HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 4, 2011 P & Z MinPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 4, 2011
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair - Marlaine Szurek.
Commission Members present- Thompson, Peterson, and Szurek.
Members Absent: Fiorendino
It was noted that Donna Schmitt resigned from the Commission since she was elected to the City Council.
Also present were Council Liaison Gary Peterson, Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson
(Secretary).
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutes from the meeting of October S, 2010.
All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER: 2011 -0101
APPLICANT: Matthew Long
LOCATION: 4849 Central Avenue NE
REQUEST: Site Plan Approval for Second Monument Sign
INTRODUCTION
Sargent stated that Savers is requesting a Site Plan Approval in order to locate a second freestanding
monument sign on their property. Currently, Savers utilizes a freestanding pylon sign adjacent to Central
Avenue near the main entrance. On May 4, 2010, The Planning Commission approved a Site Plan for the
construction of a new loading dock and a square foot area variance for signage on the building. Savers also
expanded into the vacant end unit of the building and moved their primary entrance closer to Central
Avenue.
The construction of the loading dock and expansion into the remainder of the building was concurrent with
the construction of the new pedestrian bridge at the intersection of 49 Avenue and Central Avenue.
Savers would like to install a second freestanding monument sign at this intersection to help regain
visibility to the building that they felt was lost due to the construction of the bridge. The requirement for a
Site Plan approval is necessary because this property is located within the Design Overlay Highway
District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Commercial related activities. One of the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities and mechanisms for successful redevelopment of targeted
areas within the community, by enhancing the image and viability of the Central Avenue corridor. One
way to accomplish this goal is for the businesses along Central Avenue to conform to the Design
Guidelines for commercial - related activity. The proposed site plan meets the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 2
JANUARY 4, 2011
ZONING ORDINANCE
The property is located in the GB, General Business, as are the properties to the south. The properties to
the east are zoned residential and MXD, Mixed Use Development. The properties to the north are zoned
commercial and residential, and the properties to the west are located 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.
MONUMENT SIGNS The GB, General Business District allows for a second freestanding monument
sign if the following conditions are met:
The building contains more than 80,000 square feet of gross floor area or the site on which the
building is located contains more than 90,000 square feet of surface area;
Although the building is only about 34, 000 square feet in area, the site on which the building is
located is 3.25 acres (141,5 70 square feet in area).
2. The street frontage of the site on which the building or structure is located exceeds 150 feet in
length, and;
The street frontage along Central Avenue is approximately 350 feet.
The building is located 20 feet or more from the front lot line and is located adjacent to a state
trunk highway.
The building is located approximately 50 feet from the property line along Central Avenue.
Central Avenue is a state highway.
Because these conditions are met, the second freestanding monument sign is permitted, but can be no more
than eight (8) feet in height, no more than 40 square feet per side, and must be located at least five (5) feet
from all property lines and no closer than fifty (50) feet from any other freestanding sign on the property.
The proposed plans indicate that the sign will be approximately 6.5 feet in height, 40 square feet in area,
and initially was going to be located 5 feet from the north and west property lines. The proposed location
of the sign will be approximately 180 feet from the existing pylon sign along Central Avenue. Sargent told
members the location of the 2nd sign has changed based on a recommendation from our Public Works
Director. He passed out a drawing depicting the change in location. He said the original proposal placed
the sign in the 30 -foot utility easement which is used by several utilities and includes a gas main. The
company has agreed to re- locate the new sign at least five feet from that easement area. He noted that the
Resolution had also been amended to add the conditions necessary to accommodate this change.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Columbia Heights Design Guidelines were created to guide developers and businesses in the design of
expansions, renovations or new construction of buildings or parking within the Central Avenue and 40
Avenue commercial corridors, and to assist City officials and staff in reviewing development proposals.
The guidelines are mandatory, but the City may permit alternative approaches that meet the objectives of
the design guidelines. The design district that is applied to the Savers store is the Highway District.
FREESTANDING SIGNAGE The Design Guidelines permit monument freestanding signage only. Such
signage may not be internally lit and must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. The
proposed sign utilizes a masonry base that matches the building and will not be internally lit. For these
reasons, the proposed sign meets the Design Guideline specifications.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 3
JANUARY 4, 2011
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:
The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article
The proposed site plan meets all the Design Guidelines standards for building materials and
illumination for freestanding monument signs.
2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
The proposed site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposal will upgrade
an existing commercial business and will enhance the image and viability of the Central Avenue
corridor.
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 property in the immediate vicinity and the public
right -of -way.
The proposed site plan involves the construction of a second monument sign, which will be located
near the intersection of 49` Avenue and Central Avenue. The city anticipates that there will be no
adverse impact on the property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Design Guidelines with the following conditions:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information shall become part of the
permit.
2. The monument sign shall be located no closer than five (5) feet from the utility easement along
Central Avenue, as depicted in the approved site plan.
Questions by members:
Szurek asked how tall the existing Pylon Sign was. Sargent said he estimates it is about 20 feet high, and
that it is grandfathered in. He noted the new sign will be a monument style and will be about 6 '/z ft high
and meets the current guidelines.
Peterson thought the intersection is already cluttered enough with the new bridge and traffic lights. He
doesn't feel the new sign will be that visible from Central Avenue traffic, so wonders why they would go
through the expense of installing one. He thought it would be a better location if it were constructed further
east on 49 t11 Avenue.
Sargent stated it isn't the Commission's job to pick the location of the signage - -that is up to the individual
business, as long as it meets the requirements. If the members have an issue with aesthetics for the City
overall, then the Commission may need to consider a change in the Ordinance to change the requirements
to address those concerns. He reminded members that they cannot make their decisions based on what they
would like, but rather what is allowed under the present code.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
JANUARY 4, 2011
Thompson agreed that he thought the additional signage would be a wasted expense, but that cannot be the
Commission's decision.
Peterson said he was comfortable allowing the sign since it will not be lit and won't be that visible. He, too,
understands it meets the requirements, and is therefore allowed, and that it is up to the company to decide
whether it is advantageous to install or not.
Public Hearing Opened.
No one was present to speak on this issue.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2011 -PZ01, there
being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -PZ01, being a resolution
approving a site plan for the construction of a second freestanding monument sign for the building located
at 4849 Central Avenue, with the conditions attached. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -PZOI
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE SAVERS STORE LOCATED AT
4849 CENTRAL AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2011 -0101) has been submitted by Matthew Long, to the Planning and Zoning
Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS 4849 Central Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT
Site Plan approval for the construction
of a second monument sign for the building located at 4849 Central Avenue.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on January 4,
2011;
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:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 5
JANUARY 4, 2011
1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article.
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 property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of-
way.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall
become part 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 year after the approval date,
subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive
permit.
2. The monument sign shall be located no closer than five (5)
Central Avenue, as depicted in the approved site plan.
Passed this 4 th day of January, 2011,
Offered by: Thompson
Seconded by: Peterson
Roll Call:
Ayes: All ayes
Nays:
information shall become part of the
feet from the utility easement along
Chair Marlaine Szurek
Attest:
SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson
Approval is contingent upon execution and return of this document to the City Planning Office.
I have read and agree to the conditions of this resolution as outlined above.
Matthew Long Date
CASE NUMBER: 2011 -0102
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Driveways
Szurek stated that she had had conversations with Thompson regarding this matter and they would like to
see this issue tabled until spring when some examples could be viewed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 6
JANUARY 4, 2011
Sargent told the members this amendment to the Ordinance is one of many that staff will be bringing before
the Commission in an attempt to clarify and update our City Code because the language used was unclear
in several areas.
BACKGROUND
Sargent stated that Staff is proposing this ordinance change that would effect the setback and location
requirements for residential driveways. After reviewing the Zoning Code, staff feels that the current
language pertaining to setbacks should be amended to better reflect today's housing standards and uses of
residential properties.
As part of this process, staff will also look into the possibility of requiring a building permit for the
construction or reconstruction of future driveways. The justification is to enable staff to determine whether
the placement of driveways on residential properties meets the minimum setback requirements, as well as
allowing staff to better monitor the impervious surface area calculations for those properties located in the
Shoreland Overlay Districts.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to protect
values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow residents to have
greater flexibility in the placement of driveways on their lots, which would give opportunity to reinvest in
their homes.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The proposed amendments made to the Zoning Ordinance would include language regarding the setbacks
and locations of residential driveways within the city. The proposed changes include:
1. Residential lots platted prior to the effective date of this Code and having a lot width of sixty
(60) feet or less, shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of one (1) foot in all districts.
2. Residential lots platted after the effective date of this Code or having a lot width greater than
sixty (60) feet shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet in all districts.
3. The creation of a joint driveway use between neighboring property owners shall require a
Conditional Use Permit.
4. Driveways may only lead directly to, or be contiguous to driveways leading to, an attached or
detached garage.
S. In all zoning districts, driveways shall be no less than twelve (12) feet in width.
Sargent told members this change would actually make it easier for residents who have the small lots, since
the current setback is three (3) feet, and would be changing to one (1) foot for those properties. He also
stated that by issuing a permit, staff would be checking to make sure residents aren't encroaching onto
neighboring properties. Currently, we have no way to prevent that from happening. Sargent stated this will
only affect new driveways or expansions of existing driveways. Staff will not make residents remove what
currently is in place.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 7
JANUARY 4, 2011
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:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to
protect values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow
residents to have greater flexibility in the placement of driveways on their lots, which would give
opportunity to reinvest in their homes.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
The proposed amendment would be effective for all residential properties within the city.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Questions from members:
Thompson again stated he will vote no on this. He wants to wait until spring so the Commission can better
visualize what the change may mean.
Sargent again reminded the members this would only affect new driveways, not existing.
Peterson said he had no problem with the proposed change.
Szurek said she had concern that this would prohibit parking pads and some residents need them to meet
the off street parking requirement. Sargent said the current ordinance states that driveways are only
allowed that lead to a garage, but without the permitting process, there is no way to regulate placement of
parking surfaces. He also said this change would relocate the language in the Ordinance to make it easier
to access all the information. As stated before, this would enable staff to check for drainage issues,
setbacks (that will be less restrictive), lot coverage, and impervious surface area in the shoreline districts.
Gary Peterson stated he doesn't object to the permitting process, but doesn't feel staff should inspect or
approve the actual work as he worries about residents thinking that guarantees the surface will last for "X"
amount of years just because it was inspected. He said there are many factors that can affect a driveway
surface such as the concrete mix itself, lack of proper sealing and maintenance, settling or shifting of the
ground under the driveway, etc. The idea to make it a zoning permit rather than a building permit was
discussed.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 8
JANUARY 4, 2011
Public Hearing Opened.
Mark Roskop who lives at 4151 Stinson Blvd said he opposes the change. He said it is just another
example of more government involvement where there shouldn't be any. He said staff is making more
work, for no reason. Roskop also told members to call it what it is, another tax.
Sargent explained that only the language clarification is being decided tonight. The actual permitting
process and amount of the fee is not being decided at this time.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Szurek, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the proposed zoning amendment. Peterson and Szurek aye and Thompson nay. MOTION
PASSED.
The following is a draft of the Ordinance that will go to the City Council for consideration.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO
DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 9, Article 1,, Section 9.106 (L) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions:
§ 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(L) Off - street parking and loading.
(7) Design and maintenance of parking facilities. Off - street parking facilities are subject to the
following design and maintenance requirements:
(g) Setbacks. Except for one -, two -, three- and four family residential uses, parking lots and
loading areas shall be subject to the same setbacks as a structure for the district in which such parking is located.
One -, two -, three- and four family residential uses are subject to the following setback requirements:
1. Residential lots platted prior to the effective date of this Code and having a lot width of sixty (60)
feet or less, shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of one (1) foot in all districts.
2. Residential lots platted after the effective date of this Code or having a lot width greater than
sixty (60) feet shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet in all districts.
3. The creation of a joint driveway use between adjoining property owners shall require a
Conditional Use Permit.
(h) Residential driveway locations. Driveways may only lead directly to, or be contiguous to
driveways leading to, an attached or detached garage.
(i) Minimum driveway widths. In all zoning districts, driveways shall be no less than twelve (12)
feet in width.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 9
January 4, 2011
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (E)(3)(g) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(E) R -1, Single Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R-
1, Single - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development
Standards:
(g) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (F)(3)0) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(F) R -2A and R -2B, Two - Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R-
2A and R -2B, Two - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development
Standards:
(j) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (G)(3)(o) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(G) R -3, Limited Multiple- Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R-
3, Limited Multiple - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development
Standards:
(o) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (H)(3)(q) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(H) R -4, Multiple- Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R-
4, Multiple - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development
Standards:
(q) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners.
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
First Reading: January 10, 2011
Second Reading: January 24, 2011
Date of Passage:
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 9
January 4, 2011
CASE NUMBER: 2011 -0103
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Fence Regulations
BACKGROUND
Currently, city regulations pertaining to fences are located in two separate sections of the City Code. The
first location is at Chapter 6, Article IV of the Municipal Code, which deals with building and construction
standards. The second location is at Chapter 9, Article I, which is the Zoning Code. Staff feels that these
two sections should be combined and located in one area of the City Code in order to make it easier for the
general public to gather the necessary information when constructing a fence.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to protect
values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would make it easier for the general
public to gather the necessary information when constructing a fence.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The following outlines the key aspects of the proposed ordinance change:
1. Chapter 6, Article IV of the Municipal Code would be deleted in its entirety.
1. The construction standards from Chapter 6, Article IV of the Municipal Code will be
transferred to the Zoning Code.
2. Residential fences greater than six (6) feet in height will require a Conditional Use Permit.
3. Non - residential fences greater than seven (7) feet in height shall require a Conditional use
Permit.
4. Barbed wire fences will still be allowed in the industrial district, but will now require a
Conditional Use Permit.
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:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to
protect values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would make it easier
for the general public to gather the necessary information when constructing a fence.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
The proposed amendment would be effective for all properties within the city.
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.
Not applicable.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 11
January 4, 2011
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.
Not applicable.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Questions from members:
Szurek stated that the amendment makes sense.
Peterson asked about the difference in height requirements for residential fences versus commercial fences.
He wondered if it was standard in other communities. Sargent stated that it was.
Public Hearing Opened.
No one was present to speak on this issue.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the proposed zoning amendment. All Ayes. MOTIONPASSED.
The following draft Ordinance will go before the City Council for consideration.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO
FENCES WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 6, Article IV, of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and
deletions:
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 12
January 4, 2011
(1) gauge, withAvo inehniax-iniuninwsh-,
with knuek4es up and eut edge down.
(2) Approved vinylfeneing ,tee
(3) Treated wood or wood of natHffil niaterials resistant to deecty,
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 13
January 4, 2011
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 14
January 4, 2011
X
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.106 (D) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(D) Fences.
(4) General requirements. The following standards shall apply to all fences:
(a) Fences maybe constructed, placed or maintained in any yard or adjacent to a lot line in
accordance with the requirements of this section.
(b) The owner of the property upon which the fence is located shall be responsible for locating
all property lines prior to constructing said fence.
(c) All fence posts and supporting members shall be placed within the property lines of the
property on which they are located.
(d) All fences shall be situated so that they can be maintained from within the property
boundaries of the property on which they are located.
(e) All fences shall be constructed so that the finished side or more attractive side of the fence
faces the adjacent property or right -of -way.
69 AlIfenees shall be eonst-ruetedofAffible, weather t-yeatedand,-ustjg,-oofedniate,-iol-Y. 0
Fences, freestanding walls, and retaining walls shall be constructed in a substantial and workmanlike manner to
withstand conditions of soil, weather and use, and of substantial material reasonably suited for the purpose for
with the fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall is proposed to be used No previously used materials may be
used in any fence. All fences shall be constructed of the following approved fencing materials:
1. Galvanized or vinyl coated woven fabric — minimum 11'/ gauge, with two -inch
minimum mesh, with knuckles up and cut edge down.
2. Approved vinyl fencing materials.
3. Treated wood or wood of natural materials resistant to decay.
(g) Retaining walls or freestanding walls shall be constructed in the following manner:
1. Retaining walls and cribbing shall be used to stabilize steep slopes or prevent
erosion.
2. They shall be designed in accordance with sound engineering practice; including,
but not limited to, a minimum four -inch concrete footing of appropriate width and drains of appropriate type, size
and spacing.
3. Cribbed slopes shall be appropriately planted if open-faced cribbing is used
4. The retaining wall or freestanding wall shall be constructed in a manner that
presents a finished appearance to the adjoining property where applicable.
{g) (h) All fences shall be maintained and kept in good condition.
fkt) (i) Fence height shall be measured from the average grade to the top of the fence. In
situations where a grade separation exists at the property line, the height of the fence shall be based on the
measurements from the average point between the highest and lowest grade.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 15
January 4, 2011
(j) Barbed wire, razor wire and electric fences shall not be permitted in any zoning district.
However, barbed wire may be permitted in industrially zoned districts and property used for public purposes
through a Conditional Use Permit process.
(O (k) Fences exceeding six (6) feet in height shall require a building permit from the city.
(5) Residential fences. The following standards shall apply to all fences constructed in any
residential zoning district or directly adjacent to any residential zoning district:
(a) No fence shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. Fences exceeding seven f) six (6) feet in
height shall be deemed structures and shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
(b) Fences along any rear property line that abut a public alley or street shall be located no
closer than three (3) feet from said alley or street right -of -way.
(c) It shall be the responsibility of property owners with fences within recorded city easements
to remove such fence at any time when access to the recorded city easement would require the removal of said
fence.
fb) (d) A fence extending across or into the required front yard setback shall not exceed 42
inches (3.5 feet) in height; however, fences that are less than 50% opaque may be up to 48 inches (4 feet) in height.
{e4
(6) Non - residential fences. The following standards shall apply to all fences constructed in any
commercial or industrial zoning district:
(a) No fence shall exceed eight (8) feet in height. Fences exceeding seven (7) feet in height shall
be deemed structures and shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
(b) A fence extending across or into the required front yard setback shall not exceed four feet in
height. ; .
(c) A fence required to screen a commercial or industrial use from an adjacent residential use
shall not exceed eight feet in height or be less than six feet in height. In addition, said screening fence shall be no
less than 80% opaque on a year round basis.
(7) Fencing of play areas. For parks and playgrounds, either public or private and located adjacent
to apublic right -of -way or railroad right -of -way, a landscaped yard area no less than 30 feet in width, or a fence no
less than 4 feet in height, shall be installed between the facility and the right -of -way.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (E)(3)(h) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(E) R -1, Single Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in
the R -1, Single - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development
Standards:
(h) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (F)(3)(k) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(F) R -2A and R -2B, Two - Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
R -2A and R -2B, Two - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for
conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses
set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards:
(k) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 16
January 4, 2011
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (G)(3)(p) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(G) R -3, Limited Multiple- Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
R -3, Limited Multiple - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development
Standards:
(p) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (H)(3)(r) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
(H) R -4, Multiple- Family Residential District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
R -4, Multiple - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development
Standards:
(r) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (D)(3)(t) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
(D) LB, Limited Business District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
LB, Limited Business District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and
Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards:
(t) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (E)(3)(s) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
§ 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
(E) GB, General Business District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
LB, Limited Business District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and
Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards:
(s) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (F)(3)(h) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following
additions and deletions.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 17
January 4, 2011
§ 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
(E) CBD, Central Business District.
(4) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
LB, Limited Business District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104,
Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific
Development Standards:
(h) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.111 (D)(3)(1) and 0) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions.
§ 9.111 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
(D) I -1, Light Industrial District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
I -1, Light Industrial District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and
Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards:
(i) Fences greater than seven (7) feet in height.
(j) Barbed wire fences.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.111 (E)(3)(1) and 0) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions.
§ 9.111 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
(E) I -1, Light Industrial District.
(3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the
I -1, Light Industrial District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and
Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards:
(i) Fences greater than seven (7) feet in height.
(j) Barbed wire fences.
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
First Reading: January 10, 2011
Second Reading: January 24, 2011
Date of Passage:
NEW BUSINESS
Sargent stated we are operating one member short. The vacancy is advertised on the website. He said a
new Vice -Chair will need to be appointed once the vacancy is filled.
Sargent noted the tentative 2011 schedule was included in the agenda packet. Thompson noted that he has
an issue with the meetings that have been re- scheduled for Wednesdays in July, August, and September.
He feels they could still be held on Tuesdays, regardless of the City Council's schedule.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 18
January 4, 2011
Gary Peterson asked what the members thought about getting a P51 plane for the round -about on Huset
Parkway to honor our servicemen. He said the Arts bids submitted thus far are approximately $50,000. He
thinks we could get the plane shipped here and construct the base for less cost. The members were
receptive to the idea. Thompson suggested he contact the Air Force Museum to get additional information
for the cost of the base and what the general maintenance costs would be.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary