Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180905_Planning_Minutes MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION September 5, 2018 6:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chair Szurek. Commission Members present- Sahnow, Novitsky, Fiorendino, Hoium, Kaiser, and Szurek. Members Absent: Schill Also present were Elizabeth Hammond (Planner), Shelley Hanson (Secretary), and John Murzyn (Council Liaison). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Hoium , seconded by Novitsky, to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 8, 2018. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #: 2018-0901 APPLICANT: Ivan & Randeelyn Clauson th LOCATION: 685 49 Avenue NE REQUEST: Variance-New Accessory/Garage Structure Hammond explained that Ivan and Randeelyn Clauson have requested a Variance to the front and side yard setbacks for the subject property. Currently, there is a one car attached garage on the property. The garage is th located on the east side of the house, with driveway access provided off 49 Avenue. The current garage is in disrepair and the property owners wish to remove the existing garage and replace it with a new two car attached garage. A survey is attached illustrating the proposal. th The front of the house and garage face 49 avenue; there is a provision in the code that defines this as the side yard of the property, even though it functions as the front of the property. Due to this provision the east side of the property is considered the front yard. The provision is as follows: 9.106 (B) (9) For corner lots, the shorter lot line abutting a public street shall be deemed the front lot line for purposes of this article, and the longer lot line abutting a public street shall be deemed a side lot line. th In this case, the property’s dimensions are 90 feet along 49 Avenue and 88 feet along Monroe Street. Due to this provision, the proposed garage does not meet the required setbacks. The required setbacks are as follows: Front yard-25’ feet Side yard- 7’ feet The proposed garage is 20.5’ feet from the front property line, and 4.4’ feet from the side property line. 20180905_Planning_Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 Sept 5, 2018 ZONING ORDINANCE The property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN On the future land use map, the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for low density residential. The proposed garage will enhance the residential use of the property, by providing appropriate vehicular storage. SITE PLAN th The owner has submitted a legal certificate of survey dated September 26, 2017, indicating the proposed location of the garage. The survey shows that the attached garage will be located on the east side of the house and adjacent to the east and north property lines. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five conditions 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. This is correct. Due to the fact that the house is setback on the north side of property, with existing entrances to the house in place, the most logical and practical place for the garage is as proposed. (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. This is correct. The conditions are unique to this property due to the provision in the zoning code, the fact that the parcel is a corner lot, and the existing location of the home. (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. This is correct. (d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. This is correct. (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. This is correct. Planning Commission Page 3 Sept 5, 2018 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Resolution No. 2018-64, approving th Variances for the property located at 685 49 Avenue NE (Property ID 26-30-24-13-0004): 1) Waiver to Section 9.109 (C)-allowing an attached accessory structure to be located 20.5’ feet from the front (east) property line. 2) Waiver to Section 9.109 (C)-allowing an attached accessory structure to be located 4.4’ feet from the side (north) property line. Questions from Members th Hoium questioned setbacks if 49 Avenue was considered the front yard. Hammond explained a variance would still be required for the rear yard setback. Hammond told members that the current garage is only 2.55-2.75 feet from the rear property line and the new one will be moved forward a little so that it would be 4.4 feet from the north line. The required setback is 7 feet and the owner has tried to accommodate that as much as he could. She went on to explain that the required setback from Monroe St is 25 feet and the new, larger garage would be 20.5 feet from Monroe St. Hoium asked if notices went out to neighbors. Hammond said notices were sent to neighboring properties within 350 feet, and that notices were published in the Sun Focus and on the website. Fiorendino acknowledged the new garage will be setback further than the existing one, so he had no problem with the variance request. Novitsky asked if the owner was replacing the driveway. He said not at this time. Sahnow asked what he was using on the exterior of the new garage. The owner stated he would try to match the house with steel lap type siding since it will be attached to the house. Public Hearing Opened. A neighbor was present who stated she was in favor of the variance and said the new garage would be an improvement to the property. Public Hearing Closed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 Sept 5, 2018 Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Kaiser, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2018-64, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Novitsky, to recommend the City Council approve Resolution 2018-64 th approving the variance for the property located at 685 49 Avenue NE, as presented. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. The following Resolution will go to the City Council on September 10, 2018. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-64 A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving Variances for the th property located at 685 49 Ave. NE. Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2018-0901) has been submitted by Ivan and Randeelyn Clauson to the City Council requesting variances from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following location: th ADDRESS: 685 49 Ave. NE. (PID 26-30-24-13-0004) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: 1) Waiver to Section 9.109 (C)-allowing an attached accessory structure to be located 20.5’ feet from the front (east) property line. 2) Waiver to Section 9.109 (C)-allowing an attached accessory structure to be located 4.4’ feet from the side (north) property line. Whereas, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on September 5, 2018; Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variances 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, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT (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. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Sept 5, 2018 (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. (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. (d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of 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. ORDER OF COUNCIL Passed this 10 th day of September, 2018 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Donna Schmitt, Mayor Attest: Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary CASE #: 2018-0902 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: NA REQUEST: Zoning Text Amendment Staff is recommending a Zoning Text Amendment, to remove the fee schedule chart currently displayed in City Code, Section 9.104 (c) (5). The Community Development Department oversees the land use planning and zoning functions of the City. There are a number of land use applications that a property owner can file with the City. All land use applications have various application fees which are established by a resolution of the City Council. Periodically, the fees are evaluated and adjusted based on comparable area rates as well as staff time used for processing and evaluating land use requests. The way the Zoning Code is set up currently, when a fee is changed by the City Council, staff has to bring an ordinance to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council for approval, as this action is technically amending the literal language (the fee chart) in the code. Removing this chart and referencing that the Community Development Department will keep a record of the current fees, will ultimately save staff time going forward, and lessens the likelihood that outdated fees are left in the Zoning Code. 201800905_Planning_Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 Sept 5, 2018 FINDINGS OF FACT (a)The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Not applicable. (b)The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. This is correct. (c)Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. Not applicable. (d)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 its current zoning classification. Not applicable. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1651, being and ordinance amending City Code of 2005 relating to zoning and land development, and removing the planning and zoning fee schedule from the zoning code. Questions from members: Hoium asked if the City council would still have oversight over changes to the fee schedule going forward. Hammond said yes, staff cannot arbitrarily change the fees without Council approval. Sahnow asked how often they are changed. Hammond said they were last changed last winter which is when this came to light. Before that it was approximately 10 years ago. By making this change, it will eliminate discrepencies in fees previously included in the Ordinance and what is posted on the website or applications when changes are made. Motion by Hoium , seconded by Fiorendino, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1651, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Hoium , seconded by Fiorendino, to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 1651, as presented. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. The following Ordinance will go to the City Council on September 10, 2018. 201800905_Planning_Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 Sept 5, 2018 ORDINANCE NO. 1651 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT, AND REMOVING THE PLANNING AND ZONING FEE SCHEDULE FROM THE ZONING CODE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The City Council (Council) of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (City) does ordain: SECTION 1: §9.104 (c) (5), City Code of 2005, as it currently reads is amended as follows: (5) Application fees. Fees for all applications for development or land use approval shall be a flat rate and established by resolution of the City Council. The city retains the right to require an escrow and additional payment for any out-of-pocket expenses for consultants and professional services and/or to obtain an escrow for cases that are extraordinary in size or complexity. Remaining escrowed funds not spent in reviewing the application shall be returned to the applicant. Payment of all fees is a condition of application approval. The fee schedule shall be: PLANNING AND ZONING FEE SCHEDULE Land Use ActionFlat Rate Fee Appeal $185 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $500 Conditional Use Permit $200 Preliminary Plat $500 + Escrow Final Plat $100 Interim Use $250 Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) $275 Site Plan Review $250 Vacation $150 Variance $200 Zoning Amendment $500 SECTION 2: Chapter 9.104, (c) (5), City Code of 2005, shall hereafter read as follows, to wit: (5) Application fees. Fees for all applications for development or land use approval shall be a flat rate and established by resolution of the City Council. The city retains the right to require an escrow and additional payment for any out-of-pocket expenses for consultants and professional services and/or to obtain an escrow for 201800905_Planning_Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 Sept 5, 2018 cases that are extraordinary in size or complexity. Remaining escrowed funds not spent in reviewing the application shall be returned to the applicant. Payment of all fees is a condition of application approval. The Community Development Department will keep a record of current fees for all land use applications. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. OTHER BUSINESS Szurek asked if there had been any further complaints from the parties involved in the case from the August meeting. Hammond stated that staff has not received any calls since the City Council took action to amend the CUP. Szurek asked if there was update on the Hy-Vee project. Hammond said they are waiting for the construction plans to be submitted for the C-store which is expected to start this fall. Once the plans are received it is about a 3-4 week process to review the plans before they can begin construction. She went on to explain that Hy-Vee still has not submitted their new site plan application for the main store which the Planning Commission must re-approve. Again, she is hoping that happens yet this fall as the company indicated. Szurek reminded everyone that the Library Foundation is holding its annual fundraising Spaghetti Dinner next th Wednesday, Sept 12 at Murzyn Hall from 4:30- 7:00 pm. Hammond reminded members that the next Planning Commission meeting will be Tuesday, October 2nd at 6:00 pm. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Sahnow, to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary 201800905_Planning_Minutes