HomeMy WebLinkAboutAug 7, 2019 P & Z Minutes
MINUTES OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 7, 2019
6:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chair Szurek.
Commission Members present- Sahnow, Novitsky, Fiorendino, Hoium, Schill, Kaiser, and Szurek.
Also present were Elizabeth Hammond (Planner), Aaron Chirpich (Community Development Director), Shelley
Hanson (Secretary), and John Murzyn (Council Liaison).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Schill, seconded by Hoium, to approve the minutes from the meeting of May 7, 2019. All ayes.
MOTION PASSED.
Aaron Chirpich, the new Community Development Director was introduced to the Commission.
CASE #: 2019-0801
APPLICANT: D.T. Meisinger Development Inc
LOCATION: 4320 Stinson Blvd NE
REQUEST: Variance
Hammond said that D.T. Meisinger Development Inc., is representing Alexis and Jennefer James, and they have
requested a Variance to the wall and total height requirements for the proposed attached garage to be located on
the subject property. Currently, the property is vacant and the property owners are planning to construct a new
single family home on the property. The proposed house would meet setbacks and height requirements;
however the attached garage as proposed exceeds the ordinance allotment for wall height and total height to the
highest point.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance defines accessory buildings or structures in Section 9.103 as: A building or
structure or portion of a structure subordinate to and serving the principal structure on the same lot. In Section
9.106, the standards which regulate the construction and maintenance of accessory structures include that, the
wall height cannot exceed 9 feet and that the total height measured to the highest point, cannot exceed 18 feet or
the height of the house, whichever is less. The proposed garage has 12 foot walls and a total height of 21 feet, at
the highest point, exceeding the wall height and total height by 3 feet.
The applicant has requested a variance to allow for the proposed garage and included a narrative which details
the reasoning for the request. According to the applicant, the request for taller walls and a taller total height is
due to the location of the garage on the subject property and water run off concerns. Additionally, the applicant
argues there could be financial impacts to lowering the garage to meet the wall and total height requirements.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The properties to the north, south,
and west are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and Public and Open Space. The properties to the east are
located in the City of St. Anthony.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for low density residential.
Planning Commission
Page 2
Aug. 7, 2019
SITE PLAN
The owner has submitted a legal certificate of survey dated June 13, 2019 indicating the proposed location of
the home and attached garage along with concept plans including elevations. The survey shows that the attached
garage will be located on the east side of the house.
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 does not appear to be entirely true. While the applicant is proposing to use the property in a generally
reasonable manner, not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, the conditions of the specific parcel do not cause
the need for the variance. The applicant could modify the garage to comply with the height requirements. The
applicant argues that the placement of the garage on the lot is part of the justification for the request; however
the placement of the garage does not correlate to the request for the garage to be taller. Additionally, the City’s
Engineer and Building Official have concluded that the geotechnical and water run off challenges the applicant
argues in the narrative would not impede the garage achieving the height requirement.
(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 parcel’s location is unique due the secluded area, adjacent to the lake access in Columbia Heights and
parkland in St. Anthony. The subject property is larger than typical lots in Columbia Heights. The parcel area
is 13, 817 sq. ft., whereas typical lots in Columbia Heights are approximately between 5,000 sq. ft. – 9,000 sq.
ft. However, the size of the subject property is not unique to the neighborhood area or zoning classification (R-1
Single Family Residential). There are lots in the neighborhood and same zoning classification with a similar or
larger area (lot size).
The grade on the lot increases on the west side, which requires a retaining wall to be built, as shown on the
survey. However, the variance request appears to be based on the applicant’s desire to have a taller, larger,
garage and financial impacts associated with potentially building a taller retaining wall, both of which are not
unique to this specific parcel of land, and could generally be applicable to other properties within the same
zoning classification or elsewhere in the City.
(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.
Practical difficulties do not appear to be evident in this case, based on the applicant’s justification for the
variance requests.
Planning Minutes
Page 3
Aug 7, 2019
(d)The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan supports low density residential development in this area. The construction of a new
attractive single family home on the lot is in harmony 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.
If the City Council decides to grant the variance, it does not appear that the taller garage would be
substantially harmful to the public welfare, or the use and value of property in the vicinity. The home would
likely not appear to be significantly out of scale with the surrounding homes or alter the character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance requests. It does not appear
that the request meets the findings outlined in the City’s Ordinance. Additionally, it does not appear that the
request meets the legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering a variance request.
Cities must apply a three factor test in considering variance requests, and all three factors must be satisfied. The
three factors are: 1) Reasonableness 2) Uniqueness 3) Essential Character. Based on the information provided
by the applicant, staff does not find that all three factors have been satisfied to constitute a practical difficulty.
Questions/comments from members:
Szurek asked Hammond if anything in the League of MN Cities guidelines would classify this matter as a
hardship. Hammond said the request must meet the “practical difficulties” definition per State Statute.
Hammond said that staff took a lot of time reviewing this application and checked with other adjacent cities.
She said the height requirements detailed in our Ordinance are in line with Fridley, St. Anthony, and
Minneapolis.
Sahnow asked how the 9 foot wall height and 18 foot total height requirement was arrived at and when that was
adopted. Hammond said she is not sure when these figures were written into the ordinance since it was long
before she became the Planner. She explained that limits were most likely created because the average size of
lots in Columbia Heights are smaller, and it seems to be an area wide consensus to provide some uniformity.
Sahnow
pointed out that the narrative provided by the owner said they wanted to stay above the water table. If the water
table is an issue, wouldn’t lowering the garage 3 feet below the house foundation be a water issue for the
garage. Hammond told members that both the Building Official and the City Engineer said that the house
foundation could be lowered 3 feet which would bring the first floor down to the same elevation as the garage
nd
and would bring the 2 floor elevation down to properly line up, which would allow for 9 ft walls in the garage,
and they would still be above the ground water. It may take more grading in the front to lessen the slope of the
driveway and possibly in the back to move the retaining wall back, but it could be done.
Fiorendino asked if the email correspondence handed out at the meeting changes anything. Hammond said we
would review those with the applicant during the Public Hearing. Fiorendino then asked if there was any
language in the Zoning Code that allows for changes in height due to the size of the lot. Hammond told him no.
Planning Minutes
Page 4
Aug. 7, 2019
Hoium questioned the drawings and wanted to make sure he understood that the garage slab was 3 feet lower
nd
than the house and that causes the need for the 12 foot walls in order to match up with the 2 floor of the home.
This will also mean they have to step up into the home from the garage and at the front door. He asked if
standard garage doors will be installed, and the applicant said yes, there would be an 8 x 25 door.
Public Hearing was Opened.
Sahnow asked if the Zoning Code gives a definition of wall height, or total height, and how it is measured.
Hammond said typically it is measured from the top of the foundation to the peak.
Hoium asked why they were lowering the garage slab and therefore, causing the need to increase the wall height
nd
to match up with the 2 floor. DT Meisinger said they were trying to raise the house for drainage reasons in the
back corner especially, and by lowering the garage slab the driveway slope stayed within the required
parameters without additional grading. The proposed design would provide a 2% swale in the backyard and a
10% slope of the driveway. If the garage were raised it would cause a 17% slope of the driveway unless
additional grading was done.
Hoium asked if the intent of the ordinance is to dictate roofline height. Hammond said the code clearly dictates
wall height of the accessory structure cannot exceed 9 feet and the total height cannot exceed 18 feet or the total
height of the primary structure, whichever is less.
Szurek asked how high the retaining wall in the back would be. DT Meisinger said that is unknown at this time.
She didn’t think the request affects others in the neighborhood.
Kaiser said there are lots of ways to deal with water run off. He asked if the house were flipped, would it help
them be able to put both foundations at the same level thus eliminating the need to have higher garage walls.
DT Meisinger said no, it would be worse due to the slope of the north side. He said it is the unique shape and
topography of the lot that is causing this problem.
Hoium asked why they didn’t choose a different style house to fit the lot. DT Meisinger said this is the house
the owners want.
Public Hearing Closed.
Hoium noted the Building Official and City Engineer both felt the house could be lowered to match the garage
foundation or the garage could be raised up. Either option would work if they changed the grading and moved
the retaining wall back or made it higher, even though it would increase the cost, as noted in their narrative.
Fiorendino stated that by law the commission cannot take into consideration costs involved to meet the
requirements when considering a variance request. The commission needs to decide if its unique with no work
around.
Chirpich reviewed the three criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance.
Planning Minutes
Page 5
Aug 7, 2019
D.T. said the variance is requested because of the topography and that they only have half of the lot to work
with in order to deal with water run off and create a swale. Half the lot is flat and the other half has great
elevation changes so any house built would have these same problems.
Schill asked if there was any chance the new information submitted from the surveyor would change this for the
City Council. Hammond said the City Engineer will be at the Council meeting and can speak to this then. She
will provide the new information to him prior to the meeting. Schill then asked if the 10% maximum grade for
the driveway is a suggestion or requirement. Chirpich stated he felt it is a requirement since the word “Shall” is
used in the Ordinance.
Sahnow said the lot was split in 2017, and wondered if it has always been a vacant lot. Hammond told
members that originally this site was two lots and it was subdivided into five. She believes this particular lot
has always been a vacant piece of land. He asked if staff had an opinion on whether this was indeed a unique
situation. If there are other ways to meet the requirements, does it fit the definition of unique.
Hoium asked if we deny this variance request, would they be allowed to come back and ask for one for the
slope of the driveway.
Kaiser said he is sympathetic to properties that have water issues. He thinks that is a logical concern and
argument, but he is inclined to follow the recommendation of staff and follow the state statute on this matter.
Motion by Kaiser, seconded by Novitsky, to recommend the City Council deny the request for variances to the
height restrictions in City Code Section 9.106, as the application does not meet the findings of fact and
practical difficulties standard. Ayes-Kaiser, Novitsky, Fiorendino, and Hoium
Nays-Sahnow, Szurek, and Schill MOTION PASSED 4-3.
This matter will go to the City Council August 12, 2019
CASE NO: 2019-0802
APPLICANT:Kraus-Anderson Construction Co
th
LOCATION: 1400-1440 49 Avenue-High School Property
REQUEST: Site Plan Review
Hammond explained that Kraus-Anderson Construction Company has requested Site Plan Review on behalf of
Columbia Heights Public Schools, ISD 13 for a proposed band room addition to the existing educational
facility. According to the applicant’s narrative, additional space is needed to meet the current and future needs
of the school’s programming. The proposed addition is 3,348 sq. ft. (54’ X 62’) and will match the existing
structure in terms of design and color. The proposed addition satisfies the City’s setbacks and height
requirements.
Planning Minutes
Page 6
Aug 7, 2017
ZONING ORDINANCE
The subject property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The properties to the north and
east are located in the R-1 District, and the properties to the south and west are located in the R-2A One and
Two Family Residential and R-3, Multiple Family Residential Districts.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Institutional development.
FINDINGS OF FACT
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 applicable Zoning Code requirements are achieved.
b.The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Institutional Use. Staff believes the proposed Site Plan for the
property is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
c.The Site Plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
There is no area plan for this parcel.
d.The Site Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right-
of-way.
This is correct. The proposed addition will not impact the surrounding property in the immediate vicinity or the
public right of way.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan for the proposed addition to the
Columbia Heights High School subject to certain conditions of approval.
Questions/comments from members:
Chirpich explained that additional fire walls need to be added to the existing structure to bring it into
compliance as part of this project.
Hoium asked if there was anything on the parcel of land they plan on constructing the addition. Hammond
answered no.
Public Hearing Opened.
Andy Smoka from 1206 Khyber Lane said Kraus Anderson is a good contractor so he was not at the meeting to
complain about them. He did question why they had already cleared the area and put up their construction fence
if this hasn’t been approved yet. He wanted to know whose decision it was to make an addition to the high
school. Staff told him it was the School District’s decision. Smoka went on to complain about his high taxes
and that all these apartments that were just constructed brought more kids so now all the schools will need
additions and
Planning Minutes
Page 7
Aug. 7, 2019
his taxes will go up more. He said for the value of his property, Columbia Heights taxes are much more than
Blaine’s. He is against spending more money and raising taxes more. Then Smoka went on to complain about
water issues he is having and that his sump pump runs continually and he blamed it on the townhouses and
apartments that were built down the hill from him.
,
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2019-PZ02, there being
ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Sahnow, to approve Resolution No. 2019- PZ02, being a resolution
approving a Site Plan, for the proposed addition to the Columbia Heights High School and subject to the
following conditions:
1.The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code.
2.All on-site mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on
adjacent residential properties and from public streets. Screening may be accomplished through the use
of walls or other design features that are architecturally compatible with the principal structure,
screening vegetation, integrated parapet walls of sufficient height, or other means as approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
3.The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached letter from the Interim Fire Chief,
dated August 30, 2019.
4.The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached letter from the Building Official,
dated August 1, 2019.
5.All City Storm Water Management requirements and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
requirements shall be achieved for this property. Plans for rate control shall be reviewed by the City
Engineer prior to the building permit issuance.
6.A final complete Certificate of Survey shall be reviewed by the City Planner prior to the building permit
issuance.
7.Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, shall become part of this approval.
8.All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
RESOLUTION NO. 2019 – PZ02
A Resolution of the Planning Commission approving a Site Plan for the proposed addition to the
th
Columbia Heights High School located at 1440 49 Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (PIN 25-30-24-
31-0001)
Whereas,
a proposal (Case 2019-0802) has been submitted by Kraus-Anderson Construction Company to the
Planning Commission, requesting Site Plan Review from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
LOCATION: 1440 49th Ave NE (25-30-24-31-0001)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Site Plan Review for an addition to the Columbia Heights
th
High School located at 1440 49 Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Planning Minutes
Page 8
Aug. 7, 2019
Whereas,
the Planning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on August 7,
2019;
Whereas,
the Planning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of 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;
Now, therefore, be it resolved,
the Planning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the
proposal, 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 approval; and in granting this approval the City and the applicant agree that this approval
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:
1. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code.
2. All on-site mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on
adjacent residential properties and from public streets. Screening may be accomplished through the use of walls
or other design features that are architecturally compatible with the principal structure, screening vegetation,
integrated parapet walls of sufficient height, or other means as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
3. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached letter from the Interim Fire Chief, dated
August 30, 2019.
4. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached letter from the Building Official, dated
August 1, 2019.
5. All City Storm Water Management requirements and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
requirements shall be achieved for this property. Plans for rate control shall be reviewed by the City Engineer
prior to the building permit issuance.
6. A final complete Certificate of Survey shall be reviewed by the City Planner prior to the building permit
issuance.
7. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, shall become part of this approval.
8. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
Planning Minutes
Page 9
Aug 7, 2019
Passed this 7th day of August, 2019
Offered by: ______________________________
Seconded by: Marlaine Szurek, Chair
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Abstain:
____________________________________
Shelley Hanson, Secretary
OTHER BUSINESS
*Hammond told members that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has finally been deemed complete by the Met
Council. Two committees will now review it during August and September. Staff plans on having the City
th
Council adopt it at the September 25 meeting. So it will be in effect by the end of the year.
*Chirpich told the members that there will be two applications to consider at the September meeting. Prodeo
Academy has purchased 4141 University Ave and will demolish the Oakhill Baptist Church structure and build
a new K-8 charter school. So the Site Plan, CUP, and variances will be on the agenda. This is a 22 million
dollar project for the City.
The second case will be for the remnant parcel by the round-about on Jefferson and Huset Pkwy. A developer is
proposing a 75 unit Assisted Living Building that again will be a 22 million dollar project.
*Other Updates: Chirpich told them the City recently acquired the NE Business Center at 3989 Central Avenue
and that we have entered into a pre-development agreement with Alatus Co. to build a 6 story building of 200+
luxury apartments and possibly a new city hall on the ground floor at the location. He told them the Council has
narrowed down the location of a new city hall to this location or next to Murzyn Hall. Alatus hopes to start in
the Spring of 2020. He explained that the site had been designated as an “Opportunity Zone” which brings
additional tax credits and financing options for re-development. He said the property located behind the Public
Safety Building also has this designation and there are interested parties looking at that site also. He told
members he is excited to be on board with so many challenging projects in the works.
The next regular meeting will be Wednesday, September 4, 2019.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Novitsky, to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary