HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 5, 2004PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2004
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by the Chair person Gary Peterson.
Roll Call: Commission Members present-Peterson, Schmitt, Baker, and Fiorendino.
Commission Members Absent-Szurek
Also present were Ellen Berkelhamer (City Planner), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), and Tami
Ericson (Council Liaison).
Motion by Baker, seconded by Fiorendino, to approve the minutes from the meeting of
September 8, 2004. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER: 2004-1001
LOT SPLIT
Steve Johnson and Anthony Palacino
1600 41st Avenue NF_J4050 Tyler St NE
Introduction
Steve Johnson and Anthony Palacino, the owners of the property at 1600 41st Ave NE, have made
application for a lot split of 1600 41st Ave and 4050 Tyler St NE to create a total of three lots. The lot at
4050 Tyler St NE is owned by Bennet W. Nelson, who has signed the lot split application.
Section 9.410 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that an application for a lot split be
reviewed by the planning and Zoning Commission, which shall then provide a report to the City Council
either recommending approval or denial of the proposed lot split.
Planning Considerations
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development. The
proposed lot split will create newly configured lots that continue to be consistent with this designation.
Consistency with Zoning Ordinance
Both of the properties involved in the lot split are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The lots are
surrounded on all sides by property zoned R-I. The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot
coverage requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning
Ordinance regulates lot area, setback, height and lot coverage requirements and Section 9.603
regulates accessory structures and lot coverages. Applicable requirements are as follows:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 2
OCTOBER 5, 2004
· Minimum lot size shall be 8,400 sq. ft. for a single family home. Currently, the lot at 1600 41't
Ave contains 18,941 sq. ft. and the lot at 4050 Tyler St NE contains 18,946 sq. ft. After the
proposed lot split, 1600 41st Ave NE would contain 8,699 sq. ft. and 4050 Tyler St St. NE would
contain 14,902 sq. ft. and the new, third lot would contain 8,452 sq. ft.
· Minimum lot width shall be 70 feet. After the lot split, each of the lots shall exceed this
requirement.
· Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 7 ff.; rear yard - 20% of lot
depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the
setbacks of existing structures on both properties will continue to meet these requirements. Any
new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these requirements.
· Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent: After the
proposed lot split, 1600 41st Av. NE will have a lot coverage of 15.4 percent and 4050 Tyler St.
NE would have a lot coverage of 7.9 percent. Any new structures that may be built subsequent
to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement.
Findings of Fact
1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision
will create a total of three lots.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The
proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements.
3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements
established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed above, the lots
conform to the minimum requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the purpose of
gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any dedication of public
dght-of-way.
5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this
Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor subdivisions of the
property.
6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The prOPosed
subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land.
7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records
related to assessments. As long as the applicant records the lot split with Anoka County in
accordal~ce with all City and County requirements, this finding will be met.
8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14 (Subdivision
Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.
Staff finds that the proposed lot sPlit is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the
minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the lot split, subject to four conditions.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 3
OCTOBER 5, 2004
Fiorendino asked what the width was parallel to the back of the houses. Planner Berkelhamer stated
the new lot would measure 73 feet, the property at 1600 41st Ave would measure 76 feet and the
property at 4050 Tyler would measure 72 feet. She noted the narrow side of the lot is considered
the front for setbacks for the 1600 41't Ave property.
Baker asked about how the parkland, dedication fee is arrived at. Berkelhamer explained that anytime a
new lot is created, an owner must dedicate 10% of the land or 10% of the assessed value for park.
Peterson opened up the Public Hearing.
Howard Wigand 4044 Tyler St had several questions and comments. He questioned if the property will
remain zoned R-I. Berkelhamer explained that is the current zoning for the area and that a Public
Headng would be required to re-zone it or to change the land use of the property. He questioned
who would be developing the newly created lot. The applicants stated that a builder had not been
selected yet. But the only thing that could be built on the site is a single family home meeting all
the requirements.
He also was concerned about drainage issues if the property is developed due to elevation issues and
how it might affect his property. Berkelhamer stated this issue would be addressed as part of the
plan review process, as well as, setbacks, lot coverage, and parking.
Fiorendino asked the applicant, Steve Johnson, about the drainage issue. Johnson stated that water
runoff should run to 41st Ave and toward Tyler Street, and should not affect Mr. Wigand's property.
Johnson also said by m-configuring the lot splits, they were able to make all the current structures
conforming to the 7 foot side yard setback requirement.
Jonell Baker, 1508 41~t Ave asked whether the two existing homes would remain. Johnson responded
that they are presently fixing up the house at 1600 41st Ave with hopes of selling it. And the owner
of 4050 Tyler St. has been a long time resident at that property and would probably continue to
live there.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Baker, to recommend that the City Council approve the lot split,
subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest
and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots
and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County
Recorder's Office.
2. The applicant shaft pay a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $3,667 for the one newly
created lot. This fee is payable at the time of building permit.
3. The property owner of 1600 41't Ave NE shaft be responsible for relocating the water line that
currently runs from the rear of the house to the alley. The line shaft be rerouted out to 41~
Avenue. The property owner shaft be responsible for the cost of this relocation. All applicable
City requirements regarding street excavation shall be met.
4. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shaft be responsible for filing the subdivision
survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shaft become invalid if
not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council
action.
All ayes. MOTION Pt~SS. ED.
This will go b, efore the city Council at the meeting of October 25, 2004.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
OCTOBER 5, 2004
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
SUBDIVISION REQUEST
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
I, Stephen Johnson and I, Anthony Palacino, hereby request a split of
PIN 36-30-24-31-0006 Legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County,
PIN 36-30-24-31-0007 Legally described as:
Lot 2, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, MN
THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE:
Northeasterly Parcel:
The East 87 feet of Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County,
Minnesota
Northwesterly Parcel:
That part of Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, MN which
lies west of the east 87 feet thereof and that part of the North 13 feet of Lot 2 in said Block 21, which lies west
of the east 87 feet thereof.
Southerly Parcel:
Lot 2, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, MN except that part of
the North 13 feet thereof which lies west of the east 87 feet thereof.
Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this
day, against the above described property, are paid.
Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day.
Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action approving the
said lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action.
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION:
Signature of Owner, Notarized
This ~ day of
Offered by: Schmitt
Seconded by: Baker
Roll Call: All ayes.
,2004
Owner's Address
Telephone No.
Zoning Officer
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this __ day of ,2004
Notary Public
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PagE 5
OCTOBER 5, 2004
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
This ~ day of ,2004.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Secretary to the Council
Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor
CASE NUMBER:
Appeal
Joseph Embury
640 40~ Avenue
2004-1002
Introduction
Joseph Embury, the property owner of 640 40th Avenue NE, has made an application for an appeal of a
decision by the Fire Department and Zoning Administrator not to issue a rental license for the subject
property. Mr. Embury had submitted a letter explaining his request for an appeal.
Section 9.402 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council has designated
the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, responsible for making decisions
on all applications for an appeal of any administrative order, requirement, determination or final
decision made by the Zoning Administrator or other official in the administration of this Ordinance. The
Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the appeal in accordance with the requirements of
Zoning Ordinance and after the close of the hearing, render its findings.
Planning"Considerations
The subject property is located in the R2 One and Two Family Residential District. This District allows
for single family and duplex units, if properties meet the minimum required lot, area, and bulk
requirements. The minimum lot area required for duplex use is 8,400 sq. ft. The subject property
contains only 6,250 sq. ft.
According to the Fire Department, this property was licensed for duplex use from the time the rental-
licensing program was originated in 1989 until 1998, when the property status changed to owner-
occupied. Mr. Embury purchased the home in Dec. 1997 and when he was sent the license renewal
forms in 1998, he chose not to renew the license as he had family members (grown children and
visitors) who occupie.d the entire residence. He has never combined the water meters, water heaters,
furnaces Asst. Chief'Gorman stated that the property was built as a duplex and has had no problems.
The only issue is the lot size makes it a non-conforming use.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 6
OCTOBER 5, 2004
Knowing that Mr. Embury did not possess a rental license for the property, when he noticed it was for
sale as a duplex, he stopped and spoke'with Mr. Embury to notify him of the situation and the need to
bring this before the Commission to see if in fact it could be sold as a duplex.
Because of the technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, City Staff is unable to approve the
request for the rental license.
· Recommendation
That the Planning Commission deny the request for an appeal of the decision not to issue a rental
license based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fiorendino asked why the Fire Dept would deny a license based on sqUare footage of the lot. Gorman
responded that it is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Berkelhamer explained that the lot size
requirements are meant to control density.
Edcson asked if a person could access both units from the inside or was it strictly separate outside
access. Mr. Embury stated the apartment could be accessed from the inside and also had a walk
out entrance out the back of the home. Ericson then reminded the Commission members of their
decision last month and the need to be consistent with enforcing the Ordinance.
There were several people from the neighborhood that had no problem with re-instating the rental
license for this property. Those included Mr. Pat Grady from 636 40th Avenue and Viola Kordiak of
4017 Jefferson St NE. They also have duplex units that have not had rental licenses for some
time, and may or may not be able to get one in the future, depending on their lot size. And all of
these owners have been paying utilities (water, sewer, and garbage) based on a double
occupancy for years, even though they can't legally use it or sell it as such. They also stated they
are paying taxes on a value based on it being a duplex. They feel this policy of double billing
needs to be changed if they are going to enforce the square footage requirement which makes
these properties non-conforming. Many of the Commission members agreed, this policy should be
reviewed.
Leo Senart of 620 40th Avenue stated he thought there was already enough rental in the area, and that
renters don't care as much about the property theY live in as owners tend to.
Fiorendino and Baker felt the Commission needs to make their decision based on the requirements of
the Ordinance.
Peterson felt the Ordinance needs to be reviewed and changed to accommodate some of these
situations. He felt this appeal should be granted and that these cases need to be decided on a
case to case basis.
Schmitt questioned whether the applicants from last month could re-appeal to the Commission if the
Commission granted this appeal. She was concerned with inconsistency of enforcement.
There was a discussion regarding the plans for the Industrial site, and the higher density this property
has been re-zoned, to. Berkelhamer explained that each zoning district has different lot size
require,ments.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 7
OCTOBER 5, 2004
Steve Iserman of 662 40th Ave believes the City Council should change the double billing policy if the
property is not being used as a duplex.
Fiorendino stated the commission should support staff and the Ordinance in place. The Ordinance was
created in good faith to make positive changes in our community. Instead of making exceptions to
the Ordinance, if the Commission feels strongly about it, they should suggest a change to the
Ordinance itself. However this-would take at least 3-6 months to accomplish. He suggested
making a change to the Ordinance to give some flexibility to staff. Berkelhamer explained that the
Ordinance must be direct and firm, so staff is consistent. Only the Commission can address the
nuances of each case. Staff cannot be discretionary in the interpretation or enforcement of
requirements.
Baker disagreed with Peterson. This house could be used as a single family home as it does have
interior access, unlike the one last month that was denied. He doesn't feel it is necessary to
change the Ordinance, that there will always be special situations which arise, no matter what the
wording.
Motion by Baker, seconded by Fiorendino to deny the request to appeal the decision not to issue a
rental license for the property at 640 40~ Ave NE and to direct City Staff not to issue the rental
license for duplex use. Fiorendino, Baker-aye Schmitt, Peterson-nay. MOTION FALLS.
There was more discussion. It was brought up that if they would have kept their license for $22/year,
this would not be an issue. However, the question was raised if owners are even made aware of
the fact that if they let the license lapse for any reason more than six months, that they may not be
able to re'instate it.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Schmitt to approve the request to appeal the decision not to issue a
rental license for the property at 640 40~ Avenue NE and to direct City Staff to issue the rental
license for duplex use. Fiorendino, Baker, Schmitt-nay Peterson-aye. MOTION FALLS
It was the general consensus of the members to hold a work session on this issue in the next couple of
weeks to address possible changes to the Ordinance or the City's utility billing policy. Ericson
stated the City Council already asked the P & Z Commission to look at effective ways of limiting
the number of rental units in the City, so they would like them to offer recommendations regarding
either of these issues.
NEW BUSINESS
Planner Berkelhamer introduced the City's new
employment with the City last week.
Planner, Pat Smith, who began his part time
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 8
OCTOBER 5, 2004
MISCELLANEOUS
Peterson invited residents to the 4th Annual Holiday Party being held at Murzyn Hall on November 26~h.
The cost is $20/pp and wilt include dinner, entertainment, and a silent auction.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 pm. All ayes.
MOTION PASSED.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary