HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-05ITY F L I I
590 40th Avenoe N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Visit Our Website at: www.ci.columbia-heights.mn.us
iN~~`vi I3ERS:
Marlaine Szurek, Chair
i~oi~na Sctunitt
Rob Fiorendino
Mike Peterso^
David 7'hompson
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ETING
7:00 PM TUESDAY, JANUAKY 5, 2010
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMI3FRS
590 - 40~~ F' AVEI~TUE NE
l. Roll Call
Minutes (November 3, 2009 mceting}
(December 1, 2009 Meeting Cailcelled)
2. Public Hearings:
Case #2010-0101, .7.,oning Amendment LED Signs
City Wide
City of Columbia Heights
3. New Business
4. Other Business
Parking Stall Length Discussion
5. Adjourn
The Responsibility of the Planning Commission is to:
• Faithft~lly serve the public inte~°est.
• Represent existing and f~iture residents, and base olu~ decisions and recommendations
0~1 the Com~rehensive Pla~~ and Zoning Ordi~lance.
• Recog»iae the rights c~~I~~citizens to participate i~~ planning decisio~~s.
• Protect t~he n~tural environment and the heritage of the built enviro~~ment.
• Exercise fair, ho~~est, ai~d independent judginent.
• Abstain from participation when they ~Y~ay clirectly or ii~directly bet~etit fro~n a planning
decisio~~.
TNE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMIM1lATE ON THE BAS~S OF DISABILITY IN F_MP~OYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPL 6YFR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 3, 2009
'7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice Chair-Donna Schmitt.
Commission Members present- Fiorendino, Schmitt, and Peterson. Thompson arrived at 7:05 pm
Excused members-Szurek
Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison}, Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hansan
(Secretary).
Motion by Fzorendino, seconded by Peterson, to app~rove the minutes fi°om the ~neeting.s of October 6, 2009
and October 20, 2009. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER: 2009-1101
APPLiCANT: Fadia Salem
LOCATION: 3701-OS Reservoir Boulevard
REQUEST: Rezaning of praperty from GB to R-2A
BACKGROUND
Sargent explained that the applicant is in the process of purchasing the property at 3701-OS Reservoir
Boulevard. Currently, the property is zoned GB, General Business. The previous use of the property was
both single-family resideiltial and carrunercial. The business was on the first floor and the residential
component was on the second flc~ar.
The perspective buyers would like to use the structure as a single-family hause only and do not have any
plans on retaining the ~~usiness. LUhile the single-family aspect of the building was in use, it was
considered legally nonconfarming because the Zoning Code does not allow for single-family uses in the
G$ District. Because the property has been vacailt for longer than one year, the single-fainily component
may not be used unless the property is rezoned to accaimnodate it.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan currently guides the property for Low Density Residentiai. Rezoi~~g the la~1d to
allow for a sulgie-family use would be consistent with the guidance of tlle Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The subject property is cm•rently zoned GB, General Business, as is t11e property to the north along Central
Avenue. Tl~e properties to the north along Reservoir Blvd. are zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residelltial and
the properties to the east are zoned R-2A, Onc and Two Fainily Residential. The proposed zoning
classification for the subject property is also R-2A, which would be consistent with the zoning
classif cation in the area. Rezoning the property would also be consistellt with the histaric use of tl~e
property as a si~lgle-family house.
Page 2
November 3, 2009
The structure in question is functionally a single-family house. If the property were to remain commercial,
extensive remodeling of the building would need to occur to accommodate any type of business that would
move in. The prospective buyer would like to buy the house and use it as a residence without pursuing the
business portion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the
fallowing findings before approving a zoning amendmcnt:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Com~rehensive PZan currently guides the property for Low Density Residential. Kezoning the
land to allow fo~^ a single fa~nily use wot~ld be consistent with fihe guzdance of the Comp~ehensive
Plan.
2. The amendment is u1 the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a si~lgle property
awner.
Although the proposed rezoning of't.he property at 3701 Reservoi~~ Blvd. is via r~equest fi°orn cz single
property owne~; the benefit of the pro~erty being ~°ezoned zs to the public. Without the Nezoning, the
house would sit vacant indefinitely, or until a pNOSpective developer would purchase the land for
redeveloprr~ent, .Staff recom~m~ends rezonzng the pa~cel to e~able the historic use of the pi~oper~ty to
cantini~e.
~Vhere the amendment is ta change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing
use of tl~e property and tl~e zoning classification of property within the general area of the
property in quesfion are compatible with the propased zoning classification.
A portzon of the prevzous use of the pi^vperly was a single fa~nily I~ou.se. The propvsed zoning
classification is eonsistent with the zoning classification zn the general Ez~^ea, and the p~oposed us~
of the pi~operty is consistent lvith the historic use of tlie propei°ty.
4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning ciassification of a particular praperty, there has
been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in
question, which has taken place sii2ce such property was placed in the current zoning
classification.
The pi^operty wczs zoned GB, GeneNal Business, to stczy consistent with the zvning class ficatzoras of
properties that front Central Avenue. Althvugh this property technically fronts on Central Avenue,
it's lc~cated on the co~~ner of a fiv~-way intersection and zs pushed back a considerable distance
fi°o»z Central Avenue. Wilh this~ saic~, the use of the p~operty is m~ore conducive to a residentzal
setting than a com~nercial one.
Staff, therefore, reconlnlends that the P1amling Commission recommend that the City Colmcil approve the
rezoning of the property located at 3701-05 Reservoir Boulevard froin GB, General Business to R-2A, One
and Two Family Residential.
Page 3
November 3, 2009
Questions trom members:
Peterson asked if the detached garage on 37`" Avenue is part of this property. He was told the garage
belongs to the property at 3717 Reservoir B1vd.
Peterson then asked if this property is re-zoned to Residential, whether a business could ever be operated
from this location. Sargent explained that the only business that could operate on this site would be an
approved Home Occupation by the owner, whereby it would be an incidental use of the property. It would
not allow for the priinary use to be a full scale business.
There was a discussion regarding the properties to the north of this property bcing zoncd R-3 {Multiple
Family). Members wondered why staff recommended designating this an R-2A classification, rather than
R-3. Sargent explained that R-3 zoning Izas more restrictive setbacks (20 feet froln property line) than an
R-2A designation, and this would allav~~ for additions, decks, etc. He stated that the adjacent properties
appear to be one or two family dwellings, and therefore, could also be re-zoned to tlze R2-A zoning
classification in the future. Sargent explained the difference between the R-2A and R-2B. When the
change was made, all existing current duplexes/doubles were given the R-2B classification.
Schrnitt said it znakes sense to re-zane this property, as tl~ere isn't enough parking fc~r a business to operate
anyways.
Public Hearing Opened:
The new owners made a request to continue using the address of 3701 Reservair Bivd. as the new mailing
address for the single family home. All City Departlnents will be notified.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Fio~°endino, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Co~nmission ~^ecommend that the City
Couneil approve the re-zoning of the pi~operty located at 3~01-05 R~servoir &lvd fron~ GB, Gey2eral
Business to R-2A, One and Two Farnily Reszdentzal. All c~es. MOTIONPASSED.
The following Resolution will be considered by the City Council on Monday, November 9, 2009.
ORDINANCE XXXX
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
BEING AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1428,
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF A CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3701-OS RESERVOIR
BOULEVARD NE
SECTION l:
WHEREAS, the clirrent zoning classitication of the propet-ty does not ailow a single-fainily use as a permitted used;
and
WHEREAS, the historic use of the property has been single-family occupancy, which caused the use to be legally
nollconfoi°ming w~der the current zoning classifieatioil; afad
Page 4
November 3, 2009
WHEREAS, the previous singie-fainily use was discontinued for more than one year, causing the legal
nonconforming status to ter7ninate.
WHEREAS, rezoning the subject parcel from GB, Gei~eral Business to R-2A, One and Two Family Residential
provides the re-occupancy of the subject parcel to its historic use; ar~d
WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, and is in the public interest and not solely
for the benefit of a si~lgle property o~~vner; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning classification of the property is compatil~le with the surrouiiding zoning
classifications and uses, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission l~as reviewed and recoimne~ids approval of the
pro~osed rezoning from GB, General Business District to R-2A, One and Two Family Residential.
SECTION 2:
This ardinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
NEW BUSINESS
Thompson stated he would like to re-visit the issue of the required length of parking stalls for site plan
approvals, especially when they abut a curb or sidewalk. He feels 18 foot parkin~ stalls are llot suff'icient
aild cause vehicles to overhang an adjoii~ing sidewalk or walkway. If left at the 18 foot minilniun, then he
~uauld suggest requiring the sidewalk or uTalkway ta be wider to accommodate wheel_c~airs and provide
adequate clearance. Sargent told members this would require another change to the Ordinance. He was
asked to gather inforniation and put this matter on a future ageilda.
Thompson then remil~ded everyone of tize Fire Explorer's Fundraiser on Saturday, Nove~nber 7, 2009 at the
VFW on Central. They are preparing a Booya that will be sold from noon - 5 pm.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 pn1.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2010-0101
DATE: January 5, 2010
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Gommission
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for LED Signs
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2009, the City Council issued a six-month emergency moratorium on the
issuance of LED sign permits throughout the city. The rationale behind the moratorium
was to study whether newly adopted language pertaining to LED signs was consistent with
the intent of the ordinance that the City Cauncil passed. The intent of the LED sign
ordinance was to permit dynamic ~ED signs only as an integral part of a monument sign,
with the exception of motor fuel stations, which may utilize such signage on existing pylon
signs in order to display fuel prices only. It was discovered that the language specifying
that motor fuel stations may only utilize dynamic LED signs as a part of existing pylon signs
to display only fuel prices was inadvertently omitted from the ordinance.
At this time, Staff recommends amending the City Code as it pertains to LED signs to allow
for motor fuel stations to only be allowed to utilize LED signage on an existing pylon sign if
the message of the displays motor fuel prices only.
COMPREHENSIVE P~AN
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and enhance th~ existing viable
commercial areas within the community, and to promote reinvestment in properties by the
commercial and industrial sectors. Allowing dynamic signage is a way to enhance
economic vitality by giving the commercial owners a mechanism to advertise their business
in an efficient and aesthetic manner. Limiting the use of the LED signage to monument
signs only will help keep will contribute to the aesthetic appeal of the cornmercial sectors.
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission January 5, 2010
City of Columbia Heights, LED Signs Case # 2010-0101
ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9.106 (P)(8)1 currently states that "Dynamic LED signs are allowed only on
monument signs for conditionally permitted used in all zoning districts, with the exception of
motor fuel stations, which may display LED signs as a part of the pylon sign. Dynamic L.ED
signs may occupy no more than fifty percent (50%) of the actual copy and graphic area.
The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic LED signs, even if
not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face".
The proposed language would limit motor fuel stations to display only fuel prices as LED
signs on existing pylon signs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make
each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment:
The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and enhance the
existing viable commercial areas within the community, and to promote
reinvestment in properties by the commercial and industrial sectors. Allowing
dynamic signage is a way to enhance economic vitality by giving the commercial
owners a mechanism to advertise their business in an etficient and aesthetic
manner. Limiting the use of the LED signage to monument signs only will help keep
will contribute to the aesthetic appeal of the commercial sectors.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is n~t solely for the benefit of a
single property owner.
The proposed amendment would affect all commercially zoned properties
throughout the city and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner.
3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of
property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with
the proposed zoning classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in
the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such
property was placed in the current zoning classification.
Page 2
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission )anuary 5, 2010
City of Columbia Heights, LED Signs Case # 2010-0101
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
proposed zoning amendment.
Attachments
• Draft zoning ordinance
Page 3
DRAI'T ORDINANC~ NO. XXXX
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF
2005 RELATING TO LED, DYNAMIC, AND OTHER SIGNAGE WITHIN THE CITY
OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The City of Colulnbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.106 (P) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to
include ~11e following additions a~1d deletions:
§ 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STAI`dDARDS.
(P) Sign regulations.
($) Dynamic LED si~nage.
(a) Regzslation,s. Dynamic LED signage is allowed as a conditional use in
those zo~ling districts specified in this code. All dynamic LED signage is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Dynamic LED signs are allowed only on monwnent signs for
conditionally permitted uses in all zoning districts, with the exception of lnotor fuel
stations, wluch may display dynamic LED signs as a part of the pyl~n sign to promote
motor fuel prices only. Such motor fuel price signs do not require a Conditional Use
Permit. All Dynamic LED si~ns mmay occupy no mcrre than fifty percent (50%} of the
act~ual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign mlist not have the capability to
have dynamic L,ED si~ns, even if not used. On1y one, contiguous dynamic display area is
allowed on a sign faee.
~e~tie~n 2:
This ordinance shall bc in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its
passage.
First Reading: , 2010
Second Reading: , 2010
Date of Passage:
Offered by:
Seco~lded by:
Roll Call:
Mayc~r Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City C1erk/Cotulcil Secretary
To: Ciiy of Columbia Heights Planning Commission
From: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
Date: 1 /5/2010
Re: Parking Stall ~engths
The Planning and Zoning Commission has asked staff to look into possibly
amending the City's ordinance as it relates to the size of parking stalls allowed
throughout the city. In April of 2007, the City Council amended the ordinance to
allow for parking stalls to be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep if the parking stall abuts a
curb. Nead-to-head parking stalls are required to be 20 feet deep.
Staff conducted a survey of other first-ring suburbs, as well as Minneapolis and St.
Paul to get a better understanding of the parking stall length requirements of similar-
situated cities. The survey revealed:
C~ Stall Width Stall Len_qth
Brooklyn Center 8'8" 18'
Columbia Heights 9' 18'
Edina 8'6" 18'
Fridley 9' 18'
Golden Valley 9' 18'6"
Maplewood 9'6" 18'
Minneapofis 8'6" 18'
New Brighton 9' 18'
Plymouth 9' 18'6"
Robbinsdale 8'6" 18'
Roseville 9' 18'
Saint Anthony 9' 19'
Saint Louis Park 8'6" 18'
Saint Paul 9' 18'
West Saint Paul 9' 20'
Like other first-ring suburbs, the City of Columbia Heights is nearly built-out, with
small commercial parcels lining the Central Avenue corridor. Prior to the Zoning
1
Amendment to allow for the 18-foot parking stall length, the City Council had recently
approved 2 variances for major cammercial projects decreasing the parking stall
lengths to 18 feet. Allowing for an 18-foot-deep parking stall alleviates some of the
spatial constraints that small commercial parcels present to prospective developers,
and reduces the need for the types of variances that the City Council had approved
in the past. The survey supports that other first-ring suburbs allow for shorter parking
stall lengths as well. For this reason, Staff recommends no change to the current
ordinance as it relates to parking stall sizes.
• Page 2
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2007-0404
DATE: April 3, 2007
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment to the Zoning Code as it relates to
Parking Stall Lengths
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
BACKGROUND
Staff proposes amending the zoning ordinance regarding parking stall lengths to better
implement the intended goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Reducing the parking stall
lengths would provide better flexibility in site design, while helping to potentially reduce
hard surfaces and providing better on-site traffic circulation.
In the past year, the Sarna's Restaurant, Taca Bell and Cornforts of Home have
submitted land use applications requesting a variance to the parking stall length
requirement. In all cases, the applicants requested a reduction from the standard 20-
faot parking stall length ta 18 feet. Ultimately, the Council approved the parking stall
length reduction for the Sarna's Restaurant and Comforts of Home.
In each case, the applicants argued that the 20-foot parking stall length was an
unnecessary restriction, stating that an 18-foot parking stall length would result in better
traffic circulation throughout the development, an increase in the amount of green space
on the parcel, and less surface water runoff. Staff conducted a survey of the other first-
ring suburbs, as well as Minneapolis and St. Paul, focusing on 90° head-to-curb parking
stall lengths. The following table shows the results of the survey for standard sized
cars:
C~ Stall Width Stall ~enqth
Brooklyn Center 8'8" 18'
Colurnbia Heights 9' 20'
Edina 8'6" 18'
Fridley 9' 18'
Golden Valley 9' 18'6"
Maplewood 9'6" 18'
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission April 3, 2007
Text Amendment, Parking Stall Lengths Case # 2007-0404
City Stall Width Stall Lenqth
Minneapolis 8'6" 18'
New Brighton 9' 18'
Plymouth 9' 18'6"
Robbinsdale 8'6" 18'
Roseville 9' 18'
Saint Anthony 9' 19'
Saint Louis Park 8'6" 18'
Saint Paul 9' 18'
West Saint Paul 9' 20'
Five cities, namely Columbia Heights, Golden Valley, Plymouth, Saint Anthony and
West Saint Paul, require a parking stall length of greater than 18 feet. Of those five
cities, only Columbia Heights and West Saint Paul require a minimum parking stall
length of 20 feet. Of the 15 cities surveyed, 10 cities allow a minimum parking stall
length of 18 feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Discussion of regulations begins with identifying the community's economic
development goals for promoting the city, found in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan identifies the goals; the purpose of the zoning ordinance is to
guide private activity toward the achievement of those goals.
The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates several goals for the economic and
cammercial vitality af the city. Some of these gaafs include:
1. Enhance the econamic viability of the cammunity.
2. Promote reinvestment in properties by the commercial and industrial sectors.
3. Provide a wide variety off employment opportunities within the cornmunity.
4. Reduce and control excessive volumes and rates of rainwater runoff.
The implementation of these goals centers on the City's ability to redevelop the
commercial and retail sectors and establish a friendly working and living environment for
the residents of and visitors to Columbia Heights. Reducing the parking stall lengths
from 20 feet to 18 feet would provide better flexibility in site design, traffic flow, and
traffic accommodation on a property.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Council shall make the following 4 findings before granting approval of a
request to amend the City Code. These findings are as follows:
a) The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Page 2
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission April 3, 2007
Text Amendment, Parking Stall Lengths Case # 2007-0404
The Comprehensive Plan indicates several goals for economic development
in relation to the commercial sectors of the city. By reducing the parking stall
lengths, more flexibility would be provided, which in turn cou/d promote
economic growth throughout the City.
b) The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a
single property owner.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the majority of the minimum
standards for parking stall lengths throughout the first-ring suburbs of
Minneapolis and St. Paul. The proposed amendment is intended to benefit
the City as a whole.
c) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of
property within the general area of the property in question are compatible
with the proposed zoning classification.
The zoning classification of Iand will not change.
d) Where the amendment is to change the zaning classification of a particular
property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in
the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since
such property was placed in its current zoning classification.
The zoning c/assification af land will not change.
RECC3MMENDATiOfV:
Mation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the text
amendments as outlined in the attached draft ordinance.
Attachments
• Draft Ordinance
Page 3