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.