Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 2, 2008 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 2, 2008 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson and Szurek. Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Planner), Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to approve the minutesji-om the meeting of November 5,2008. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2008-1201 Mary Zahorsky 4826 West Upland Crest 2-foot Building Setback Variance INTRODUCTION Sargent explained that Ms. Zahorsky is requesting a 2-foot side yard setback variance in order to constmct an addition to her house located at 4826 West Upland Crest. The applicant stated that the previous homeowner had created a storage area between the fence and the house on the north side of the house. It was in dire need of repair, which the applicant did. In addition to repairing the fenced in enclosure, the applicaot constmcted a roof over the area. During the construction phase, the Building Official stopped the work because no permit had been issued. When the applicant applied for the permit, it was discovered that the building was too close to the side property line. After reviewing the City records, it was also discovered that the previous homeowner failed to pull a permit for the initial construction of the storage area. The space in question is considered to be an addition to the principal stmcture since it incorporates a roof that is attached to the house. For this reason, the addition must meet all setback and building code requirements in order for it to be built. The Building Depmtment indicated that the wall closest to the north property line would need to be a solid wall with a one-hour separation. Proper frost footing will also be required. Because the structure is too close to the side lot line, a 2-foot variance is required. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow an addition to a preexisting residential dwelling would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 4826 West Upland Crest is zoned R-2A, One and Two Family Residential, and is also located within the Shore land District of Highland Lake. The side yard setback requirement for houses constructed in the R-2A District is 5 feet. The proposed addition will be located 3 feet from the side lot line. For this reason, a 2-foot side yard setback variance is required. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 2, 2008 SHORELAND DISTRICT. The property at 4826 West Upland Crest is located within the Shoreland District of Highland Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance was established in order to help protect impaired waterways throughout the City of Columbia Heights. One way the ordinance accomplishes this is to require no more than 35% of a property be covered with hard smface materials. This ensures a low rate of rainwater runoff and helps reduce the amount of sediment entering the protected lakes. The propelty at 4826 West Upland Crest is approximately 13,513 square feet in area, allowing up to 4,729.5 square feet to be covered with hard surface materials. With the proposed addition to the house, the property will have approximately 3,300 square feet of hard surface material covering the lot, or 24.4%. This meets the City's minimum requirement for hard surface coverage in the Shoreland District. FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance) Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five findings of fact that must be met in order for the City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel ofland involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause undue hardship. The applicant stated that the hardship in this case revolves around the fact that the structure was in place at the time they purchased the house, and that they were unaware that the structure was illegal. Repairing the existing structure would retain the use of the area as a storage shed and aid in the correction of a rainwater runoff problem that the property has had for quite some time. The erosion that has occurred between this property and the property to the north has been a huge concern and needs to be remedied. The expense associated with tearing the structure down and repairing the house was also never afactor in the purchase of the house in thejirst place. b) 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. The variance is based on an attempt to make a previously illegal construction project compliant with the City Code. Although the addition to the house was done without a permit and placed on the property in an improper location, the applicant would still like to be able to retain the use of the storage area, and do so in a legal manner. This is a/airly unique situation to have on a property. c) 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 current owners of the property had no input on the construction of the storage space. They would, however, like to be able to retain its use as a storage area. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 DECEMBER 2, 2008 d) The granting of the variance IS III harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The granting of the variance would support the use of the property as residential and the guidance of the property as residential. e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfal'e or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the variance would make an existing situation legal. Being that the City has had no complaints regarding the construction or placement of the storage area, the granting of the variance would not affect the use of property in the vicinity. Sargent stated that a letter from the neighbor to the nOlth in support of the proj ect was enclosed in the agenda packet. They are hoping the planned project will help alleviate drainage issues that occur between the two properties. The applicant stated that water ponds between the properties, and that it has undermined the integrity of the foundation to their home. His plan is to install gutters and downspouts on the roof of the storage area and direct the water to the rear of the lot towards the lake. Ouestions from members: Szurek asked if it is a fence or a wall that currently abuts the neighboring propelty. Sargent explained that it is currently a fence, but a one hour separation wall would be required if the variance is approved. He said that other conditions would also apply in order to make it code compliant which is required as it is attached to the primary structure. Sargent said the owners have been made aware of this and have agreed to make the necessary corrections. Peterson commented that it is in close proximity to the structure at 4832 W Upland Cr, but that other homes in the area are also close to the propelty lines. Schmitt asked what the distance of the structure at 4832 was from the property line. Sargent explained that according to the site plan that was submitted, the house located at 4832 is 3 feet from the property line and that the enclosed storage structure at 4826 would be 3 feet from the property line, for a total distance between the two at 6 feet. Thompson asked if there was ever a variance granted to 4832 to allow the structure to be built that close to the propelty line. Sargent stated that he had not checked to see if a variance had ever been granted to that address. He said it's possible the setbacks were different back when the house was built which could explain why it does not meet the current five foot setback Thompson stated he is not in favor of granting the variance without verifying the property irons and having a better drainage plan in place. He said the site plan provided may not be accurate and that a new survey may be needed since the applicant admitted he could not find the property irons. He also is concerned that gutters alone may not be adequate to cure the water/drainage issues and by having this structure with a hard surface so near the propelty line, could actually have made things worse. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 2, 2008 The applicant stated that the previous owner had a 22 x 6 ft slab with fencing around it as his storage area. The applicant made repairs to the fencing and then constructed the roof over it about 3 months ago thinking that he could then direct the runoff towards the rear of the lot. He never finished adding the gutters since he was issued the Stop Work Order until this matter is resolved and the variance is approved. Szurek questioned how the houses could have been located so close to the property lines when the standard setback is 5 ft. Sargent explained that accommodations may have been made since the lots in this area are pie shaped and they may have used the "average" distance of the structure from the lot line, depending on how they were placed on the lot. Szurek stated she was in favor of the variance ifit would help alleviate the water issue. Fiorendino thought it was the best solution to the problem. Public Hearing Opened: The neighbors at 4832 W. Upland Crest were present and are in favor of the project being finished and also hope that the gutters directly the flow of rain water will help prevent the ponding between the two properties. Public Hearing Closed: Motion by Peterson, seconded byFiroendino, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2-foot side yard setback variance per Code Section 9.109 (C) of the City Code, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. The wall adjacent to the north property line shall be a solid wall with a one-hour fire-rated separation. 3. Proper fi'ostfootings, approved by the Building Official, shall be installedfor the addition. Ayes-Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, Szurek Nays: Thompson . MOTION PASSED. The attached Resolution will go to the City Council December 8, 2008. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 2, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 200S-XX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR MARY ZAHORSKY WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2008-1201) has been submitted by Mary Zahorsky to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 4826 W. Upland Crest LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 2-foot side yard setback variance for the construction of an addition per Code Section 9.109 (C). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on December 2, 2008; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings ofthe Planning Commission: 1. Because of the patticular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel ofland involved, where strict adherence to the provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship. 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 propetties within the same zoning classification. 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any person currently having legal interest in the propetty. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. S. 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 propelty or improvements in the vicinity. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become patt of this variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become patt of the permit. 2. The wall adjacent to the north propelty line shall be a solid wall with a one-hour fire-rated separation. 3. Proper frost footings, approved by the Building Official, shall be installed for the addition. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 DECEMBER 2, 2008 CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2008-1202 Speedy Signs and Graphics 4621 Central Avenne Site Plan Approval for sign age INTRODUCTION At this time, Speedy Signs and Graphics is requesting a site plan approval for new signage at 4621 Central A venue. The tenant space is the location of the old Cousin's Subs, and more recently the Saigon Delight Vietnamese Restaurant. The Planning Commission reviewed a site plan for a new freestanding monument sign for the Saigon Delight restaurant in October of2007. A monument sign was never constructed and the restaurant went out of business. The current proposal is for a new monument sign for Mr. BBQ at the same location. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Commercial related activities. One of the goals ofthe Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities and mechanisms for successful redevelopment oftargeted areas within the community, and one way to accomplish this goal is for the businesses along Central Avenue to conform to the Design Guidelines. By using a monument sign instead of the pylon sign, Mr. BBQ's signage plan would be consistent with the Design Guidelines and thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING ORDINANCE The property is located in the General Business District (GB), as are the propeliies to the north and south. The properties to the east are zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential and the properties to the west are in the City of Hilltop. The subject parcel is also located within the Design Overlay Highway District, and is subject the regulations for such properties. The City Code at Section 9.106 (P)(12) states that monument signs in the GB District shall be limited to 40 square feet per side, eight feet in height, and shall be set back a minimum of five feet from all property lines. The applicant's sign plan indicates that the monument sign will be five (5) feet in height and 35 square feet in area. The site plan for the sign also indicates that the monument sign will be located six (6) feet from the front property line. The applicant stated that they would utilize the same space as the previous tenant for permanent wall signage on the building. The wall signage used for Mr. BBQ would be considered a reface of an existing wall sign and is not subj ect to site plan approval. DESIGN GUIDELINES SIGNAGE. The Design Guidelines prohibit the use of pylon signs and require that all monument signs be constructed of materials compatible with those that are used on the principal structure. The proposed plans indicate that the monument sign's base will be constructed of synthetic stucco and will be colored to match the building. The Design Guidelines also prohibit intemally lit box signs. The proposed monument sign incorporates internally lit channel letters, which would be consistent with the intent of the Design Guidelines. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 2, 2008 FINDINGS OF FACT Site Plan Approval Section 9.104 (M) requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make each of the following findings before approving a site plan: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this mticle The proposed site plan meets all the Design Guidelines standards for monument signs in relation to the color of the sign and the types of materials used to construct it. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. The proposed sign plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it is consistent with the Design Overlay Highway District. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no applicable area plan for this area. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on propelty in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. The proposed signage meets all the minimum setback requirements and all Design Guideline requirements. For this reason, the property in the immediate vicinity should not be adversely impacted. Since the signage plan conforms to all standards outlined in the Design Guidelines, staff recommends approval of the site plan for the Mr. BBQ, located at 4621 Central Avenue. Questions from members: The members had no questions. Public Hearing Qpened: A resident from 1001 46th Ave was concerned that the sign would be too high and would shine into his house at night. Sargent explained it would only be 5 feet high and would not be intrusive on his property. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2008-PZ18, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, to adopt Resolution No. 2008-PZ18, being a resolution approving a site plan for Mr. BBQ, located at 4621 Central Avenue. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 2, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-PZ18 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR SIGNAGE AT 4621 CENTRAL A VENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2008-1202) has been submitted by Speedy Signs and Graphics, doing business for Mr. BBQ, to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS: 4621 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for signage for Mr. BBQ located at 4621 Central Avenue. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on December 2, 2008; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of the City staff regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article, except signage. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on propelty in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of- way. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall become pmt of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar vear after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. Passed this 2nd day of December 2008, Offered by: Fiordino Seconded by: Schmitt Roll Call: All ayes CHAIR Marlaine Szurek Attest: SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson Approval is contingent upon execution and return of this document to the City Planning Office. r have read and agree to the conditions of this resolution as outlined above. Salah Kalai Date Plmming & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 2, 2008 OTHER BUSINESS Sargent reported that the City had filed an extension with the Met Council for submitting the Comprehensive Plan Update. The extension has been granted, but in order to comply with the time frames, staff had the City Council review the rough draft so it could be sent out to the neighboring cities as required. The cities then have a designated time period to review our plan and submit relevant comments. Sargent said ajoint meeting/Open House will be held sometime in January for review and input. He is hoping an article in the paper inviting the public will prompt citizens to attend and comment on the plan. He stated the timing of our update was fortunate because we were able to address the housing component based on the large number of foreclosures our city has experienced during the economic crisis we are in. Other cities that renewed recently didn't necessarily address this as a priority in their plans. Commission members asked about various projects in our city. Sargent updated them on the status of these projects. The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, d ~iLcrG:hN.)w\ Shelley Hanson Secretary