Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-02CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 - 40a' Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, NIN 55421 -3878 (763) 706 -3600 Ton (763) 706 -3692 Visit our rvebsite at., tmvtaci .coltaxLrmheielrts.ime.us MEMBERS: Maclaine Szurek, Chair Rob Piorendino Mike Peterson Chris Little Tracey Kinney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2012 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 -40TH AVENUE NE 1. Roll Call Minutes September 5, 2012 meeting 2. Public Hearings: Case #2012 -1001, A 30 -inch Height Variance for a Fence in the Front Yard Jason Norden 3919 Reservoir Boulevard NE 3. New Business 4. Other Business 5. Adjourn The Responsibility of the Planning Commission is to: • Faithfully serve the public interest. • Represent existing and future residents, and base our decisions and recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. • Recognize the rights of citizens to participate in planning decisions. • Protect the natural environment and the heritage of the built environment. • Exercise fair, honest, and independent judgment. • Abstain from participation when they may directly or indirectly benefit from a planning decision. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Fiorendino, Kimsey, Peterson, and Szurek Members Absent- Little Also present were Council Liaison (Bobby Williams), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Peterson, seconded by Kinney, to approve the minutes from the meeting ofAugust 8, 2012. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2012 -0901 APPLICANT: Financial One / Powerfully Green LOCATION: 843 — 40 "' Avenue NE REQUEST: Site Plan Approval for a Solar Carport Sargent explained that the applicant is requesting a Site Plan Approval for the construction of a solar carport for the Financial One business located at 843 — 40 "' Avenue NE. This property is located within the Design Guidelines 40 "' Avenue District and requires a Site Plan Review in order to ensure compliance with the Design Guidelines. The property currently has uncovered, on -site parking. The applicant would like to be able to incorporate a solar - collecting carport onto the property that both covers parked cars and collects renewable energy. The solar energy collection carport has the option of providing car - charging stations as well, being the first of its kind in the metropolitan area. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 843 — 40t" Avenue is zoned CBD, Central Business District, as are the properties to the south, east and west. The properties to the north are zoned R -3, Multiple Family Residential. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. By definition, the proposed carport is an accessory structure. The Zoning Code does not specify a maximum size for accessory structures in the CBD, Central Business District. The Zoning Code also states that all non - residential accessory structures shall be subject to the same setback regulations as a principal structure in which it is located. The CBD allows for buildings to be located directly on the front and side property lines. The front lot line of this property is that lot line adjacent to Van Buren Street. The proposed location of the carport indicates consistency with the Zoning Code. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 2 September 5, 2012 DESIGN GUIDELINES. No changes to the principal structure will be occurring. The proposed carport incorporates solar panels mounted on a steel support structure, acting as a canopy for parked cars. The Design Guidelines do not specifically regulate this type of structure because it is not enclosed. For this reason, the proposal meets the minimum standards of the Code. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Commercial. The proposed Site Plan adds to the commercial aspect of the property and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT (Site Plan) Section 9.104 (N) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four findings of fact that must be met in order for the City to approve a site plan. They are as follows: a) The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. The site plan meets all applicable Design Guidelines for the property. b) The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Commercial. The proposed Site Plan adds to the commercial aspect of the property and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C) The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no area plan for this portion of the city. d) The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-of-way. The proposed structure meets all setback requirements, and thus minimizes all adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and public right -of -way. Staff recormnends approval of the proposed site plan, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the following conditions: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this application shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the carport. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 3 September 5, 2012 uestions from members: A representative from Financial One was present to answer questions and so was a representative from Powerfully Green (the company installing the solar carport). Szurek asked what the energy would be used for? She wondered if it would be used just to plug in cars or if it would supply the business with power. A representative from Financial One stated that it should supply about half of the power they need to operate their business. Ile explained that there will not be a storage facility on site, and if there is surplus of power, they may sell it to the power company for public use. Kinney questioned whether the carport would be used strictly for their private use or if the parking area with power would be open to the public. The representative said they may sell some of the power to the public in the future if someone wishes to pay for a spot to plug in their car to recharge it, but for the present time it will be used by employees and customers. Sargent explained that since this property is in the CBD, no on -site parking is required to operate the business, and therefore, the City would not regulate how the spaces are used. The height of the solar panels was discussed. It was noted that the carport will be about 15 feet, 11 inches in height. Members questioned whether it would have an impact on the neighboring property to the north. Sargent stated that it meets the maximum height allowance of 18 feet. He said it may cast a shadow but the panel itself would not go over the property line. Peterson wondered if there would be a glare off the panels. Sargent said he didn't think so due to the height of the panels and the fact they will be angled away from the property to the north. Public Hearing Opened: No one had anything further to say on this issue. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2012 -PZ07, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 4 September 5, 2012 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Fiorendino, to adopt Resolution No. 2012 -PZ07, being a resolution approving a site plan for a new solar collecting carport for Financial One located at 843 — 40 "' Avenue NE. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. RESOLUTION NO.2012 -PZ07 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR CARPORT FOR THE BUIDLING LOCATED AT 843 — 40TH AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2012 -0901) has been submitted by Financial One, to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS: 843 — 40 °i Avenue NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT: Site Plan approval for the construction of a new solar carport located at 843 — 40 °i Avenue NE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on September 5, 2012; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of the City staff regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. 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 mull and void if the project has not been completed within one (l) calendar >> ear. after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant shall obtain a buildingpermitprior to construction of the carport. Passed this 5"' day of September, 2012, Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 5 September 5, 2012 CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2012 -0902 Steven Maas 3918 Ulysses Street NE A Variance for a Third Accessory Structure Sargent told members that the applicant is requesting a variance per Code Section 9.106 (C)(1)(a) in order to retain a third accessory structure on his property located at 3918 Ulysses Street NE. The applicant currently has a detached garage and a storage shed on his property. Just recently, he has constructed a 24' x 10' kennel to house his cats. City Staff learned about the construction because of a neighborhood complaint. Upon inspection of the property, staff informed the applicant that he would need a building permit for the structure as well as a variance to retain the third accessory structure. The property is a duplex, with the applicant living on one side and the applicant's mother living on the other. Both have two rescue cats, which are accustomed to being outdoors. In the applicant's letter, he states that prior to the kennel being built, there were multiple times when his cats could be found on neighbor's roofs, on their decks, and even in their homes. The cats often killed songbirds, squirrels, rabbits and mice and needed to be cleaned up after. The enclosure allows the cats to remain outdoors while not causing problems with neighboring property owners. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 3918 Ulysses Street is zoned R -213, One and Two Family Residential, as are the properties to the north. The properties to the south, east and west are zoned R -2A, One and Two Family Residential. The Zoning Code at Section 9.106 (C)(1)(a) states that each residentially zoned parcel shall be allowed two detached accessory structures. The addition of the cat kennel would create a third accessory structure. For this reason, a variance is required. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The Zoning Code states that the combined square footage of all accessory structures on the property may not exceed 1,000 square feet in area. The applicant has a 20' x 20' detached garage (400 s.f), a 10' x 12' shed (120 s.f.) and the 24' x 10' cat kennel (240 s.f.) measuring 760 square feet in total, meeting the City's minimum requirements. The Zoning Code also requires all accessory structures to be no closer than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines. As a condition of approval, Staff will require that the setbacks be verified through the Building Permit process. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 6 September 5, 2012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Residential. The use of accessory structures in residential areas is allowed, and for this reason, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance) Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five findings of fact that must be met in order for the City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Although the cat kennel is considered an accessory structure, it is not used in the same manner as a detached garage or storage shed. The very nature of this structure requires it to be detached from the house and located in the rear yard. Although the applicant has the option of removing the storage shed from the property, he stated that he needs the shed for the storage of materials that cannot be placed inside the principal structure. The cat kennel is also a reasonable use of the property. b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. The conditions upon which the variance is based are the fact that the applicant has a detached garage and storage shed on the property and would like to retain a structure that he built to house his cats outdoors. This is a unique circumstance, as this is the first variance request of this nature that the City has received. C) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of the Code. Staff sought the City Attorney's opinion on how to classify the cat kennel. The cat kennel is a structure that is not intended for a principal use. For this reason, the City Attorney stated that it has to be classified as an accessory structure. Most commonly, accessory structures, like garages and sheds, are used for the storage of materials. This is a bit different since the structure will be used to house animals. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 7 September 5, 2012 The Zoning Code does not specifically address kennels in relation to being accessory structures on a property. It is the City Attorney's opinion that staff should look into this particular matter and propose a Zoning Amendment if need be to clarify this issue. d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Residential. The use of accessory structures in residential areas is allowed, and for this reason, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. According to the applicant, the granting of the variance would actually aid in the enjoyment of the properties in the immediate vicinity, as his cats would not be causing problems in the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a third accessory structure on the property. Staff feels that this type of structure is similar to a property owner building a fence around his yard to keep his dogs from leaving the property. In this case, the "fence" would have to be enclosed in order to keep agile cats from leaving the property. The variance request is a reasonable use of the property, and for this reason, staff recommends approval. uestions from members: Sargent told members that he did get a couple calls from neighbors in the area and reported that they were in favor of the structure being approved. Sargent then reviewed the conditions included as part of the motion. Szurek asked if the structure was connected to the house as the pictures depict. Sargent told members there is a catwalk with a small door that allows the animals to go in and out as they wish. Szurek then asked if the structure met the minimum setbacks of 3 feet from all property lines. Sargent said that will be verified by the Building Inspector in the permit /inspection process. Sargent used a site plan to review the exact location of the structure with the members. It is set back at the rear of the property next to the garage. He told them it is not visible from Ulysses at all. It is only visible to the property to the north of him. He also noted that it takes up a small area in the rear yard which is difficult to tell from the pictures. Peterson stated that he had driven by the property and didn't think it would be very appealing to the neighborhood until he saw it. He agreed it wasn't as large or obtrusive as the pictures depict. Plamiing & Zoning Minutes Page 8 September 5, 2012 Kinney asked what the height limit was for an accessory structure. Sargent told members that the maximum height is 18 feet or the height of the principle structure, whichever is less. This particular accessory structure is 10 feet high. Fiorendino asked what the nature of the complaint was that got this thing started. Sargent said he thought it was just a caller wondering what was being built. Fiorendino then asked what constitutes an accessary structure —would playhouses, dog houses, etc. be considered accessory structures, or only those structures in excess of 120 sf since they would require a building permit. Sargent told members that our code doesn't really define this and it is something that needs to be addressed. A situation such as this, bring these areas that need attention to light. Sargent said the City Attorney gave his opinion that we currently have two types of structures defined in our code. The first is the primary structure which is the occupied structure. Anything else on the property would be classified as an accessory structure, and our code allows for only two accessory structures. Fiorendino clarified with Sargent that if this cat structure met building code requirements and he didn't have the shed, this matter wouldn't even have to come before the commission. The only reason for this variance is to allow three accessory structures rather than the two allowed by code. Sargent told them that is correct and because this is a unique structure that is not really defined in our code, a variance would be needed until this matter can be rectified., Peterson asked if this structure could be considered part of the primary structure since it is comiected by the cat walk way and then it wouldn't be considered an accessory structure. Sargent responded that according to the City Attorney that wouldn't work since no one can reside in this open aired structure. Fiorendino said not all the Findings of Fact could be met in order to grant this variance. Sargent said that some variances don't meet all the criteria. Szurek also didn't think this unique structure should be defined as an accessory structure, but since we have no other category to put it in, she understands the variance request. Sargent stated that if this was indeed another shed he wanted to add to the property he would not recommend approval. There was some discussion on whether the structure could be altered into another storage building if this variance is approved. Sargent told members that they could add an additional condition stating that the structure could not be altered or used as a storage structure in the future if the Council approves this request. They all felt this would be a good idea. Public Hearing Opened: Steve Maas -3918 Ulysses St -told members why he built this cat kennel structure. He had pictures showing that the structure was 3 to 3.5 feet from all property lines. He also said if he ever moves or he no longer has the cats, the structure would be removed. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 9 September 5, 2012 Three of Mr. Maas' neighbors were present and they were all in favor of this in order to keep the cats contained. Szurek asked if the cats were fixed and if they were current on their shots. Mr. Maas indicated they were and this kennel area keeps his cats away from other cats. Fiorendino stated he would vote for this variance but thinks we need to look at the code and better define what an "accessory" structure is. All the members agreed with this. Public Hearin Cg losed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the variance for a third accessory structure per Code Section 9.106 (C)(1)(a), subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the kennel. 3. The kennel must meet the minimum setback requirements for an accessory structure, being setback no closer than 3 feet from the side or rear property lines. 4. The kennel may house no more than 4 cats at any one time, with the understanding that no more than 2 cats may belong to the owners /tenants of each side of the duplex. 5. That the kennel cannot be altered or used for storage. Roll Call: All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. The following Resolution will go to the City Council September 10, 2012 for consideration. RESOLUTION NO.2012 -XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR STEVEN MAAS WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2012 -0902) has been submitted by Steven Maas to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: Plamiing & Zoning Minutes Page 10 September 5, 2012 ADDRESS: 3918 Ulysses Street NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A variance for a third accessory structure per Code Section 9.106 (C)(1)(a). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on September 5, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. 2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. 3. The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the kennel. 3. The kennel must meet the minimum setback requirements for an accessory structure, being setback no closer than 3 feet from the side or rear property lines. 4. The kennel may house no more than 4 cats at any one time, with the understanding that no more than 2 cats may belong to the owners /tenants of each side of the duplex. 5. That the kennel cannot be altered or used for storage. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 11 September 5, 2012 CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2012 -0903 City of Columbia Heights City Wide Zoning Amendment for Temporary Signs Sargent told members that in early 2012, the City Council approved the establishment of the Community Development Steering Committee ( "the Committee "). The task of the Comanittee was to conduct an extensive review of the Sign Code and Design Guidelines to determine whether these articles are still relevant in today's society. The Committee was in charge of overseeing any changes that might be made, with suggestions and recommendations to the City Staff, who would then forward the recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Conunittee was comprised of one resident, three business owners, one City Council member and one Planning Commission member. They met for six sessions beginning in May, 2012, and have come up with some suggestions for Zoning Amendments. At this time, City Staff is representing the Committee by proposing a Zoning Amendment as it relates to temporary signage. In order to promote new businesses that have moved into Columbia Heights, the Committee proposes the City to allow each new business to utilize one "Grand Opening" sign per business for a period of 60 days. This banner would not require a permit and would not count towards the total allotment of temporary banners (four) that a business may use in a calendar year. The purpose of this amendment is to allow new businesses the opportunity to advertise their new arrival in an attempt to establish themselves in the community. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and enhance the existing viable cormmercial areas within the community, and to promote reinvestment in properties by the commercial and industrial sectors. Allowing a "Grand Opening" sign would aide in the enhancement of the commercial areas throughout the city. 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 enhance the existing viable commercial areas within the community, and to promote reinvestment in properties by the commercial and industrial sectors. Allowing a "Grand Opening" sign would aide in the enhancement of the commercial areas throughout the city. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 12 September 5, 2012 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The proposed amendment would apply to all commercial districts throughout 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. 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. The amendment would not change the zoning classif cation of a particular property. Sargent reviewed the details of what is allowed for the Grand Opening signs with members. Questions by members: Szurek asked how the signs would be monitored if a permit wasn't needed. Sargent said he drives around for other code compliance matters on a regular basis and would be able to monitor this. He said staff is usually aware of new businesses that open through a variety of channels. Fiorendino thought this would be a great way for new businesses to establish themselves in our city. Public Hearing Opened: No one was present to speak on this. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Kinney, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed zoning amendment. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. This will go to the City Council for consideration. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 13 September 5, 2012 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: Chapter 9, Article 1, Section 9.106 (P) (7) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: § 9.106 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (P) Sign regulations. The following uses are subject to speck development standards: (7) Temporary signs. The following standards shall apply to temporary signs in all zoning districts: (h) Grand opening signs. 1. Each new business is permitter) one (1) grand opening sign, at the time when the new business is established in the city. Z Grand opening signs do not require a permit. 3. Such signs do not count against the total number of temporary signs allowed per property per calendar year. 4. Grand opening signs are allowed for no "tore than sixty (60) consecutive days. 5. Granrl opening signs must display a message consistent with the promotion of the grand opening of the new business. 6. Grand opening signs shall be no greater than fifty (50) square feet in area. 7. Such signs must meet all other applicable regulations for temporary signage in the city pertaining to placement on the property, maintenance, etc. [Sections § 9.106 (P)(7)(i -k) shall be renumbered accordingly] Section 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: September 10, 2012 Second Reading: September 24, 2012 Date of Passage: OTHER BUSINESS Szurek asked about sandwich board signs and how long they can be out. Sargent said that sandwich board signs have been allowed for about 5 -6 years now. Businesses may have one sign that can be kept out indefinitely as long as they are professionally made, are no larger than the maximum allowed, and stay away from property lines. I-Ie acknowledged that some of them are placed on sidewalks because that is their only option. He said staff is flexible in regards to these Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 14 September 5, 2012 signs unless a complaint is received. She then asked how much window signage a business may have. Sargent responded that 25% of the window space may be covered with signage. Sar ent told members that Family Dollar may not be occupying the old Blockbuster building at 52" and Central after all, and that O'Reilly's Auto broke ground this week at 37`x' and Central and anticipate a completion date by the end of November. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary CITY OF • ; CASE NUMBER: 2012 -1001 DATE: October 2, 2012 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: Jason Norden LOCATION: 3919 Reservoir Boulevard NE REQUEST: A 30 -inch Height Variance for a Fence PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner INTRODUCTION At this time, the applicant is requesting a 30 -inch height variance to install a 6 -foot fence in his front yard per Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(d). City Staff noticed that the 6 -foot fence was being constructed in the front yard and informed the applicant that he would need a variance in order to retain the structure. For this reason, he is requesting the variance. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 3919 Reservoir Boulevard is zoned R2-A, One and Two Family Residential, as are all the properties in the immediate vicinity. The Zoning Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(d) states that screening fences constructed in the front yard may not exceed 42 inches in height. The applicant has constructed a six -foot fence (72 inches) in the front yard, requiring a 30 -inch height variance. The house at 3919 Reservoir Boulevard sits within 5 feet of the rear property line, leaving no rear yard on the property. The reason why the applicant constructed the fence was to promote more privacy on his property than he currently has. The 6 -foot fence extends along the southern property line from the front of his house and stops when it lines up with the rear of the neighboring house. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Residential. The use of fences in residential areas is allowed, and for this reason, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 2, 2012 3919 Reservoir Blvd. - Fence Variance Case # 2012 -1001 FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance) Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five findings of fact that must be met in order for the City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The applicant's house was constructed within 5 feet of the rear property line, leaving the property with no rear yard. Being that the applicant would like to create some privacy on his property, he has constructed a 6 -foot fence in an area that would be his rear yard if his house was set back the same distance as the neighboring properties. Because the 6 -foot fence does not extend into the front yard of the neighboring properties, the applicant is using his property in a reasonable manner. Page 2 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission October 2, 2012 3919 Reservoir Blvd. - Fence Variance Case # 2012 -1001 b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. The conditions upon which the variance is based on the fact that the house is placed within 5 feet of the rear property line, leaving the property with no rear yard. This is a unique circumstance, as principle structures are required to be placed no closer than 20% of the lot depth in the R2 -A, One and Two Family Residential District. c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The applicant bought the house in its current condition. The practical difficulties in this case are caused by the provisions of the Zoning Code not allowing fences in excess of 42 inches in the front yard. d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Residential. The use of fences in residential areas is allowed, and for this reason, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. The placement of the 6 -foot portion of the fence is consistent with the placement of 6 -foot fences in relation to the neighboring properties. At no point does the 6- foot portion of the fence extend in front of either of the neighboring properties. For this reason, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 30 -inch height variance for a fence located in the front yard because of the practical difficulties that are imposed on the property due to the placement of the house on the lot. Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 30 -inch height variance to install a 6 -foot fence in his front yard per Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(d), subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Page 3 City of Columbia 3919 Reservoir E hts Planning Commission - Fence Variance and Development Ordinance, including: October 2, 2012 Case # 2012 -1001 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Resolution • Location Map • Site Plan Page 4 RESOLUTION NO.2012 -XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR JASON NORDEN WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2012 -1001) has been submitted by Jason Norden to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 3919 Reservoir Boulevard NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: a 30 -inch height variance to install a 6 -foot fence in his front yard per Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(d). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on October 2, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. 2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. 3. The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. Resolution No. 2012 -XXX 2 FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. Passed this 8 °i day of October, 2012 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Ayes: Nays: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Attest: Tori Leonhardt City Clerk 40TH AVE 1202 3984 1400 (p tp r r 0 0 0 0 O O O O N N M M "9> 1?0, 950 rn rn m rn S 59 7 50 12 OS 1121 "9 389 5 509 5`flG 69 9) 39 rn m m rn 9 5 S O S2 9) Sy 7 5 995 `O 596, 6'y S �9SA O. N N tD O V OC OFF 0 ^ 9 �(C Q-� S9 9 Sy y N S6 9y u u' 2 VO 5 5957 S939y? "`9y Wc H M M 1055 595 958 �l.� 5 9Q, 59�95syp SPAS F3940 0 0 0 592 O �:�j 5 9y7 5 �'p5p LU 9 9 9 d 5`922 S 598 5� S92p2S 595955 SS 1036 79 5 9 ?� `➢97 2? 592 ?`9 `+y720 a s 1000 3912 59 S 99597y 8 "9 925 5972 N "�9 �' ?5 "9 72 59 27 5`99 09 97 Op 79 ,9 0 Sy 09 w e 971 Sy 906, 76. 5 ? 50 S 590 Oy sv1 S 3900 590? ° 3905 21 990 3901 77 1221 0 39( 39TH AVE 770 1102 3868 1200 50 1216 5 1220 c 950 3850 Sp�S O p Spy? GJ'� 50 5 506, SO �� 50 pay 39A? JO 5950 Sp O`p0 Sp �,p Sp O`r0 0 50 3090 �� 590 8SS 5 5096,5 ` u'958`r9 S 5 59R5`rp 9 59 868 3836 39 30 SSS 5 5 84? �` 5 59S7SS .195892 5 SpS5p7 3830 ?9 50 S 050 �� Sp 04> Spi O 8'ri ?0 ?p 5 4S 5 50.?O '` 50 q5 50 9 Si9y 3826 A 3 p OSy Sp tp20 Spy �?y SS2 app 5 x,059 �a ^h 35 S9 2? S 507 ? „' p5S 3a�3 3816 5o3p2j 5 59 p20 59 5925 Sp7p7S O 595p ?� 7 3807 3812 5 ?7 e70 507 79 Sp0 2 58j ?5 3803 3806 87S 11-919 597 S 500 0 307 9 3800 3801 3p99 9 (90, 80) 7 5 3)5p O 505877 S 3732 3733 3732 5 5� 5 S �5 ,p 09 (n 3731 p0 3 �4 SI ? 5 p05 3728 3725 3726 3� S 3j o 3j3� 7 3j ?9 5 T'i 3726 47 ?p 3 29 5 �Sj 3722 3721 3720 3j 3j3,? 3� � ?o Sj X55 "' 3720 3719 W 3711 3712 Location Map r'flS 1 4 Q 'Yf�'�'1isj �G fG✓✓ ®/Y O� ✓� ii i� A6 lveb dfo I v S7 Q 3g17 U.vc!/; n9 1 � � 5 � . o 13ga3 uao\51' SCANNED Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council Members, My name is Jason Norden, my wife Kelly and I are new residents in Columbia Heights and purchased 3919 Reservoir Blvd in August 2011. We are seeking a variance for a 6' privacy fence located on the south side of the property between 3915 Reservoir and 3919 Reservoir. The reasons I believe this variance should be granted are as follows. a) Our dwelling location is setback to 5' from the alley. Due to this we do not have a back yard like other homes in the neighborhood. So do to the configuration of the dwelling on this parcel of land I believe it to be difficult to conform to the zoning ordinance. It is a fact according to the code, if our neighbor at 3915 Reservoir built the same exact fence it would be okay to be 6' at the location I am asking for the variance on. There is one property on the block with the about the same setback as ours which is 3969 Reservoir. They must have a variance for this similar reason because they have a 6' chain link fence along the whole front of their yard. b) Because of the deep setback of this home the variance would be unique to this area with the exception of 3969 Reservoir which has a 6' chain link fence across the whole front of their yard. Ours is only a privacy divider on one side of our property. As seen in the plan 3915 Reservoir is set back 95' from the alley which seems a pretty typical set back to this area. c) Because of the unique setback of this home built in 1920 we do not have a private area to use our property in a reasonable manner. Which was no fault of our own. We also have a 16 year old son who has cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair and as a homeowner in this city with a disabled family member, having this fence will allow future improvements to the home to make it more handicap accessible like possibly expanding our drive way along the fence line up to our sitting area right behind the garage. My son cannot fit his wheelchair anywhere else on the property but in the front to enjoy time outside with family and friends with privacy. d) This home is a residential property and allowing the fence variance would be consistent with the general purpose and intent of a comprehensive plan. e) Granting this variance would not be detrimental to any of the public because of the location and fact that if the owners of 3915 wanted to erect a 6' fence on their property in this same location they would not even need a permit let alone a variance. It is of no harm and is improving the look and property value of this home and probably adjacent home 3915 Reservoir. It is with this humble request that my wife Kelly, sons Devin, Payton and I would appreciate this consideration as new home owners in the beautiful City of Columbia Heights to enjoy our home and community in a reasonable manner. Thank You, Jason Norden Our Family 6' Fence Location Our Family Enjoying Privacy Fence Another View of Fence View of 3969 Reservoir Blvd with 6' Fence in front of property and set back close to alley.