HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 4, 2020
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 Aaron Chirpich (Community Development Director), Ryan Grittman (Consulting Planner),
Christy Bennett (Secretary), and Connie Buesgens (Council Liaison).
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Motion by Schill, seconded by Sahnow, to postpone officer elections until the April 2020 meeting.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill, to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 4, 2020.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER: 2020-0301
APPLICANT: THOMAS BRAMA
REQUEST: TEXT AMMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 1661, AMMENDING CITY CODE OF
2001, RELATING TO WALL HEIGHT LIMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Grittman explained that Thomas Brama has applied for an ordinance amendment to remove language from
the zoning ordinance that limits accessory structure wall height to nine feet. The application is a result of a
construction error that has caused a single-family home in the City to be non-compliant. The home is still
under construction at this time.
The accessory structure wall height limitation was created in 2001 as a way to prevent properties with one
story homes from creating oversized garages that are not proportionate to the home. At the time, most
homes in the City would have been one story homes with detached garages; new home construction today
includes larger homes with attached garages. It should be noted that the height limitation applies to both
attached and detached accessory structures.
In review of past meeting minutes related to the 2001 update, the ordinance amendment was adopted as part
of a larger ordinance update. Unfortunately, the meeting minutes from that time do not mention the nine
foot accessory structure wall height limit since the amendment was part of a larger update.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Generally, the Comprehensive Plan supports the maintaining and the redevelopment of its housing stock. In
this regard, the ordinance update is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals by providing flexibility in
the design of new construction, or rehabilitation of existing sites. This is discussed further in the Findings of
Fact section of this report.
ZONING ORDINANCE
1.Ordinance History. The original accessory structure ordinance was adopted in 1974. That ordinance
read:
No accessory building in the “R” District shall exceed the height of the principal building.
However, in the “R-1”, “R-2” and “R-3” District no accessory building shall exceed fifteen (15)
feet in height, except Private Garages as defined herein cannot exceed 18 feet in height.
The ordinance was later updated in 2001 to its current language of:
(f) The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the principal structure or
18 feet in height, as measured to the highest point, whichever is less.
(g) The wall height of an accessory structure shall not exceed nine feet in height.
Staff feels that the intent of the ordinance is to create garages and accessory structures that are proportionate
to the principal structure (home) on the property. This was done by limiting the overall height of the
accessory structure, and the height of the walls. When the ordinance was written, most garages and
accessory structures in the City were detached garages. Today, new construction usually contains an attached
garage. The accessory structure wall height limit of nine feet has been problematic in recent cases, usually
related to new construction and attached garages.
2.Building Height and Structure Height. The zoning ordinance does not have a clean way of calculating
building and structure height. Staff is recommending a new method of calculation for buildings and structures
that utilizes the average finished grade of the property as a benchmark. This update can be found in the
attached ordinance draft. The existing maximum building height for each residential district is as follows:
District R-1 R-2A R-2B R-3 R-4
Maximum Height 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Staff is recommending that the R-1, R-2A, and R-2B districts be changed to 30 feet in height for their height
limit. This is due to a change in the calculation of building height (discussed later in this report).
3.Definitions. The ordinance update is proposing several new definitions to be added to the zoning
ordinance along with changes to some existing definitions. The purpose of the changes is to allow for a
specific height calculation; a definition of average existing grade; and average finished grade. Staff has also
provided image examples for some of the new definitions to better illustrate the ordinance and its intent.
These images will be codified into the ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
This will provide City Staff with an easier calculation for both structures and buildings. In review of the actual
definition of buildings and structures, staff is not recommending any changes.
4.Accessory Structure Building Height. Currently, accessory structure height is limited to 18 feet or the
height of the principal structure, whichever is less. This ordinance ties in with accessory structure wall height
(discussed below). Staff is recommending a change to the zoning ordinance that limits the accessory structure
building height to 18 feet for pitched roofs, and 12 feet for flat roofs. In addition, Staff is recommending
keeping the requirement that the accessory structure may not be taller than the principal structure. This will
allow flexibility with new construction and the rehabilitation of existing sites.
5.Accessory Structure Wall Height. Currently, the zoning ordinance contains a provision that accessory
structure wall height cannot exceed nine feet in height. This ordinance was created as a way of limiting the
size of accessory structures in comparison to principal homes that are common in Columbia Heights. The
ordinance was passed at a time when homes in the City were mainly one and one and a half story homes. The
City sought an ordinance that would restrict the size of garages to match the principal home.
Today, the City has seen some new construction, and the redevelopment of existing sites. Some of these
projects include an attached garage. The new construction often comes with an attached garage. The nine
foot wall restriction has become problematic for some home designs that cannot accommodate that low of a
height. This problem has mainly been seen in relation to attached garages.
The ordinance update seeks to remove the height restriction on walls, and instead, create a building height
calculation that goes from a calculation point on the ground to a point on the roof.
6.Accessory Structure Square Footage. Accessory structures are limited to 1,000 square feet in area.
This is a cumulative number, meaning the total between any and all detached garages, attached garages,
sheds, etc. The proposed changes to the accessory structure height along with the square footage limitation
will allow accessory structures to remain proportionate to the principal structure. No changes to the square
footage limitation are proposed.
7.Structure Height. In review of the City’s existing structure height definitions, Staff is recommending
some changes to this ordinance to better reflect the City’s topography. Staff is proposing to combine the
definitions of structure height calculation and building height calculation. The key changes are:
Structure Height Calculation. The existing ordinance calculates building height using the elevation at
the curb or the front of the home, whichever is higher. Staff feels this is an unfair calculation as homes
that have a slope down to the home will have an advantage in their building height calculation.
Instead, Staff is recommending that the building height be calculated using elevations around the
structure only. A calculation using the curb will be removed.
Building Height Calculation. The existing ordinance has a similar means of calculating building height as
it does with structure height. Staff is recommending using the same calculation for building height and
structure height.
Building Height Limits. Staff is recommending that the single and two family residential districts be
changed to allow a building height of 30 feet. This is due to the fact that the building height calculation
will raise existing building calculations since the current calculation only uses the curb or front of the
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
home. The new calculation will lower the “starting point”. As a result, the building height needs to be
raised in order to accommodate this change in calculation.
Average Existing Grade. Staff is proposing to add a definition of average existing grade. The average
existing grade is calculated by taking the elevations of the corners of a property before construction
begins and finding an average. This number is then used as the average existing grade, which is then
used to calculate building height. Exhibit A attached to this report helps illustrate the intent of the
ordinance. This calculation is not used in determining building height in the City, but it’s included in
the ordinance update for reference.
Average Finished Grade. Staff is proposing to add a definition of average finished grade. The average
finished grade is calculated by taking the elevations of the corners after the completion of a project on
a property and finding an average. This number is then used as the average finished grade, which is
then used to calculate building height.
In addition to the above changes, Staff is recommending that the maximum height limitations be separated
into two parts, building height and structure height. This will help clarify which height should be used when
determining height of buildings and structures. While most districts will use the same height for buildings and
structures, the new tables provide more clarity.
8.Previous Variance Request. In 2019, the City processed an application for a variance to exceed the
nine foot accessory wall limitation, and the overall accessory height limitation of 18 feet. This request was
denied by the City. Prior to the City receiving the application, Staff had encouraged the applicant to apply for
an ordinance amendment. The applicant moved forward with the variance request instead. While the City
cannot use past approvals or denials for justifying current applications, the previous variance request is an
example of how the nine foot accessory wall height limit has been problematic in the past.
It should be noted that to receive a variance, the applicant must prove a hardship. A hardship is usually the
result of an irregular shaped lot, legal non-conforming lot, etc. In the case of a height variance, a hardship can
be difficult to prove.
9.Staff Review. The Fire Department and the Public Works Department were notified of the proposed
zoning ordinance amendment. Neither department had any comments or concerns on the proposed
ordinance update.
10.Nearby Community Research. Staff researched other communities that are nearby to see what
regulations and calculations they have for building height. Some key findings are:
City of Fridley. The City of Fridley uses the following definition for calculating building height:
The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of a finished grade at the front of the
building to the highest point in the case of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; and to
the mean distance between eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
Exhibit B attached to this report shows illustrations on how building height is calculated.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
The following table shows the height limitations for the single and two family residential
districts in the City of Fridley:
District Height Limit
R-1 - One Family 30 feet
R-2 - Two Family 30 feet
The City of Fridley also has a requirement that the accessory structure may not be taller than
the principal building. However, no wall height limitation exists in their ordinance. In review of
the ordinance, Fridley does not appear to have an additional limitation on accessory structure
height, only the requirement is that the accessory structure is less than the principal home (the
principal home cannot exceed 30 feet in height).
City of Blaine. The City of Blaine has a similar definition for building height calculation as the
City of Fridley:
The vertical distance to be measured from the grade of a building line to the top, to the cornice
of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point of the roof directly above the highest
wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean
distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.
Exhibit C attached to this report illustrates how building height is calculated in the City of
Blaine.
The following table shows the height limitations for the single and two family residential
districts in the City of Blaine:
District Height Limit
R-1 - Single Family 30 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-1AA – Single Family 30 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-1A – Single Family 35 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-2 – Two Family 30 feet or 2 ½ Stories
R-1B – Single Family 35 feet or 2 ½ Stories
As with the City of Fridley, the City of Blaine does not allow accessory structures to be taller
than the principal structure, and no limitation on wall height exists.
City of Spring Lake Park. Spring Lake Park has a similar building height calculation as Blaine and
Fridley:
The vertical distance measured from the average elevations of the finished grade along the
front of the building to the highest point of the roof surface in a flat roof, to the deck line of
mansard roofs, and to the mean height level between eaves and the ridge of gable, hip, and
gambrel roofs.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
Exhibit B attached to this report illustrates how building height is calculated in the City of Spring
Lake Park.
Building Height is limited by the following in the City of Spring Lake Park:
No accessory building shall exceed 18 feet in height or the height of the principal structure,
whichever is less. No detached accessory structure may exceed 15 feet in height.
The following table shows building heights in the single family districts:
District R-1 R-2 R-3
Height Limit 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is greater
In each of the three examples above, the ordinances have a way to calculate building height and a limitation
on building height. None of the examples above have a limitation on accessory wall height. The design of the
accessory structures appears to be left up to the property owner, and not regulated by the ordinance. If the
City of Columbia Heights were to remove the nine foot wall limitation, it would be consistent with surrounding
communities. It should be noted that the proposed ordinance change would also be consistent with other
communities in the area.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Council shall make each of the following findings before granting approval of a request to amend the
Zoning Ordinance.
(a) The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create diverse single-family housing that promotes a
variety of life cycle housing; retains residents; and promote reinvestment in the City’s housing stock.
The ordinance amendment will help promote these goals by offering more flexibility in housing
construction and rehabilitation. In this regard, the ordinance amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals.
(b) The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner.
Staff Comment: While the ordinance amendment application stems from an issue at a single property,
Staff has supported a change in the ordinance for several years prior to this application. Overall, the
amendment will benefit the public interest by allowing flexibility in the design and construction of both
attached and detached accessory structures.
(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.
Staff Comment: The applicant is not requesting a change to a zoning classification; therefore, this
requirement does not apply.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
(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.
Staff Comment: The applicant is not requesting a change to a zoning classification; therefore, this
requirement does not apply.
In review of the ordinance requirements for an ordinance amendment, the application is consistent with the
requirements.
SUMMARY / RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has applied for a zoning ordinance text amendment to remove language that restricts the
accessory structure wall height to nine feet. The purpose of the application is to correct a construction error
on a single family home. The home is currently under construction and construction has been idle since this
error has occurred. In addition to providing a reasonable solution to this construction error, staff is supportive
of the text amendment as the proposed changes bring clarity to the height measurement calculation process
for all new construction projects within the City. Staff also finds that the current wall height limitation is acting
as a barrier to welcoming modern home designs for in-fill construction within the City.
The accessory structure wall height ordinance was adopted in 2001 as part of a larger update. At that time,
existing properties in the City contained a detached garage. Typically, new construction includes an attached
garage and no longer contains a detached accessory structure. The nine foot wall height limitation has
become problematic for new construction that usually contains an attached garage. Staff has supported an
ordinance amendment for several years, but has not moved forward with a formal request. Instead, a private
application has been made to update the ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1661, being an
ordinance amending City Code of 2001, relating to accessory structure wall height within the City of Columbia
Heights. The intent of the update is to eliminate the wall height limitation; maintain the overall height
requirement; and provide a concise building height calculation. This will provide flexibility in the design of
accessory structures, while keeping accessory structures in proportion to principal structures.
Questions from Members:
Sahnow asked about the process for the ordinance amendment (whether it goes onto city council after
Planning Commission). Chirpich explained that it would go to City Council for 2 readings, with the first being a
public hearing on March 9. Sahnow then also expressed approval for the changes being proposed.
Novitsky asked if this means that garages can be built with 9ft walls and a 4/12 pitch. Grittman explained that
this is what is currently allowable, but that the amendment would get rid of the 9ft wall limit, while still having
the total accessory structure limitations, including total height limitations. The current ordinance has been
problematic with new construction, mainly related to attached garages. When the current ordinance was
adopted, it was mainly looking at detached garages and the cities current housing stock. Current construction
usually has attached garages, where the 9ft wall height has been very limiting.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
Novitsky asked if this meant that you could have 10ft walls inside now if it’s built into the house, so they could
have more head room. Grittman stated that this is the case, but that the exterior limit of 12ft for flat roofs and
18ft for pitched roofs is still in place. Novitsky then asked if this would allow people to put hoists in their
garages. Grittman explained a car lift would be tight, as there are still other limitations, including a 1,000 sq ft
max and accessory structure height limits. The ordinance is re-tooled to still keep accessory structures in
proportion.
Fiorendino and Szurek said the ordinance change sounds very reasonable.
nd
Hoium recalled a request for 2 story inside a garage a couple years prior that was denied. Szurek recalled this
as well, and stated it was because the garage would have been a lot higher than the house. Szurek questioned
if the ordinance changes would still not allow a 2 level garage. Chirpich said it would be very difficult, given
that the accessory height can’t be higher than the primary structure and also has its own height limit.
Fiorendino asked if rooms above a garage would be allowed. Chirpich said he feels this would be allowed, as
we don’t have a limitation on living space over a garage. It could potentially be built into the attic space of a
standalone garage. Living space in a 2 story house above a tuck under garage would also be allowed, as long as
it met the house building height.
Fiorendino was confused by the building height limit, as 28ft and 30ft are both referenced. Grittman explained
that the ordinance proposal includes a slight increase to the building height limit, from 28ft to 30ft. Chirpich
shared that they had looked at some modeling of current pitched roof styles, as well as how it would affect
different floor plans, particularly walkouts, to arrive at that number. The 30ft height limit is also more in line
with the ordinances of nearby communities.
Novitsky asked about barn-style roofs. Chirpich said this would fall under the “other” roof styles, which
doesn’t have a specific measurement diagram, but the highest peak can’t be taller than 18ft. Novitsky
questioned how much more space you could have inside with this style of roof. Chirpich stated that, if the
concern is a shop operating out of a garage, that there are protections within the home occupation ordinance
for the city to limit and enforce against a single family auto shop. Any other nuisance characteristics that might
be associated with that, like outdoor storage, can be addressed through other code enforcement angles. This
did come up in conversations, as they wanted to make sure that with a flat roof, you couldn’t just build a box
that you could drive a motor home into in the single family district or to put a hoist into a simple structure like
that. Chirpich said that if we become inundated with hoists and it does turn into an issue, we can look at the
ordinance again and make additional tweaks to it. He also shared that these updates are more reflective of
modern home design and that in looking at surrounding communities, they could not find any ordinances that
had a wall height limit on accessory structures.
Novitsky questioned whether people could add a deck on top of a flat roof garage. Chirpich said he didn’t
know that we had anything prohibiting this. Szurek said that this likely would have to be based on design, but
that these updates give more flexibility for newer homes being built. She also mentioned it would have helped
with the topography issue of the house that requested the variance last year. She asked Brama if he built that
house and he stated that he sold him the lot. Brama also commented that because that developer didn’t
follow Aaron’s recommendations, the house that was built has a very steep driveway.
Hoium took issue with the fact that the house was under construction, but then sat idle since the error was
detected.. Szurek explained that when Brama became concerned about the height, he came to the city, which
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
is what brought us to this place. Hoium stated it makes sense to get rid of archaic language from the
ordinance.
Schill mentioned he had a question about salt box roofs (which the City of Blaine has measurement guidelines
for), and if we’re not seeing enough examples of them to put the time and effort into a measurement for that
style of roof or if it’s also using surrounding communities as a guideline. Grittman explained his thought is to
have guidelines around pitched roofs, mansard roods and flat roofs, and then everything else gets lumped into
the “other” category, which goes by the highest point on the roof, rather than trying to figure out all the
possible roof types and creating calculations for each of them.
Kaiser had no questions.
Szurek then questioned applicant Brama about what transpired that caused him to have to come to the city to
ask for help. Brama responded that it dates back to a decision made my Larry Pepin, the previous building
official, relating to the first home Brama built, 4340 Stinson Blvd. Brama stated that this house does not meet
the accessory wall height in large part due to the current ordinance being hard to interpret. According to
Brama, Pepin interpreted the accessory wall height for that house, which is almost identical to the house
under construction (including the accessory wall height) as being acceptable. With current staff doing the plan
review of the blueprints for the new house, it was determined that it did not meet the accessory wall height
limitation.
According to Brama, the house under construction has 10’6” garage walls currently, with the intent to have a
little more storage space over vehicles or to accommodate newer larger, larger vehicles more easily. The new
house, like 4340 Stinson, has a 3 car attached garage at the front of the house.
Public Hearing Opened
Robert Kirwin of 4410 Stinson Blvd expressed frustration about a plot division that took place in 2016 (the
house under construction that prompted this ordinance amendment proposal is being built on one of the sub-
divided plots), stating that he and his father are “doing a review of the whole entire project”. He had trouble
expressing exactly what he wanted to communicate at this meeting, jumping around to numerous topics,
including mentioning City Attorney Hoeft multiple times, frustration with construction trucks parking in front
of his house, and that “promises” were not kept regarding driveway length. Chair Szurek asked him to keep
any comments relevant to the case being considered on the current agenda. He was not in favor of the
ordinance change and felt like the change was for Brama. Szurek explained it is changing requirements for
future development throughout the city, so that we don’t have similar problems with the more modern
designed houses that are being built. Kirwin maintained that he was not in favor of this amendment passing.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1661, there being ample
copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Fiorendino , seconded by Sahnow, to recommend the City Council approve Ordinance 1661 as
presented. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
th
The attached Ordinance will go before the City Council at the March 9 meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 1661
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE OF 2001 RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WALL HEIGHT
WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1
9.103 City Code of 2001, is hereby amended to read as follows:
AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE. The Average Existing Grade is measured as the existing elevation (prior to any
construction alterations) at each corner of the structure and calculating an average.
AVERAGE FINISHED GRADE. The Average Finished Grade is measured by taking the finished elevation (after
any construction alterations) at each corner of the structure and calculating an average; see example images
below:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
HEIGHT, BUILDING. The distance measured from the mean curb level along the front lot line or from the mean
ground level for all of that portion of the structure having frontage on a public right-of- way, whichever is
higher, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly
above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean
distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.
HEIGHT, STRUCTURE OR SIGN. The distance measured from the mean curb level along the front lot line or
from the mean ground level for a structure having frontage on a public right-of-way, whichever is higher, to
the uppermost portion of the structure or sign.
BUILDING. Any roofed structure that may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel.
HEIGHT, BUILDING. Building Height is measured as the distance from the average finished grade to the tallest
point of a flat roof; or the peak of a pitched or mansard roof; or the highest point on all other roof types.
HEIGHT, SIGN. Sign Height is measured as the distance from the average existing grade to the tallest point on
the structure or sign, whichever is taller. For Pylon Signs, the average existing grade is taken from the
elevation where the pole meets the existing grade.
HEIGHT, STRUCTURE. Structure height is measured as the distance from the average finished grade to the
tallest point on the structure.
ROOF HEIGHT, FLAT. The height of a flat roof is measured as the average finished grade to the highest point
on the roof (see example below):
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
ROOF HEIGHT, PITCHED. The height of a pitched roof is measured at the average finished grade to the mean
distance between the eaves and the highest point of the roof (see example below):
ROOF HEIGHT, MANSARD. The height of a mansard roof is measured as the average finished grade to the
highest peak on the mansard roof (see example below):
ROOF HEIGHT, OTHER. All other roof heights are measured as the average finished grade to the highest point
or area on the roof.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires more or less permanent location on
the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground. When a structure is
divided into separate parts by an unpierced wall, each part shall be deemed a separate structure.
Section 2
9.106 (C) City Code of 2001 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the principal structure or 18 feet in
height as measured to the highest point, whichever is less.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
(f) Unless a height limitation is specifically stated, the height of an accessory structure shall not exceed
the lesser of:
1. The height of the principal structure.
2. Twelve (12) feet above average finished grade for flat roofs.
3. Eighteen (18) feet above average finished grade for pitched roofs, mansard roofs, and all other
roofs.
(g) The wall height of an accessory structure shall not exceed nine feet in height.
Section 3
9.109 (C) Maximum Height of the City Code of 2001 is hereby amended to read as follows:
District R-1 R-2A R-2B R-3 R-4
Residential Buildings 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Non-Residential Buildings 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
28 ft. 30 ft. 28 ft. 30 ft. 28 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
unless unless unless unless unless
Residential Structures
specified specified specified specified specified
elsewhere elsewhere elsewhere elsewhere elsewhere
35 ft. 35 ft.
35 ft. unless 35 ft. unless 35 ft. unless
unless unless
Non-Residential Structures
specified specified specified
specified specified
elsewhere elsewhere elsewhere
elsewhere elsewhere
Section 4
9.110 (C) Maximum Height of the City Code of 2001 is hereby amended to read as follows:
District LB GB CBD
Maximum Building Height 35 ft. 35 ft. None
None.
35 ft. Unless specified 35 ft. Unless specified Unless
Maximum Structure Height
elsewhere elsewhere specified
elsewhere
Section 5
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 13
OTHER BUSINESS
Updates:
Chirpich shared that we are through the planning approval process for the new City Hall and mixed use project
th
at 40 & Central and working to finalize the finer points of the agreements related to how the building site will
function. The hope is to tie everything up in time for a May demolition of the old bank building and parking
structure. Szurek asked if we will get the building cleared by then. Chirpich explained that there are multiple
strategies in place and he is confident that we can meet that timeline. All told, the construction phase of the
project will take about 2 years, so it is important that we get things going this year and get enough of a head
start to be in a good place by winter. Chirpich thanked the commission for their hard work on the project.
Chirpich also shared that Prodeo Academy is moving along well. The roofing structure and windows are going
in and the floor for the main structure is being poured. Their hope is to open the school for this coming school
year.
Chirpich stated that we won’t have a case for the ordinance update from the Arcade that we were anticipating
for April, as the application deadline has passed and they weren’t able get it together in time. Szurek asked if
they are still planning on going ahead with their project. Chirpich said that’s the plan and that we’re hopeful.
They are getting closer to coming to terms on the finer points of the lease with the building owner, but they
still some work to do, too.
Fiorendino proposed that the wording for the motion to postpone elections be changed from “the April 2020
meeting” to “the next meeting”, so that the commission would not be required to meet in April if there were
no other items on the agenda.
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schill, to postpone officer elections until the next meeting.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The next Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 6 pm.
Motion by Schill, seconded by Kaiser, to adjourn the meeting at 6:43pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Christy Bennett
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes Page 14