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