainage systems. The RCWD certainly appreciates the City's efforts on the Surface Water Management
Plan portion of the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
The current issues are listed below, subdivided by management topic for clarity.
ADMINISTRATIVE
In lieu of a very detailed, text-based review of the City's current policies and ordinances, we feel it is
more prudent for the City to include in the plan a general reference to conformance with the RCWD's
current policies and standards. The purpose of this recommendation is two-fold:
Eliminate repetitive revisions of text-based policies strictly to comply with RCWD's
Management Plan.
2. Maintain currency of the City's plan when the RCWD's Management Plan is updated.
However, this reference does not remedy the policies stated in the plan which are in direct conflict
with the RCWD's policies and objectives. Please include in both the Introduction (page 53) and
Surface Water Management Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies (page 76) sections a
statement which references conformance with the current RCWD Management Plan's policies and
objectives.
BOARD OF MANAGERS
A.J. CARDINAL, SR. TOM WADDELL ROBERT M. HULT ORDEEN J. BRAATHEN EUGENE L. PETERSON
ANOKA COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY
MONTGOMERY WATSON Consulting Engineers 612-593-9000 · Co-Counsel: HAROLD H. SHEFF 612-332-1000, MICHELLE J. ULRICH 651-699-9845
Mr. Joe Hollman -2- March 15, 2000
Goal 1, page 82, specifies "the City will establish a permitting program for water resource
management." The District would prefer to maintain the current permitting arrangement. Detailed
review of in-place ordinances would be required in the event the City wished to assume some
permitting authority. The District is also better poised with in-house staff and resources to better
facilitate an inter-municipality permitting program. Please clarify the City's intention regarding this
matter. If the City does not wish to assume permitting activity for water resources and/or Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) activities, please include a statement to this effect in the plan.
Our copy of the plan did not include Section 13, Implementation Plan. Specifically, the District
needs to review the Capital Improvements Program and may be of some assistance regarding retrofit
water quality project cost sharing. Please forward a copy of this section.
Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 would be more legible in color, although the current black and white figures
wi!!. suffice.
The plan should provide easement acquisition procedures for all floodplains, ponds, wetlands,
ditches, storm sewer, and all other water resources features included on parcels undergoing
development or redevelopment.
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Results and Problem Areas, page 74, specifies that the majority of stormwater runoff
within the City does not receive NURP treatment, and that natural lakes and ponds are primarily used
for stormwater control and treatment. The District recognizes the city's developed nature and small
Silver and Hart Lake subwatersheds, and in the absence of recurring flooding problems the RCWD is
primarily concerned with water quality. To meet this concern, the District would like to see an in-
depth analysis of the Silver and Hart Lake drainage areas with regards to potential retrofit water
quality ponding. The RCWD may have cost-share monies available for water quality retrofit
projects.
Under Watershed D (Silver Lake drainage system) on page 76, it is stated that "efforts should be
made to provide wet detention areas or other improvements where practical" tributary to Silver Lake.
Has the City put any efforts into motion? Does the Capital Improvements and Implementation Plan
reflect this policy? Please address further.
WATER QUANTITY/HYDROLOGIC MODELING
Table 4-2 specifies a normal water level for Hart Lake of 950.0, which was assumed from USGS
quad maps. Does the City have an as-built for that storm sewer system which could provide a more
accurate normal water level? The RCWD often uses detailed studies such as the City's to provide
100-year flood elevations for stormwater bodies not included in the District's hydrologic model.
Please comment on the availability of more accurate data.
Mr. Joe Hollman -3-
March 15, 2000
Policy 4, page 78, specifies, "The City will require an SCS Type II 24-hour storm or other accepted
critical storm analysis to be considered in determining the critical event for stormwater storage
areas." While this statement is technically accurate, please augment this policy by including the 7.2-
inch, 10-day runoff event as the other potential 100-year critical event.
Policy 5, page 78, specifies the City will manage land use constraints along water resource features
based on their respective 100-year flood levels, as computed in preparation of the Columbia Heights
Water Resources Management Plan. 'Our plan only shows 100-year flood elevations for Hart Lake.
Please address the manner in which other water resource management high water levels will be
obtained within the RCWD.
Below is the hydrologic data for Silver Lake, which was included in the RCWD's District-wide
model. Please add this data to Table 4-2 and include a note as to its origin.
NWL 100-Year 100-Year Peak 100-Year Critical Event
Flood Level Discharge Detention Volume
930.99 933.8 16 cfs 210 ac-ft 10-day, 100-year runoff
Policy 3, page 77, addresses provisions for outlets to landlocked basins. Please augment this section
with a statement that specifies that placing outlets on previously landlocked basins will not create
significant impacts on downstream water levels and flow rates, and no wetlands are dewatered as a
result of outlet installation.
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
Does the City plan to adopt the DNR's shoreland management ordinance? Please address this topic
in the plan.
APPENDICES
· Please include the RCWD's full permit application, brochure materials, infiltration checklist, and
design guidelines in the plan's appendix.
The RCWD appreciates the City's efforts to bring the City of Columbia Heights' (Draft Comprehensive
Plan) Surface Water Management Plan into full conformance with District standards. Please contact
Kate Drewry (651) 7664193 or me at (763) 595-5261 with any questions.
Sincerely,
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Derek S. Knapp, P.E.
Kate Drewry, RCWD
Helen Boyer, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
What:
Where:
Who:
City of Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan
Public Hearing
The Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing to review the updated City Comprehensive
Plan which is a document that contains goals and policies used by
City officials to guide decision-making
Tuesday, May 9, 2000, at 7:00 PM
The public hearing will be preceded by an open house which will
begin at 6:30 PM
City Council Chambers of City Hall at 590 40th Avenue NE
All persons having an interest will be given the opportunity to be
heard