Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 1, 2005 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2005 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson Szurek. Roll Call: Commission Members present-Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek. Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Plalmer), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Tami Ericson Diehm (Council Liaison) was absent. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, to approve the minutesfi'om the meeting of October 4, 2005. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case #2005-1101 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Variance for Driveway Benjamin Adams 638 - 38th Avenue NE IS-foot side yard setback variance PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner At this time, Ben Adams is requesting a l5-foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a new driveway. The applicant's property is located in the R-3, Multiple Family Residential District. The City of Columbia Heights' Zoning Code at Section 9.106 (L)(7)(g) states that setback for parking lots shall be subj ect to the same setbacks as a structure for the district in which such parking is located. The minimum side yard setback for a structure in the R-3 District is 20 feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a hard surface driveway, leading to the principal structure, 5 feet from the side lot line. For this reason, a 15- foot side yard setback variance is required. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Currently, the applicant has a one-car garage adjacent to the alley in the rear of the property. The garage functions as a storage facility for the vehicle that the applicant drives daily. On site, Mr. Adams also stores a truck, a boat and a motorcycle on a small driveway located adjacent to the garage, accessing the alley. Mr. Adams stated that he has received notice from the City's Public Works Department that the larger City vehicles and snowplows are unable to access the alley because his vehicles paliially block the way. To appease these concerns, Mr. Adams stated that he stored the vehicles on the street in front of his house. The Police Department then contacted him stating that it is illegal to store the vehicles on the street overnight. The only solution that Mr. Adams could find was to construct a larger driveway on his property to accommodate his vehicles. The only location for such a driveway would be in his front yard. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 1,2005 CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The comprehensive plan states that one of the housing goals of the City is to promote and preserve the single-family housing stock as the community's strongest asset. The applicant's proposal is enabling him, and future owners of the property, the opportunity to use the single-family use as appropriately as any other single-family dwelling owner in the city. By storing vehicles on his property as opposed to storing them along city rights-of-way, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan in that it is preserving the single-family use of the land. FINDINGS OF FACT The following are required findings that the City Council must make before approving a variance request in the City of Columbia Heights: I. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause undue hardship. The applicant's current one-car garage lies approximately 2 feet from the alley, and the adjacent driveway is not long enough to accommodate the lengths of the truck or trailer. In order to extend the current driveway further into the propelty to gain enough room to store the vehicles, extensive excavation and grading would need to occur because of the steep topography of the land. The applicant stated that the rear yard sits approximately 4 feet higher than the driveway and alley in the rear. The applicant's propelty is only 35 feet in width. Given the specified criteria for placing a driveway in this district, there would be no way to place the driveway 20 feet from either side lot line without requiring a variance to do so. 2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are only three residential properties in this area adjacent to 38th Avenue. The topography of the land is consistent throughout each of the three propelties, with the rear yards being approximately 4 feet higher than the driveway and alley. Compared to the rest of the City, the topographical conditions ofthese three parcels are unique in the R-3 District. 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The provisions of this article state that residents shall store personal vehicles completely within the confines of their property. The topographic conditions of Mr. Adams' propelty make it impossible to do so. The applicant has in no way created the stated hardship. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 NOVEMBER 1,2005 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. As stated previously, granting this variance request will help preserve the single-family housing stock as the community's strongest asset by allowing the applicant to reasonably use his property as other single-family dwelling owners may throughout the City. 5. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. The applicant stated that the neighbor to the west has a driveway in the front yard leading to the principal structure as well. Mr. Adams has indicated that he would like to install a driveway in a similar fashion. City Staff feels that installing a driveway in the proposed location would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare for this reason. Conclusion City Stafffeels that the applicant's stated hardship justifies the variance request at hand. Installing a driveway 5 feet from the side lot line is consistent with the current placement of the house on the property, and will not be detrimental to the residential characteristic of the area. Questions from Commissioners: Peterson asked whether granting the variance would set a precedence for the City as a whole, or does granting the variance justify that an exception in this case is necessary. Sargent responded that each variance case is unique and even though the variance could affect an area, they usually do not have an affect city wide. He said each case should be considered individually and that variances are an established way for the City to grant exceptions for special cases. Schmitt asked the applicant if the fence in the back of the property could be moved to allow more vehicle parking there. Ben Adams, the applicant, responded that no, he could not gain more parking in the rear of the yard as the back yard is four feet higher in elevation than the parking area adjacent to the alley. He showed them a picture depicting the topography. Szurek questioned what type of hard surface he was going to be installing. Mr. Adams stated that he planned on using blacktop. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 NOVEMBER I, 2005 The Public Hearing was opened for comments. 101m Fitzgerald 3727 Madison Place is the property owner to the west ofMr. Adams. I-Ie has a driveway in his front yard also coming off 38th Avenue. His concern was that additional hard surface parking on that lot would increase the run offthat flows down the street from east to west and ponds in his driveway. He stated that after the SACA Building was built and 38th Avenue was reconstructed, the slope of the street directs all the water to the south side of the street and it causes flooding of his driveway and lot. Szurek suggested he contact Kevin Hansen at Public Works to see ifhe had any ideas that would help alleviate the problem. Mr. Adams told the conunission that Mr. Fitzgerald's driveway slopes from the street down towards his house, so the city would have a hard time correcting. The water run off is following the natural flow that exists in the block. Mr. Fitzgerald's driveway slope should be corrected to direct the water toward the street, not towards his house. Peterson asked if we can add a condition to the approval to address the run off issue. Szurek stated that if Mr. Adams installs his driveway correctly and directs the water run off to the street and not directly onto the neighboring property, he is meeting the requirements of the City. If corrections cmmot be made by the City, Mr. Fitzgerald may have to correct the slope of his driveway to alleviate the problems he is experiencing. The Public Hearing was closed. Motion byPeterson, seconded bySchmitt, that the Planning Commission approve the 15-foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a driveway with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a boundary survey to accurately denote the placement of the side lot line. 2. The driveway shall be surfaced with a dustless all-weather hard sUlface material. Acceptable materials include asphalt, concrete, brick, cement pavers or similar material installed and maintained per industlY standards. Crushed rock shall not be considered an acceptable sw.facing material. All ayes. Motion Passed. Motion byPetersosn, seconded by Fiorendino, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 15 foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a driveway. All ayes. Motion Passed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 NOVEMBER 1, 2005 Planner Sargent told the members that a copy of a draft Resolution was included in the agenda packets. He stated this will be standard practice from now on regarding cases that go to the Council. He stated that any conditions will be included in the Resolutions and the applicant will have to sign the Resolution. This will ensure that City Staff and the applicants are aware of the date the Council approves requests and any stipulations that are required. This case will go to the City Council at the November 14,2005 meeting. NEW BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS A memo was passed out regarding the 2 am bar closing. Sargent explained that responses were received from 3 members of the commission. He stated that if anyone else wishes to comment on this to do so as quickly as possible as he is going to pass these comments on to the Police Chief and the Council members so they can take them into consideration when they discuss this topic. Sargent then updated the Commission members on the Sarna proj ecl. He stated the vacation of University Avenue Service Road will probably be on next month's agenda. He stated he didn't think construction would begin until 2006. The members were given commemorative plaques from the groundbreaking for Phase II of the Industrial Area Redevelopment that took place on October 18, 2005. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, d~ cft\l\.I6~ Shelley Hanson Secretary