HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 10, 2001MEMBERS
Tom Ramsdell, Chair
Donna Schmitt
Ted Yehle
Stephen W. Johnson
Tammera Ericson
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2001
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
590 N.E. 40TM AVENUE
o
o
Roll Call.
Minutes fi:om the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings of May 1, 2001 and June 5,
2001.
New Business:
A.
Bo
Site Plan Review
Commercial Addition
Case #2001-0712
Dr. Robert Donsker
3844 Central Avenue NE
Acquisition of 500 Mill Street
Acquisition of 4401 Quincy Street; Sale of 3913 Polk Street
Staff Reports:
· Memo addressing accessory structure comparisons and prior variances
· Updated comparative summary of other cities accessory structure allowances
Adjourn.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Visit Our Website at: www. ci. colurnbia-heights.mn.u$
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES
May 1, 2001
MEMBERS
Tom RamsdelL Char
Donna Schmilt
Ted Yehle
Stephan Johnson
Tammera Ericson
The May 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson
Ramsdell. Members present were Schmitt, Ericson, Johnson, Yehle, and Ramsdell. Also present were Kathryn
Pepin (Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission), and Tim Johnson (City Planner).
Motion by Yehle, seconded by Ericson, to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 3, 2001 as presented in
writing. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearing
Variances
Case #2001-0507
Richard L. Abraham
3954 Arthur St. N.E.
Columbia Heights, Mn.
Planner Johnson presented the request Richard Abraham for a 760 square foot variance from garage size and a
three foot variance from garage height to allow the construction of a 30 foot by 40 foot (1200 sq. ft.) eighteen
(18) foot high detached garage on the property at 3954 Arthur Street 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. He added that currently, there is 560 square feet of
attached garage space on the property (3-car garage) with an additional 1200 square feet proposed. Section
9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance also requires that no accessory structure can exceed 15 feet in height, as
measured to the highest point. The plans indicate that the proposed addition will be 18 feet in height which
requires a three (3) foot variance.
He directed the Commission's attention to the application and narrative enclosed in the agenda which stated that
the purpose of the request is to provide additional space for auto, boat, motorcycle, and trailer parking, as well as
to provide additional storage for other various items.
Planner Johnson informed the Commission that the surrounding property to the north, south, east and west is
zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential, and is used residentially.
He informed the Commission that accessory structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning
Ordinance with requirements as follows:
No accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure or fifteen (15) feet, whichever is
less. The plans indicate that the proposed garage will be 18 feet to the highest point which requires a
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 2
variance. He added that the proposed zoning ordinance would allow for a garage height to be eighteen
(18) feet.
No accessory structure or combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet. The
proposed detached garage will be 40 feet wide by 30 feet deep for a total of 1200 square feet. The
existing attached garage space is 560 square feet. The cumulative square footage for accessory
structures on the property will be 1,760 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 13% which meets this requirement. However, much of the lot is unbuildable because of the
"L" shape configuration and its use as a driveway to'access the property.
Detached accessory structures must be six (6) feet or more from the principal structure. The existing
detached garage is approximately 50 feet away 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. This requirement is not applicable as the
garage doors would face the rear of the neighbors property.
Accessory structures shall be a minimum of three (3) feet inside the side and rear lot lines as approved by
the Building Official. The proposed detached garage would be six (6) feet from the side lot line and 15
feet from the rear lot line. State Building Code requires any residential accessory structure exceeding
1,000 square feet to be more than five feet from any property line and not to allow any openings of any
kind in that five foot area, including doors, windows, etc.
Planner Johnson reminded the Commission that 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
whereby 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. He stated that
the real issue at hand is '"can this property be put to reasonable use under the controls of the ordinance?" and
"Are the circumstances unique to the property in question in order to justify granting of this variance?"
As indicated in the attached narrative submitted by the applicant, the lot size is 22,000 plus square feet with the
proposed lot coverage at 13% if the garage is approved. He stated that the lot coverage isn't an issue. The
property is unusually large for a City lot, and does have an unusual shape, but this hardship statement isn't
applicable because the shape doesn't restrict the garage proposed. The proposed garage height is eighteen (18)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 3
feet, which is consistent with the proposed zoning ordinance. However, coupled with the fact that the proposed
structure is 40 feet wide by 30 feet deep; the structure will be very large in size.
Planner Johnson again stated that the applicant is proposing the detached structure to create additional space for
auto/boat, miscellaneous storage. The applicant has stated that he does not intend to operate any business out of
the garage. However, a garage of this size could be used in the future for some type of business operation. He
noted 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."
He added that considering that there is a three-car attached garage on the property, the parking requirement has
been met without the additional garage. The additional garage will provide storage for a minimum of four additional
vehicles and then some. He further noted that the applicant has obtained the adjacent property owners signatures
who have evidently given their written consent to this proposal. However, he stated that he has received a number
of phone calls generated from the public hearing notice mailed, in opposition to this proposal.
Planner Johnson stated that, as previously mentioned, 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 as 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;
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.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 4
Johnson stated that Staff is aware of two previous cases where a variance was granted to allow accessory
structures in excess of the maximum allowed. The following briefly summarizes these cases.
In May of 2000 the Planning Commission and City Council approved a request for Richard Kinnan at 819
N.E. 49"' Avenue for an eighteen foot high 864 square foot garage, with a variance of 824 square feet
above the 1,000 square foot maximum allowed. However, staff had recommended denial due to lack of
clear hardship and unreasonable use of the property.
In July of 1998 a variance was approved 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 (21' x 22i); One 154 square foot shed (7' x 22'); and, a 578 square footEuest 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.
Planner Johnson stated that the City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential
Development. The proposal would not appear to impact the goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan.
However, he added that staff has reservations about whether a garage of this size is reasonable in addition to an
existing three-car attached garage.
He added that 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. The height variance alone is not in issue, but it certainly creates a
much larger structure on a 30 X 40 foot proposal. It is staff's opinion that because minimum lot coverage and
setback requirements will be met, the property would not be overcrowded, and adequate light, air, and convenient
access to the property would be maintained, therefore, the proposal seems consistent with the spirit and intent of
the Ordinance. However, staff believes that the size variance requested is unreasonable and cannot recommend
approval from a planning perspective. The applicant is allowed to build this garage at 20 feet by 22 feet without a
variance, giving the applicant a total of five covered parking spaces. It was his opinion that this would seem to be
a much more reasonable proposal. In addition, a garage of this size in a sinole-family area could be considered a
visual obtrusion for adjacent neighbors.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 5
Chairperson Ramsdell opened the public hearing.
Ellen Zimmerman of 1916 N.E. 40'h Avenue was present as she lives behind the property in question. She stated
that when she purchased the property, she really liked all the trees on the adjacent property and was disappointed
when the current owners removed many of the trees to build their home. She added that the proposed structure
does not affect her as much as it does others in the area, however, her main concern is that her visibility will be
obstructed by the height and size of the proposed structure. She could not understand why the owner brought in
so much fill to raise the grade of the area instead of leveling off the lot in preparation to build his proposed garage.
It was her opinion that this proposed structure would not fit. in with the rest of the neighborhood and would change
the neighborhood forever. She added that the current garage of the Abraham's is full of "stuff" and not used to
park cars at all.
Virginia Kindy of 3952 Arthur Street was present and stated that she lives south of the lot in question and she,
too, has enjoyed the trees and animals. She added that there are still a lot of trees left and has no objection to the
proposed structure.
Marcia Sutton of 19908 N.E. 40th Avenue was present to state that her property abuts the rear of the Abraham's
lot and that the proposed building will obstruct all her view.
Mildred Myhre of 1902 N.E. 40'h Avenue also lives behind the Abraham's lot strongly objected to the height and
size of the structure as it would not fit into the neighborhood and also block her view.
Jon Weber of 3946 Arthur Street stated that he had no objection to the proposal.
Wally Goetz of 3956 Arthur Street offered no objection to the proposal. He added that there is a lot of things
laying in the yard that could be stored in the proposed building which would clean up the yard.
Richard Abraham of 3954 Arthur Street, owner of the property in question, was present to address the concerns
of the neighbors. He stated that it is his intention to plant trees around the proposed building to screen it and to
replace some of the trees removed for the construction of the house and garage. He has already planted 21 trees
of differing varieties as well as plants and bushes and intends on planting more in the future. He brought in the fill
around a natural rise in the rear of the property to level it out for the proposed construction.
Chairperson Ramsdell closed the public hearing. He stated that the 760 square foot variance is quit large as Mr.
Abraham could construct a 20'x22' garage without a variance. He explained that State Statute requires an undue
hardship in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the variance. He stated that after visiting the
site, he would have a tough time approving the variance due to the size of the request and lack of hardship. He
further explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council and that
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 6
the City Council has the final say in such matters. He informed Mr. Abraham that if approved, there would be
conditions attached such as sodding the yard and paving the driveway and all areas where vehicles are intended to
be parked.
Commissioner Ericson stated that the City's Zoning Ordinance is pretty liberal in what is allowed. She asked what
Mr. Abraham's justification would be for allowing the variance as by requesting a variance, he is telling the
Commission that his property cannot be reasonably used without the variance. She added that personal
possessions or financial need cannot be considered a hardship.
Mr. Abraham stated that he shares his driveway with an adjacent neighbor who has an easement and that his
three car attached garage is too small as he has an old car, camper, boat, canoe, 3 bikes, truck and other items
that he wants to get inside and out of the yard. He presented a list of signatures from adjacent property owners
who did not object to the proposal.
Chairperson Ramsdell stated that he visited the site with Planner Johnson and felt that an area in front of the
attached garage would accommodate two cars.
Commissioner Yehle stated that sometimes people have just too much belongings and have to pare down or store
off site. He added that he had to sell an antique car he owned because he did not have room on his lot to store it
and didn't want to have to store it off site.
Commissioner Johnson stated that, as a realtor, he finds that most people like openness and trees, and the
proposed size and height of the proposed building could affect property values and sales. He explained that they
look at the features of the neighboring properties as well as what is in the yard. It was his opinion that the
proposed garage is too large for the neighborhoods in this city, a smaller garage would be more beneficial. In
addition, no hardship has been identified in his mind to recommend approval of the variance.
Commissioner Schmitt agreed that the size of the garage would not fit into the residential character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Motion by Yehle, seconded by Johnson, to recommend to the City Council the denial of the 760 square foot
variance request because a legitimate hardship has not been established, and the property can be put to reasonable
use under the provisions of the ordinance. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed.
Motion by Yehle, seconded by Johnson, to recommend to the City Council the approval of the three (3) foot height
variance as the proposal is consistent with the newly proposed height standard of eighteen (18) feet. Voice Vote:
All Ayes. Motion passed.
PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSIOIfl
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 7
"*THIS ITEM TO APPEAR ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA OF MAY 14, 2001.
B. Site Plan Review
Case #2001-0508
PMJ Group, Inc.
RE: 4301 N.E. 3'" St.
Planner Johnson presented the request of Mike Juaire representing PMJ Group, Inc. for site plan approval to
permit construction of a four unit rental townhouse building at 4301 N. E. 3'" Street. The submitted plans show a
building footprint of 70 feet by 42 feet which includes 1,24§ square feet of living space for units 1 and 2, and
1,29§ square feet of living space for units 3 and 4. Each unit includes two bedrooms, and furnished appliances. He
directed the Commission's attention to an attached narrative describing the proposed project as well as elevation
drawings, and floor plans for these four, two level townhouse units.
He added that this property has been vacant for an extended period of time and the PMJ Group has purchased the
property which measures 110 feet by 110 fee and intends to build a new four-plex similar to the 4-plexes formerly
approved on 44t" and University Avenue. He added that the surrounding property on the north, south, and west is
zoned R-3 (Multi-Family District) and is used residentially while property to the east is University Avenue.
Planner Johnson stated that the proposal is a permitted use in the R-3, Multi-Family, District of the Zoning
Ordinance as noted in Section 9.109(1)(b), which states that "multiple family buildings [are permitted uses]
subject to the lot area per family provisions of Section 9.109(4)(5).
He informed the Commission that the revised proposal meets and exceeds the minimum yard and density
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Lot Width shall be at least 80 feet. The subject parcel exceeds this requirement with a lot
width of 110 feet.
Minimum lot area shall be at least 10,000 square feet. Subject parcel exceeds this requirement with
12,188 square feet. Total lot coverage of the primary building and accessory structures is 30%.
Front Yard Setback shall be 30 feet. The building proposed is at the minimum 30 foot setback.
The Side Yard Setback shall be 10 feet. The proposal will exceed this requirement with 20 foot setbacks
from both property lines.
· Rear Yard Setback shall be 20 feet. The subject pamel exceeds this requirement with a 38 foot setback.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 8
The front fa,cade area as recommended in the proposed ordinance requires a minimum of 20% of the front
fa~:ade area facing a street to be doors or windows in residential areas. This proposal covers 21% of the
front fa.cade area, meeting the requirements of the proposed ordinance.
He informed the Commission that the parking requirements will be met as each unit includes a two-stall garage
which is 20 ft. by 20 ft. This is the minimum recommended size for a two stall garage. The proposal includes two
units, each with a two-car attached garage, and two units each with a two-car detached garage. He stated that
the new Comprehensive Plan designates this area as medium and high density residential making this residential 4-
plex proposal consistent with the surrounding residential area and consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Juaire was present to explain that it will be necessary that some of the trees at the rear of the lot be removed
to accommodate the detached garage and green space. It will also be necessary to construct a retaining wall in
the rear yard due to the change in grade of approximately 10% from the front curb to the rear property line adding
that he will be removing about 5,000 yards of soil. He intends to attempt saving some of the trees at the site but
it is questionable how many. He will also bo installing drainage swales between properties to contain runoff.
Planner Johnson stated that the removal of the soil and change in grade of the proposed construction be required
to be reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department.
Commissioner Ericson commended Mr. Juaire on the visual aesthetics of the proposed structure with the additional
windows in the front of the building. The Commissioners concurred.
Motion by Ramsdell, second by Yehle, to approve the site plan request to allow a 70 ft. by 42 foot, four-unit
rental townhouse building at 4301 N.E. 3'" Street in the R-3 Multi-Family District subject to review and approval
by the City Engineering Department due to the amount of soil that will be removed from the site. Voice Vote: All
Ayes. Motion passed.
Staff Reports: Planner Johnson stated that there was no staff report for this meeting.
Chairperson Ramsdell commented on the seminar he and fellow Commissioners attended stating that it was very
informative, provided good information pertaining to their job as Commissioners and was money well spent for the
City. He added that the presentation was easy to understand and he learned a lot. He felt that it was also a good
opportunity bringing the Commissioners together for a common goal. The other Commissioners concurred adding
that it would be a good annual learning experience and refresher course that addressed issues they have been
laboring over especially with the new Zoning and Development Ordinance. Commissioner Yehle added that legal
issues were addressed as well as the hardship issues. They all were very enthusiastic about the seminar.
PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES
MAY 1, 2001
PAGE 9
Motion by Yehle, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
passed.
Kathryn Pepin
Secretary to the Plannin9 and Zoning Commission
kp
Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion
PLA, NNING A. ND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 5, 2001
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm by Chairperson Ramsdell. Shelley Hanson
was appointed Secretary for this meeting.
Roll Call:
Commission Members present-Ramsdell, Ericson, Schmitt, and Yehle.
Commission member Johnson was not in attendance.
Also present was Tim Johnson (City Planner).
The minutes from the meeting of May 1, 2001, were not included in the agenda packets,
so could not be approved at this time.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Public Heating-Lot Split Brian Roeller
Case #2001-0609 3855 Main Street
Planner Johnson presented the request of Brian Roeller for a lot split of the property
located at 3855 Main Street. The lot is currently 40 x 126 in size and the proposal is to
divide the property in half and add 20 feet to each of the adjoining property owners at
3859 Main St and 3849 Main Street. This lot split resulting in additional footage for both
properties would bring both lots into conformance with current City lot standards. The
proposal is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum
requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance.
Section 9.108(4) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, width,
and yard requirement in the R-3 District, and Section 9.104(5) regulates accessory
structures. Applicable requirements are as follows:
Minimum lot size shall be 6,500 square feet for a single family home-the
proposed tract "A" is 7,572 square feet and Tract "B" is 8,834 square feet, both of
which meet minimum lot size requirements.
Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet-Tract "A" will be 60 feet wide and Tract "B"
will be 70 feet wide.
Front yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet-the existing house on Lot 30 does not
meet this requirement as it is 24 feet from fi'ont property line, but is considered
'grandfathered'. The existing house of Lot 28 does not meet this requirement
either as it is 15 feet from the fi'ont property line, but is also considered
'grand fathered'.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF
JIJNE 5, 2001
PAGE 2
Rear yard shall be at least 30 feet-the existing houses on Tract "A" and Tract "B"
will both meet this requirement.
Side yard shall be at least five feet-the existing house on Lot 30 is currently 6.5
feet from side property line, and the new side yard setback will be 26.5 feet,
meeting requirements. The existing house on Lot 28 is currently 3.4 feet from the
side property line, but the lot addition will provide an eighteen(18) foot side yard
setback, thus meeting requirements.
Detached accessory structures shall be at least 3 feet away from side and rear
property lines-there is currently a detached garage on Lot 30 which meets the
setback requirements. The detached garage on lot 28 is 2.3 feet from the property
line, which does not meet requirements. However, the new side yard setback will
be 22.3 feet, thus meeting requirements.
Any lot over 6,500 square feet may have a lot coverage of up to 30%-the lot
coverage on Tract "A" and Tract "B" will be well under 30%, so the proposal
meets these requirements.
Staff recommends approval of this request.
Ramsdell asked about the background of how this property became available. Planner
Johnson explained that Mr. Roeller purchased the property from the city and had the old
structure demolished in December 2000. The two adjoining property owners have been
maintaining the property since the time of their purchase.
The request for a lot split of 3855 Main St was opened up for a Public Hearing. There
were no further questions or comments.
Motion by Yehle, seconded by Ericson, to recommend City Council approve the lot split
as it is consistent with city subdivision standards. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
B. Site Plan Review
Case #2001-0610
PMJ Group-Mike Juaire
4255 3~ Street NE
The applicant requests site plan approval to permit the construction of a four unit, rental
townhouse, multi-family building at 4255 3rd Street. The submitted plans show a
building footprint of 70 ft by 42 ft which includes 1,245 sq ft of living space for units 1
and 2, and 1,295 sq f~ of living space for units 3 and 4. Each unit includes two bedrooms,
and furnished appliances. PMJ Group has purchased the property, which measures 110 ft
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
JUNE 2, 2001
PAGE 3
x 110 ft and intends to build a new 4-plex identical to the one formerly approved at 4301
3rd St, which abuts this site. The structure will face 3~ Street and have University Ave
for its back. It does comply with the new Comprehensive Plan for medium and high
density residential. The proposal fills a need for more upscale rental housing, will
enhance the surrounding neighborhood, increase the tax base, and the commtmity image
will be improved.
The Zoning Ordinance specifies that this proposal is a permitted use in the R-3 Multi-
family District as noted in Section 9.109 (1) (b), which states that "Multiple family
buildings are permitted uses subject to the lot area per family provision of Section 9.109
(4)(5)." The revised proposal meets and exceeds the minimum yard and density
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Lot width shall be at least 80 feet-subject parcel exceeds this requirement with a
lot width of 110 feet.
Minimum lot area shall be at least 10,000 sq f~-subject parcel exceeds this
requirement with 12,188 sq ft. Total lot coverage of the primary building and
accessory structures is 30%.
Front yard setback shall be 30 ft-building proposed is at the minimum 30 foot
setback.
The side yard setback shall be 10 ft-the proposal will exceed this requirement
with 20 foot setbacks from both property lines.
Rear setback shall be 20 R-the subject parcel exceeds this requirement with a 38
foot setback.
The front facade area as recommended in the proposed zoning ordinance requires
a minimum of 20% of the front faqade area facing a street to be doors or windows
in residential areas. This proposal covers 21% of the front fagade area, meeting
the requirements of the proposed ordinance.
Parking requirements will be met as each unit will have a two stall 20 x 20 garage. This
is the minimum recommended size for a two stall garage.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
JUNE 5, 2001
PAGE 4
Staffrecommends approval of the site plan to allow the construction of a four unit, rental
townhouse, multi family building at 4255 3rd St in the R-3 Multi Family District.
Commissioner Yehle questioned how we know these rental units will be maintained in
the future. Planner Johnson responded the city can only address code issues and building
quality, not future maintenance. Commissioner Ericson added she has spoken with other
cities where PMJ Group has built and managed other rental units, and they have been
pleased with both the construction and the maintenance of these rental units. Mike Jualre
was present at the meeting and stated that he plans on owning these units for quite some
time as this is his livelihood. He further said that he constructs these units to be fairly
maintenance free on the exterior and they are built to last. He also reported he would
probably put off developing the 4241 3ra St site until next year.
Motion by Ericson, seconded by Ramsdell to approve the site plan request to allow a 70
ft x 42 ft four unit rental townhome building at 4255 3rtl St in the R-3 Multi Family
District, subject to City Engineer review and approval before excavation or construction
occurs. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
C. Public Hearing-Conditional Use Kmart Corp
Case #2001-0611 4747 Central Ave
Brett Carey, manager of the Kmart store at 4747 Central Avenue is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow for the placement of a tent measuring 40 x 80 ft for the
display and sale of clearance items from June 15 through August 15, 2001. The display
is to be located on the west side of the store in the parking lot at 4747 Central Ave.
Approximately sixteen (16) parking spaces would be taken up as part of the tent display
in front of the Kmart store. This is the first time Kmart has applied for a conditional use
permit for this type of operation.
The Fire Department has reviewed and approved the construction plans for the tent.
Staff therefore, recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit provided a $500
deposit is submitted to the License/Permit Clerk prior to the display of the tent on the site
to ensure removal at the end of the approved time period.
Mr. Carey was present and stated the tent size has changed from the original request (40
x 80) to 40 fi x 60 fl. He was questioned about previous tents erected on the site and
plans for security. He stated that he was not aware of any previous tents being erected on
the property as he's only been with this store for 6 months. He also stated he has
arranged for night security to prohibit vandalism or thefts from occurring. This is being
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
JUNE 5,2001
PAGE 5
done on a trial basis and depending on the results, it may become an annual event. He
explained that other stores will also be sending over merchandise to this location to move
seasonal and clearance items.
Commissioner Schmitt asked whether Big Lots has been informed of these plans. She
was told that they had discussed the plans and both managers felt it would only help
attract consumers to the site.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Ericson to recommend City Council approve the
Conditional Use Permit to allow the placement of a 40 x 60foot tent for the display and
sale of clearance merchandise from June 15, through August 15, 2001 at 4747 Central
Avenue subject to the following conditions:
1. A $500 deposit shall be submitted to the License/Permit Clerk prior to display of the
merchandise tent on the lot.
2. Fire Dept shall review and approve the site plans and tent construction before the tent
can be erected.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
STAFF REPORTS
Planner Johnson informed the Commission members that the Second Reading of the
Zoning Ordinance took place May 29, 2001, and assuming there are no challenges, it will
take affect 30 days from that date. He thanked all the commission members for their hard
work and support during the process of getting this passed.
Planner Johnson presented data he had collected showing comparisons of other cities
allowances for accessory structures. The City Council had asked that data be obtained so
a comparison could be done to the language we have in our ordinance. Golden Valley
has the same language as ours even though some of their lots are larger. St. Louis Park,
New Brighton, and West St. Paul, allow for less square footage than our ordinance. It
was fairly common that a detached structure cannot exceed the square footage of the
principle structure. Johnson also noted that some cities do not count attached garages as
accessory structures, as we do.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINTUES OF MEETING OF
JUNE 5, 2001
PAGE 6
After reviewing the comparisons, Commissioner Yehle didn't feel there was any reason
to change from the language we have. He feels it is basically a fair way to deal with this
issue.
Commissioner Schmitt stated that 7 of the 12 cities polled, had the policy that accessory
structures cannot exceed the footprint square footage of the principle structure. She felt
maybe this should be incorporated into our language as well.
Also noted was if accessory structures exceed the 1,000 sq fi, there are setback and fire
safety requirements that need to be met.
Chairperson Ramsdell asked Johnson to do more research on this issue. He asked if
Johnson could determine the number of lots in our city over 6500 sq ft. He also asked
how many variances have been requested over the last 10 years for additional sized
accessory structures. Once this information has been obtained, the commission will make
a decision regarding the language in the zoning ordinance pertaining to this issue.
Commissioner Ericson asked for an update on the conditional use permit that was
approved for the property at 508 40th Avenue. Planner Johnson stated that the owners
have complied with all the conditions that were established. (The pole barn was removed,
the siding repaired, railings were installed in rear, and the parking lot has been striped).
However, no other progress has been made, and the building is still vacant.
Motion by Ericson, seconded by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 7:50pm. All ayes.
MOTION PASSED.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Recording Secretary
Case: 2000-1130
Page: 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE JULY 10, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING
Case #: 2001-0712
GENERAL INFORMATION
Owner: Robert Donsker Applicant: Same
Address: 3844 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN
(763) 781-6976
Phone:
Parcel Address: 3844 Central Avenue NE
Zoning: GB, General Business District
Comprehensive Plan: C, Commercial
Surrounding Zoning
and Land Uses:
Zoning
North: GB
South: GB
East: GB
West: R-3
Land Use
North: Commercial
South: Commercial
East: Commercial
West: Residential
BACKGROUND
Explanation of Request:
This is a request for site plan approval to allow for a 16 foot by 26 foot (416 sq. ft.) two-story
addition at 3844 Central Avenue NE. The proposed addition will allow for a business office and
an expanded reception room.
Case Histo~_ :
The building has housed a number of businesses over the years, but has been utilized as a dental
office for some time. The business was granted a sign variance in 1998 to allow for the existing
freestanding sign to encroach into the front yard setback area.
ANALYSIS
Surrounding ProperW_ :
The property to the north, south, and east is zoned GB, General Business District, and is used
commercially. The property to the west is zoned R-3, Multi-Family and is used residentially.
Technical Review:
The subject property is zoned GB, and according to Section 9.1005 of the Columbia Heights
Case: 2000-1130
Page: 2
Zoning Ordinance, medical and dental clinics are listed as a permitted use in this district.
Minimum Yard and Density Requirements are as follows:
· The Floor Area Ratio shall not exceed 1.0 - The proposed Floor Area Ratio is .25, which
meets the minimum requirements.
· Minimum frontage shall be forty (40) feet and lot size shall be 6,000 - The current site
has approximately 92 feet of frontage and is 10, 075 square feet, meeting requirements.
· Front Yard Setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet. Side Yard Setbacks shall be zero (0) feet
and Rear Yard Setbacks shall be twenty (20) feet - The existing building and the
proposed addition is approximately four (4) feet from the side property line and the
proposed addition will be approximately forty (40) feet from the rear line, meeting
requirements. The proposed addition will not affect the front yard setback area.
Parking requirements for medical and dental clinics are one (1) space for 300 square feet of gross
floor area. According to Section 9.612(10) of the ordinance, seven ~s are
required. A site plan submitted indicates that the dental clinic~ilI have nine (9) off-street spaces
available for use in the rear parking area in addition to the garage parking. The current parking
spaces are shown on the site plan and butt up against the alley. The proposed configuration
greatly improves the parking situation by moving the proposed parking spaces up closer to the
building.
The new ordinance requires a 24 foot access aisle for adequate maneuvering, but because the site
plan was submitted before the ordinance took effect, there is no minimum access aisle width
required. The proposed parking change will allow for vehicles to utilize seven 9 X 20 foot spaces
and still maintain a minimum distance of approximately ten feet fi-om the property line (alley). I
have spoken with Kevin Hansen (P.W. Director) about the parking proposal, and he believes that
the parking config--~ati0n"prop6sed is the appropriate design for this lot. Full perimeter curbing
will not be required and cannot be accommodated with the design of the parking area. A
landscaping buffer from residential properties will also not be required as a buffer is not feasible
at this location and is not recommended by Public Works due to maintenance concerns in this
alley.
Cun'ently, handicapped access is only available through the front of the building. The City could
request a handicap stall be provided in the rear, but this would require Dr. Donsker to install an
elevator, which could be very cost prohibitive. There is no way for a wheelchair to access the
building on the west side because of the topography. Mr. Donsker and the City will work
together to continue to provide an accessible handicap option for the business in light of the
reconstruction along Central Avenue.
Staff has reviewed the new commercial addition proposed on the northwest side of the building,
which will be built to match the existing structure and which meets all required setbacks from
property lines. The proposed addition will be used for a business office and a larger reception
room. With this addition, new landscaping and green space is being proposed for the area
between the parking lot and the building, and will provide an appropriate area to allow for runoff
Case: 9904-14
Page: 3
to dissipate.
Compliance with Ci~_ Comprehensive Plan:
The recently approved Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future commercial use.
Summary:
The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows:
1. The proposal meets the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposal represents an improvement to the Central Avenue Commercial District.
The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows:
1. There are no apparent negative aspects to this proposal.
CONCLUSION
Sta_~ Recommendation:
Staffrecommends approval of the site plan to allow a commercial addition measuring 16 feet by
26 feet (416) square foot addition at 3844 Central Avenue NE. Public works and the Fire
Department have reviewed the plans and have expressed no concerns with the proposal.
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve the site plan to allow a two-story 16 foot by 26 foot addition onto the rear of
the existing building at 3844 Central Avenue NE.
Attachments:
· Completed application form; Site Plan; Survey; Narrative;
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
lication For:
Rezoning
Variance
Privacy Pence
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision Approval
Site Plan Approval
Other
Application Date: ~lhl/~
case No.' '
Fee: ~'~.~t~ Date Paid
2. Legal Description of Subject Property:
Applicant
Name:
Address: ~~ ~f~"~ _~U~ /~
Name:
Address:
Phone:
5. Description of Request;
6. ZoninK:
Applicable City Ordinance Number
Present Zoningi__~
Present Use
Section
Proposed Zoning
Proposed Use
Reason for Request=
8. Exhibits Submitted (maps, diagrams, etc.)
9. Acknowledgment and SiKnature: The undersisned hereby represents upon all of the
penalties of law, 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 work herein
mentioned will be done in of the City o£ Columbia Heights
accordan_.e.e-a~h_~t~inances
and the laws of the State o£
Signature of
Date:
Taken Bt: TO'-
To: Tim Johnson, City Planner
Columbia Heights Planning Commission
From: Robert Donsker D.D.S. property owner at 3844 Central Ave. N.E.
Dear Sirs;
We are currently planning a 16x 26 footprint 2 story addition to the rear of our building.
Also planned is an expansion of the parking lot in the rear of the building from five slots to
eight with additional turnaround space.
The building addition will house a stairway that will bring people up from rear level to the
recepti .on room at street level. Also included in the addition will be reception room
expansion and a needed business office.
This expansion of our facility is needed for 2 reasons. The first reason is the need for
more street level space. The second reason is due to the proposed redo of Central Ave.
in front of the building. Even though the current proposal allows a cut in in front of the
property for street parking, this will accommodate four cars tops, and it appears we still
need to reserve two of those spaces for handicapped parking. This all necessitates more
parking in the rear of the building, and a safe interior stairway that allows for a dry, safe way
for people to get from rear level to street level.
There will be no significant grade changes that will effect adjoining properties.
S ince~~.~_~
Robert J. Donsker DDS
14
Lot, 3, except the no~'th 8 feet the~'eof,* and Co~; 4, BIoc~ 87, COLUHBIA
HEIC~T$ AtttiEX TO HIHI~£APOL[$, Anoka County, l~tnnesot, a.
j~ 397~ f 820
1 .. 3970
i~. 3~ 7
3959
3957
~ 3953
s 3943
3968
3960
3956
3952
39448
3944
3939 3938
3935 3934
3931
3930
5900
AVE
3857 3856
38448
3847
3840
3837 3836
3832
3833
3828
3829 3824
3823 3820
3819 3816
3813 3812
3810
5805
3806
3801
5731 3730
3727 3726
5723 3720
3719 3716
3713
3705 3708
3704
801 3700
AVE
3975
3975
3967
3963
3959
3955
3953
3949
3943
3935
3931
3923
3921
3917
3911
3907
3901
129.2'
5976
3970
3964
3962
3956
3946
59442
3958
3934
393O
5922
3918
3914-
3906
3900
129.2'
129o2'
3855
5849
5845
3841
5837
3835
3829
3825
3821
3815
3809
5805
3801
3731
3725
3723
3719
3709
3701
129.2'
9OO
3961
3957
3951
3947
3943
3939
3935
3931
3923
3915
3701
129.2'
Updated - 2/25/00 RN
Updated - 5/15/00 RN
CENTRAL AVE.
'92
N
EXISTING GREEN SPACE
3.5
set back
22.2
Existing 2 story frame
38.1
NEW 1 6X26
ADDITION
415 SQFT.
ilkout stucco
1548 SQ FT.
27.0
26.1
22.4
lower level
garage
23
109.15
F_~ 'lNG
RE I AINING
WALL
GREEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING
72.1'
ALLEY
14
REAR ADDITION FOR 3844 CENTRAL AVE. ROBERT J. DONSKER DDS
r
PROPOSED TWO STORY 16X 26 FOOT PRINT STUCCO ADDITION WITH
INTERIOR 2 STORY STAIRCASE, AND 3 STALL EXPANSION OF PARKING.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mayor
Gary L. Peterson
Councilmember~
Donald G. Jolly
Marlaine Szurek
Julienne Wyckoff
John Hunter
City Manager
Walter R. Fehst
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 5, 2001
Planning and Zoning Commission
Tim Johnson, City Planner
Acquisition of property
The existing single-family home at 500 Mill Street has been proposed to be acquired by the City
Council. The property is intended to be reused in the future as an addition to Huset Park.
However, there is no specific plan as to what purpose the land will be used for in the future.
Minnesota Statute 462.356 requires that if a City has a Comprehensive Plan, it must notify the
Planning Commission of the intent to purchase or sell land.
The newly adopted City Comprehensive Plan designates this property for parkland use. The
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as this parcel is designated for future use as a
park.
Recommended Motion:
Move to support the action of the Columbia Heights City Council to acquire the property at 500
Mill Street NE, provided the future development of this parcel remains consistent with the City
Comprehensive Plan.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mayor
Gary L. Pctcrson
Councilmembers
Donald G. Jolly
Marlaine Szurek
Julienne Wyckoff
John Hunter
City Manager
Walter R. Fehst
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 5,2001
Planning and Zoning Commission
Tim Johnson, City Planner
Acquisition of property and sale of City-Owned property
The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) currently owns the vacant lot at
3913 Polk Street, which it is selling to Habitat for Humanity for $1. Habitat intends to build an
affordable single-family home on this property. The existing substandard single-family home
located at 4401 Quincy Street is proposed to be acquired by the City Council, by utilizing
$70,000 in HOME funds, a $17,500 city match, and $35,650 in monies from Habitat for
Humanity. In its place (after demolition), Habitat for Humanity will be constructing two owner-
occupied affordable units.
Minnesota Statute 462.356 requires that if a City has a Comprehensive Plan, it must notify the
Planning Commission of the intent to purchase or sell land.
The City Comprehensive Plan designates both properties for future low-density residential
development, which includes single and two-family residential development. The proposal will
be consistent with the Plan regardless of whether the properties become two-family units or stay
as single-family units.
Recommended Motion:
Move to support the action of the Columbia Heights City Council to sell the property at 3913
Polk Street NE, and to acquire the property at 4401 Quincy Street NE, provided the final
development proposals remain consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan.
From:
Date:
Re:
Planning Commission
Tim Johnson
6/29/01
Garage Structure Comparisons
I have assembled an updated list of fifteen cities (fn'st and second ting suburbs) and their
allowances for attached and detached garages, as requested by the Commission. From the
information presented, most cities don't count attached garages as part of their maximum
allowance for accessory structures. However, the maximum size allowance for accessory
structures of most of these cities cannot exceed the building footprint of the principal
structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. This seems to be common language. There
are also a few cities who base their square footage allowance for accessory structures on the
lot area and lot width (Crystal, Robbinsdale, St. Anthony).
Please note that Golden Valley and Columbia Heights have identical language for accessory
attached and detached structures even though Golden Valley lots are typically twice the size
of most of Columbia Heights lots. In my observation, the communities of Saint Louis Park,
West Saint Paul, and South Saint Paul seem to be comparable with Columbia Heights in their
physical features. Note that New Brighton also has a unique way of treating accessory
garages, as they have a limitation on size of detached garages if an attached garage exists.
Staff would like the Planning Commission to review this summary in light of the three
variance requests from size requirements for garages since 1998. These variance requests
were the only ones that staff found in researching back to the 1980's. Staff is not advocating
a change, but would like the Commission to consider a few options if they so choose to
consider an amendment.
Here are a few options to consider:
· Do nothing. You can leave the ordinance the way it is if you feel the current
provisions are reasonable and benefit the majority of Columbia Heights residents.
· Amend the current provisions so that attached garages are not treated as accessory
structures. This would require placing a maximum square footage on detached
structures (600-1,000 square feet?); not to exceed the building footprint.
· Amend the current provisions to allow larger allowances based upon lot width or lot
area, not to exceed a certain square footage. This option could present some
challenges as to determining lot width for abnormally shaped lots.
COMPARISON OF OTHER CITIES
ALLOWANCES FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
City of Richfield
· 1,000 sq. ft. maximum for detached structures
· detached structure cannot exceed principal structure sq. ft.
· allow an additional 200 sq. ft. above 1,000 sq. ft. for attached garage space
City of St. Anthony
· Lots 7,000 sq. ft. or less allow a maximum 0£35% lot coverage for house and acc
structures
· Lots 9,000 sq. ft. or more allow a maximum 0£40% lot coverage £or house and
acc structures
City of Robbinsdale
Lot Width Max. size for a single building
Total coverage of all ACC
bld~. Incl. Attach. Struct.
0-49 ft. 800 1000
50-59 ft. 860 1060
60-79 ft. 920 1120
80-99 ft. 1000 1200
100+ ft. 1200 1400
In no case shall the floor area of an ACC building exceed 100% of the main floor area
of the principal structure.
City of Crystal · No ACC. Structure can exceed 30% of the rear yard area
· Attached garages are not considered ACC. Structures.
st. Louis Park
· No ACC. Structure can exceed 25% of the rear lot area or 800 sq. fl; whatever
is less.
· Don't treat attached garages as ACC. Structures
· Detached structure footprint cannot exceed the footprint of the principal
structure.
City of Edina · 1,000 sq. ft. maximum for detached garages
· Attached garages are not treated as ACC. Structures
· Detached structure footprint cannot exceed the footprint of the principal
structure.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
V~sit Our WeTb~ite at: ~t~O~[tlalh~ghts. mn. us
· 1,000 sq. ft. maximum for detached garages
· ACC. Structure cannot exceed the sq. ft. of principal structure.
· Allow for up to 1,500 sq. ft. offACC. Structure, but only if lot is one acre or
more.
New Brighton · If a property has attached garage space; detached garages cannot exceed 600
sq. ft.
· If no attached garage, detached structure cannot exceed 1,000 sq. fL
Cite of Lauderdale
· No accessory structure can exceed 30% of lot coverage
10.
West St. Paul · 800 sq. ft. allowed for lots 75 feet in width or greater for detached garages
· 624 sq. ft. allowed for lots 60 feet in wide or less
· Attached garages are not treated as ACC. Structures
11.
Golden Valley · Allows for a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure including
attached or detached
· Detached structure cannot exceed the principal structure in size
12.
South
St. Paul
1,000 sq. ft. maximum for detached structures
Detached garage footprint cannot exceed the footprint of the principal
structure
13.
City of Fridle¥
· Total floor area of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet.
· Any second accessory structure in excess of 240 square feet shall require a special
use permit.
· A private garage shall not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit
or a maximum of 1,000 square feet.
14.
Nomh
Saint Paul
· The total square feet of an accessory structure shall not exceed 10% of the lot
area, and in no case shall it exceed 1,008 square feet of gross floor area.
· Attached garages are not treated as ACC. Structures
15.
Falcon Heights
· The total area of all accessory buildings cannot exceed 1,000 square feet or
40% of 30 X lot width; whichever is less.
H:\Tim2001 ,Garage Structure Comparisons
THE CITY Of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE on THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF' SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER