Loading...
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