Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1, 2001CITY 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. columbia-heights, mn. us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES May 1, 2001 MEMBERS Tom Ramsdell, Chak Donna Schmitt 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 keepino 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. 49tb 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 22'); One 154 square foot shed (7' x 22'); and, a 578 square foot guest cab/fi, 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 single-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. 40th 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. 40th 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. Jori 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 AND ZONING COMMISSIOIN 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'd 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 1,245 square feet of living space for units 1 and 2, and 1,295 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 feur-plex similar to the 4-plexes formerly approved on 44th and University Avenue. He added that the surrounding property an 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 parcel 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 facade 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 be 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 AND 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. Voice Vote: passed. Kathryn Pepin Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission kp All Ayes. Motion