Loading...
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