2001 PC Meeting MinutesJanuary 8, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
following present: Elsen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom,
and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Community Development Director
Peters, Planner Sutter, and Recording Secretary Van Krevelen. Absent (excused) was
Koss.
J . Election of Officers for 2001.
Acting Chair Magnuson declared that norninatiOns were Ot)cli fOr officers of'the Planning
Commission consisting of Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary for the year ending December
31, 2000.
A. Commissioner Kamp nominated and Commissioner Nystrom seconded the
nomination of Commissioner Magnuson as Chair of the Planning
Commission for the year ending December 31, 2001.
Motion carried.
. Commissioner Nystrom nominated and Commissioner Krueger seconded
the nomination of Commissioner Elsen as Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission for the year ending December 31, 2001.
Motion carried
C. Commissioner Elsen nominated and Commissioner Krueger seconded the
nomination of Commissioner Nystrom as Secretary of the Planning
Commission for the year ending December 31, 2001.
Motion carried
Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to approve the
minutes of the December 11, 2000 regular meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
J Information Items:
❑ City Council Actions on Planning Commission Items
❑ Quarterly Development Status Report
❑ Planning Commission Attendance for 2000
❑ Due Dates for Planning & Zoning Applications in 2001
4, Informal Discussion and Announcements.
No discussion items or announcements.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
Chair Magnuson
Secretary Nystrd
February 12, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
following present: Elsen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom,
and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Recording Secretary
Van Krevelen.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to approve
the minutes of the January 8, 2001 meeting with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
. Consideration of revisions to a previously approved site plan submitted by Greg A.
Bichler (applicant and owner) to construct a 3,498 sq. ft. dental office building on
property located at 5231 and 5237 Douglas drive North (P.LD. 08-0118-21-11-0003
and 08-118-21-11-0084).
Planner Sutter stated that the applicant, after obtaining additional advice from
contractors, would like to turn the building so it would face Douglas Drive instead of
52"d Avenue. Stuff recomnicnded that a turn -around sp;acc for the northerly parking
space and a connection to the sidewalk on Douglas Drive be added to the conditions.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to
recommend to the City Council to approve revisions to previously approved site plan
submitted by Greg A. Bichler (applicant and owner) to construct a 3,498 sq. ft. dental
office building on property located at 5231 and 5237 Douglas Drive North subject to
the following conditions:
The basement shall be used only for storage and utility purposes, and shall not
be used in any way which would act to increase the demand for off-street
parking, unless the necessary additional off-street parking is provided.
Q All signage shall be in compliance with Crystal City Code.
0 All lighting shall be in compliance with Crystal City Code.
IJ The plans submitted with the building permit shall include the following
changes:
*There will be a turn around space installed on the east side of the trash
enclosure. This is necessary to allow egress from the northernmost parking
space.
*There shall be a pedestrian connection from the parking lot to the sidewalk
along Douglas Drive. This shall be located in the vicinity of the clear space
for the van -accessible handicapped parking space.
*The landscape plan shall be revised to show the correct location of the trash
enclosure and the turn around space.
Motion carried.
3. Consideration of revisions to a previously approved Planned Unit Development
submitted by SVK Development (applicant and owner) to reduce the building setback
from the north and east boundaries of the plat of Parkside Acres Second Addition.
Planner Sutter said the original plan had a 30' building setback. Ordinance requires a
setback at least equal to the building height unless it abuts a street right-of-way, in
which case it the 30' setback applies. Only the south side would be required to have a
30' setback, and the applicant is requesting to reduce the north and east setbacks to be
consistent with City ordinance.
This change would only affect 8 buildings (16 units), and would have little impact on
surrounding properties.
The developer is requesting this cr ange because potential buyers touring the model
home are requesting an option to have two bedrooms on the main floor. To build this
type of two-bedroom units, they would need to base the setback on the building height.
Dick Curry, SVK Development, spoke briefly to the Planning Commission, saying
that this request is market driven and more depth would be required to build these
types of units.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve
revisions to previously approved Planned Unit Development submitted by SVK
Development (applicant and owner) to reduce the building setback from the north and
east boundaries of the plat of Parkside Acres Second Addition.
Motion carried.
4. Discussion item: Possible lot division request, to include variances from minimum lot
area, lot depth, and front yard setback, for property located at 6828 Corvallis Avenue
North (P.I.D. 08-118-21 13 0041).
Planner Sutter stated that this is a double frontage lot facing Corvallis. Back in 1960,
an 40' x 40' easement was taken to create a cul-de-sac on 51" Place, with the
understanding that if the road ever extended to the west, the easement would revert
back to the property owner.
The current owner would like to divide the lot, keeping the existing house and
relocated garage on one lot, and the other lot would be sold for development. To
accomplish this, two variances and a change of the easement would be required.
Before the homeowners invested money into this, they wanted feedback from the
Planning Commission.
Staff has not taken a position on this and feels that arguments could be made both for
and against this variance.
The main argument for granting the variances is that the lot would have been big
enough to divide into two lots if the easement had not been taken for the cul-de-sac.
This would also eliminate a double frontage lot and the easement could be cleaned up.
There would also be no negative impacts if the variances were granted.
The main argunient against gra,ntirig the variances is that the current owners bought the
property in 1976, and this situation existed at that time.
.lanene Envin, owner of 6828 Corvallis Avenue North, spoke before the Plant -ling
Commission. She said that this property is nice and quiet, with very little traffic. She
also stated they are planning on selling the property and she wondered what her next
step would be after this meeting.
While not everyone on the Planning Commission favored this proposal, the majority
seemed to feel like this could be workable. They recommended the owner survey the
property and consult a contractor to make sure a house could be built on the lot if it
were divided and then submit an application for the variances and lot division.
5. Informal Discussion and Announcements.
Kevitt Excavating may come in with a proposal in March or April. They are in the
process of mitigating the wetland and so could expand their contractor yard. There is
also some drainage issues at this property.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
fi
Chair Magnu
S rotary `yst ora
3
March 12, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
following present: Eisen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Magnuson and Nystrom. Also present were
the following: Community Development Director Peters, Planner Sutter and Recording Secretary
Van Krevelen. Absent (excused) were Kamp and VonRueden. Staff did not hear from Koss or
Krueger.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Eisen to approve the minutes
of the February 12, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Consider Application 2001-1 for Conditional Use Permit for expansion of open
and outdoor storage of construction materials and equipment in the I-2 Heavy Industrial District,
together with Site Plan Review for expansion of a gravel -surfaced storage and parking area,
construction of a stormwater pond and removal of an existing wetland to be mitigated at other
locations. Property is located at 3335 Pennsylvania Avenue North (P.I.N. 20-118-21-23-0009).
Application submitted by Kevitt Excavating (applicant and owner).
Planner Sutter stated that Kevitt Excavating would like to expand the areas used for material
stockpile and track vehicle parking. This would result in the loss of a wetland, therefore two new
wetlands must be mitigated elsewhere. The proposed wetlands would be located at the Parkside
Acres development at 47`h and Zane and North Lions Park.
Because this area would be used for tracked vehicles that would destroy pavement, it will not be
hard surfaced, but instead Class 5 or equivalent recycled material will be used. Also, the small
treatment pond currently on the site will be eliminated, and a larger one will be built.
Planner Sutter said that the City of New Hope originally had some concerns, but those have been
resolved in the conditions. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions stated in the
revised staff memo.
Scott Kevitt, Kevitt Excavating, told than PIanning Commission that lie is cumfortable with the
City's requirements, and doesn't anticipate any problem with the watershed districts.
Pam Zolik, Nevada Courts, said she was concerned about altering the wetland and wondered if
the business could to accommodated in any Other way, :She liken the wildlife the wetland brings
to the area and didn't want to lose it. She also mentioned the noise from businesses in the area
already extended past 9:00 p.m. and wondered what impact this would have if approved. Scott
Kevitt said that his hours of operation range from 6,00 a.m. — 5 p,m, so it shMlldn't have any
impact. Planner Sutter mentioned that because this is mainly an industrial area, the wetland
wasn't of much value as an amenity and would benefit more residents at the two proposed
locations.
Moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried.
The Planning Commission had Borne concerns, wanting to know why this needed to be approved
now before all the information is in, who's responsible for monitoring that the stormwater pond
is maintained, and has the City ever done this before.
Planner Sutter said that the rcason this was before them now was because the City has no idea
when the watershed will address this, and and r State Statutes the City Council has 160 days to
decide an an application before it is automatically approved. The City Council has approved
,evitt's application to the watershed. There are a number of people responsible for checking oil
the maintenance of the watershed including city staff from both Crystal and New Hope, and the
watcrshcd board. As Far as staff was aware, this type of mitigation hasn't been done before in
Crystal.
Moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the
City Council to approve Application 200 1 -1 for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
subject to the following conditions:
Equipment parking areas shall be hard surfaced including minimum b6-12 concrmte
perimeter curb & gutter in accordance with City Code, except those areas primarily used
by tracked vehicles which would destroy hard surfaced pavement. Areas primarily used
by tracked vehicles shall be surfaced with at least six inches of Class 5 or equivalent
recycled material.
The City of Crystal accepts no responsibility for maintenance ul- tlae private storm eater
pond. The owner shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the pond with the Bassett
Creek Watershed Managemcnt organization. The owner of the subject property shall
maintain the pond as required by the Bassett Creep Watershed Management
Organization, City of New Flope and elle City of Crystal. Chronic failure to maintain the
pond shall result in the revocation of the Conditional Use Vermit.
3. Before work begins, the applicant must secure a Grading and Filling Permit from the
Building Official.
4. 'rhe property owner shall install gutters and downspouts by May 1. -2001 to control roof
drainage on the 2000 building addition so that runoff is kept on site and does not impact
the adjacent property to the north. The Grading and Filling Permit shall not be issued
until the gutters are installed.
5_ The Grading and Filling Permit shall not be issued until the owner executes a Site
Improvement Agreement and provides the required financial surety to the City of Crystal.
6. The Grading and Filling Permit shall not be issued until the applicant provides to the City
of New Hope and the City of Crystal a fully executed drainage and utility easement for
any private property crossed by the storm sewer line.
T This approval shall also be subject to the following conditions which were taken Froin thy:
approved 1995 Conditional Use Permit and updated by staff for the current proposal:
❑ The applicant shall implement an approved erosion control and dust control plan
during construction, including installation of silt fence along the perimeter of the site
until the site has been vegetated. The area to be vegetated includes but is not limited
to the slope of the stockpile and the slopes of the sedimentation pond.
J The applicant shall landscape all open and disturbed areas.
0 The material stockpile shall not exceed 25% of total site area. Tracked vehicle
parking shall not exceed 25% of total site area. Storage of materials shall be limited
to black dirt, top soil and mineral soils. Processing of material shall be limited to
screening and sorting. Storage of concrete and asphalt, or processing, crushing or
pulverizing of same is not permitted.
u Any expansion of the storage area will be require consideration of a new Conditional
Use Permit by the Planning Commission and City Council.
u Adjacent streets must be swept as necessary during hauling operations to remove
mud, dust, and other debris.
._J The site shall be operated and maintained in a dust free manner.
U Permanent markers must be installed around the edge of the material stockpile area.
D All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right of way or from neighboring residences.
j The applicant shall prepare and submit "as built" plans.
ci The applicant shall provide all lot irons in place and to grade at the time of final
acceptance.
The findings of fact are that, as discussed in the staff report dated March 5th, the request is
consistent with the requirements of Crystal City Code provided the recommended conditions are
satisfied.
Motion carried.
Discussion Item: Existing commercial property located at 5525 34th Avenue North.
Planner Sutter said this is currently vacant office space zoned B-4. This property is no longer
accessible or visible from Highway 100 since they reconstructed that area, so access is only
through residential areas. In the new Comprehensive Plan, the City has designated this area for
residential usage. The owner is trying to sell the property, and there are two interested parties
who wanted the Planning Commission to discuss their proposed use for the property.
Jim Zagaros, Nelson & Nelson Jewelry, is interested in using the site to manufacture and repair
jewelry. There would be no retail business, it would be very light manufacturing and only
employs 15 full-time people so it wouldn't produce a heavy traffic load.
10
(1,
Planner Sutter and Community Development Director Peters both said that this use would not ft
into the current or future zoning for this site. The only way manufacturing of jewelry could be
done there is if it is as an accessory to a retail outlet or the property is rezoned to industrial. Staff
stated they do not support rezoning because they felt that industrial would not be an appropriate
use in a largely residential area.
Rita Lyansky also spoke to the Planning Commission, she is interested in the site for use as a
dental office and if possible, living there also. Living on site would not be allowed, to have a
residence and business together the business has to be subordinate to residential use and be
confined to one room. A dental office is a permitted use in the B-4 zoning district, the only issue
would be whether there was sufficient parking. It was recommended that if she is interested in
pursuing this, she should get a survey so parking can be determined.
Discussion Item: Development Code Revisions.
It was decided to have this discussion at the next meeting.
Informal Discussion and Announcements.
There was some discussion on retail/residential as a mixed use and what areas would benefit
from it and non -conforming duplexes.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Eisen to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Secrefary Nystro n
Motion carried.
�2
.tet
_'hair Magnuson
April 9, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
fallowing present: l lsen, T. Graham, Karrrp, Kass, Kmeger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and Von
Rueden. Also present were the following: Community Development Director Peters,
Planner Sutter and Recording Secretary Van Krevelen. Staff did not hear from K. Graham.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to approve
the minutes of the March 12, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Consider Application 2001-2 for Lot Division, including vacation of a
portion of a street turn -around easement, a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement
and a Variance from the minimum front yard setback requirement, to allow the creation of a
second residential lot on an existing double frontage lot located at 6828 Corvallis Avenue
North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0041). Application submitted by Ronald & Janene Irwin
(applicant and owner).
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission that this was a double frontage lot that
originally would have been divisible had the city not taken a portion for a temporary cul-de-
sac easement. A vacation of part of the easement and two variances would be needed in
order to create a second lot. The owner had requested a variance for a 15' setback but staff
is recommending 20'.
Several residents spoke of their concerns before the Planning Commission.
Keith Foslitn, 6834 Corvallis Ave.. N., was concerned about the joint driveway shared
between his property and the subject property. He said people were out measuring it and
said the Irwins told him they want to move the driveway two beet onto his property. He is
disputing a new survey obtained by the lrwins that shows that the driveway that he
originally thought was partially on his property is now totally on theirs. According to a
1991 survey that he has, it shows they own their part of the driveway and want to beep it.
Ne is also interested inputting up a 1i nce between the two properties,
Planner Sutter told him this was a private matter not affected by the proposed lot division,
and they should consider formalizing an agreement for a mutual easement between the two
property owners.
Lorraine Schoeneck-Bedman, 7025 46`h Ave. N., questioned how they could make an extra
lot there when her request was denied, and if they take part of the cul-de-sac where will
residents turn around. Shc SLri41 that her lot was only 4' short and the city wouldn't even
consider it and hers isn't on a cul-de-sac. She was been watching which variances have
been passed. She felt TIF is a scam to buy houses and destroy them. She also wondered
how the city got the property (Memory Lane Pond) and was upset that taxpayer money was
used to develop it.
Planner Sutter explained that the cul-de-sac would not be affected by this, only the portion
exceeding the 15' boulevard. The only physical change to the cul-de-sac would be the
addition of the driveway. He also stated that the Memory Lane Pond property was bought
and developed by a private developer and no city funds were used.
Planner Sutter stated that hers was a corner lot so it was a different situation. Also her case
did not involve a platted property where the city later took an additional easement.
Lorraine Schoeneck-Bedman spoke again, saying she felt there wasn't enough footage for
this division, lots size requirements have changed, and she questioned why citizens aren't
making these decisions.
Commissioner Magnuson told her that the city has public hearings all the time on land use
issues.
Larry Howieson, 6807 515` Place N, said he would like to see what the builder is proposing.
He's concerned about the small size of the lot and what type of house would be put on it.
Mike Avery, the builder interested in the proposed new lot, said it would be similar to the
property they just built at 7116 33`d Ave N. They are interested in building a house with
1300-1400 sq. ft. in the upper level and 700 sq. ft. in the lower level. The house would be a
4 bedroom, 3 bathroom house with a price range around $200,000.
Planner Sutter pointed out that the variance runs with the land, is not tied to a particular type
of house, and therefore the builder would not be obligated to build a house based on the
plans shown for 7116 33`d Ave. N.
Gary Kauffman, 6821 51" Place N. said he abuts this property on the east, and asked if the
Planning Commission vacated part of the easement would they still be short. He also felt
decisions were being made based on what could be and not what actually was there.
Chair Magnuson told him that yes, it would be still short. The standards are 7,500 sq. ft..
but there are smaller lots in the city.
Gary Kauffman questioned as to why they can't wait to see if the road goes through. He
was also concerned about whether or not this property would be required to install curb and
gutter. He also questioned whether a 30' setback from the street was code. His property is
set back 35', so this would put the new property 5' in front of his property and others on the
block.
Planner Sutter said he would speak with the City Engineer, but the only reason they would
- 2 -
not require it is if there is street reconstruction planned for that area in the future. He also
pointed out that properties have a lower street reconstruction assessment cost if they have
existing curb and gutter in good condition, Planner Sutter also explained that the standard
setback way changed frrrrn 35' to 30' many years ago, but the Planning Commission has the
power to recommend to the council to add conditions to the variance, such as a setback of
35' from (lie straight part of the 51" Place right of way to make the new house consistent
-,vitli the existing, houses,
Gary Kauffman stated that he is not in favor of this application, and requested that the
Planning Commission deny it.
Donald Stinson Jr, 6721 51" Place lel., said that his variance request to expand to a two -car
garage was denied. He also didn't feel that this is a hardship situation since the current
owners bought the property when the easement was already in place. He stated he had
received the first notice, but that the information had changed and he didn't receive the
updated notice. He asked that residents be informed of anything going on.
Planner Sutter stated that the only change was a staff recommendation for a lesser variance
than that requested by the applicant.
Kevin Hall, 6816 Corvallis Ave. N., said he has a small lot already and he feels like he
would be getting squeezed. There's already been several new houses built in that area, and
felt it would negatively affect the quality of life.
Ruben Rocha, 6808 515` Place N., said he is against the lot division. He also felt there was
no hardship because the property was bought with the easement, he could understand if it
had been the original owner. He said that 5-6 years ago land was given back to him that had
been originally taken. He also stated he didn't feel a $200,000 house could be sold there.
Ellen O'Brien, 6802 515` Place N., is also against it. She feels it would be too close and also
not a hardship. She questioned whether we would be going to smaller lots to build houses.
No other persons appeared before the Commission.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried.
Planning Commission members discussed this issue. It was asked whether there would be
any chance of taking more property off the first lot and were told there could be little
adjustment because of the garage. It was stated that the hardship is indigenous to the land,
not ownership of the property. A member brought up that houses to the east have 120' lot
lines, this backyard won't be as deep. Chair Magnuson told Mike Avery that should this
pass, she would not even consider any additional variances for any house built on this
-3•
property. When asked whether he could build a house with a setback increased to 35', Mike
Avery stated that would not be a problem.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the
City Council to approve Application 2001-2 for Lot Division, including vacation of a
portion ora street turn -around easement, a. Variance from the minimum lot arca requirement
and a Variance from the minimum front yard setback requirement, subject to the new lot at
6827 51" Place being subject to a minimum front yard set back of 35 feet instead of the
standard 30 feet, as measured from the straight, non cul-de-sac portion of its front lot line
along 51" Place.
Findings of Fact are as follows:
u Vacation of a portion of a street turn around easement, as described on the enclosed
survey and proposed City Council resolution: The vacation of a portion of a certain
street turn around easement, recorded as Document Number 646371 on December 22,
1960, is desirable for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the
City. Because the area to be vacated does not serve any current or potential public
purpose and is not used or needed for street turn around purposes, the proposed vacation
thereof will not adversely affect the public interest.
,J Variance to reduce the minimum lot area requirement from 7,500 sq. ft. to 6,900 sq. ft.
for 6827 515` Place (to allow division of the existing parcel): The requested variance
would be consistent with the unique circumstances of the subject property and the taking
of a, street turn around easernent in 1960. This easement is the stile reason that the
subject property cannot be divided mato two lots without the variances. Furthermore, the
easement language clearly supports the notion that the easement was intended to be a
Leraaporary measure to allow the creation of a cul-de-sac on 51" Place that would be
removed if the street was extended west. If this were to occur, no variance would be
Grecded. Strict application of the lot area requirement in this Inarticular case would
constitute an undue hardship for the following reasons (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd.
5):
The properly in roue lion cannot be pul to a reasonable use V used as required by
ibis Zoning Code, " If not rot the street turn around easement which waq taken in
1960, the proposed lot at 6827 1" Place could be divided into two lots without a
variance. The existing, double Frontage lot is contrary to the intent of tlae City's
zoning and subdivision regulations anti general planning principles, Absent other
permanent limitations on this site, reasonable use of the property would be to divide
the property into two lots, one with an existing house facing; Corvallis avenue and
the other with space for construction of a new house facing; 51 ' Place.
"The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the property owner. The subject property was large enough for division
into two lots until the City took the street turn around easement in 1960. The
.4 -
hardship was therefore created by the City and not the property owner.
"The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The
division of the subject property into two single family lots would be more consistent
with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood then its current
configuration as a double frontage lot.
u Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 30' to 20' as measured from the
curved portions of the front lot line of 6827 515` Place (to facilitate construction of a new
house on the new lot): The requested variance would be consistent with the unique
circumstances of the subject property and the taking of a street turn around easement in
1960. This easement is the sole reason that the front yard setback prevents a
contemporary house from being built on the lot. Furthermore, the easement language
clearly supports the notion that the easement was intended to be a temporary measure to
allow the creation of a cul-de-sac on 515` Place that would be removed if the street was
extended west. If this were to occur, no variance would be needed. Strict application of
the front yard setback requirement in this particular case would constitute an undue
hardship for the following reasons (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd. 5):
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by
this Zoning Code. If not for the street turn around easement which was taken in
1960, the proposed lot at 6827 515 Place could easily accommodate the construction
of a new house. If the City approves the creation of the new lot, then reasonable use
of that lot would be construction of a contemporary single family dwelling. A
variance from the front yard setback is necessary for that to occur.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the property owner. The proposed lot at 6827 51" Place would be large
enough to easily accommodate construction of a new house except for the street turn
around easement which the City took in 1960. The hardship was therefore created
by the City and not the property owner.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The
construction of a new single family house on the proposed lot would be consistent
with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. Even with the variance,
the house on the subject property will still be subject to the same setback from the
street centerline as the adjacent houses to the east. The existing houses east of the
new lot are set back 35' from their front lot lines. To achieve consistency with the
existing houses, as a condition of granting this variance the new lot at 6827 51" Place
shall be subject to a minimum front yard set back of 35 feet instead of the standard
30 feet, as measured from the straight, non cul-de-sac portion of its front lot line
along 51" Place. The variance to 20' will only be granted for the setback as measured
from the curved segments of the front lot line which were created by the vacation of
a portion of the street easement. Furthermore, the setback from these curved
segments will still be 20' which will help ensure that any vehicles parked on the
-5-
driveway directly in front of the new house's garage will not be parking on the street
easement.
u Lot Division, as described on the enclosed survey and proposed City Council resolution:
Provided the vacation and variances described above are approved, the proposal would
be consistent with the requirements for lot divisions in Crystal City Code. It would also
provide an opportunity for construction of new housing of a type which is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment goals.
Commissioner Koss left prior to the vote.
Motion carried 4 — 3 with Elsen, T. Graham,
Kamp, and Magnuson voting aye and Krueger,
Nystrom and VonRueden voting nay.
3. Consider denial due to incompleteness of Application 2001-3 for Preliminary Plat of Crystal
Town Center. Application submitted by Paster Enterprises and Bass Lake Road Retail
Associates.
Planner Sutter stated that this application was incomplete because this property needed to be
re -platted and the applicant did not submit a preliminary plat showing what the property
looks like now. If the council does not make a decision by April 20"', the plats will be
automatically approved. He recommended denying the application.
Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner VoriRueden to
recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2001-3 for Preliminary Plat. Findings
of Fact are as follows:
u The Final Plat did not show a separate parcel for the portion of the property
located outside the Tax Increment Financing district. This is a requirement
of Hennepin County which oversees the administration of TIF districts.
The Preliminary Plat submitted to our office is dated February 12, 1997 and
cannot be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council for the
following reasons:
• Two parcels are not included on the Preliminary Plat but will need to be
added because they are included on the Final Plat.
■ The preliminary plat dates from nearly four years ago, before
improvements were made to the property. The preliminary plat must
show the property as it exists at the present time, not as it existed before
the shopping center was constructed.
• The Preliminary Plat needs to show the separate parcel for portion of the
property not included in the Tax Increment Financing district, to match
the revised Final Plat.
Utz
Motion carried.
4. Discussion Item. [possible request for Conclitional Ilse Permit to establish Automobile
Repair — Minor in the B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial District (Regal Car Wash site).
Planner Sutter said this was a former auto detailing building. Timothy Buse is interested in
renting it out, and per their discussion of what use he is proposing, this would be considered
auto repair — minor which would be a conditional use on this site.
There would be no outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles allowed on site. There is a curb
cut along the west side that people use to cut through the property and exit into a residential
area. Screening from the residential area would also be required on that side.
Timothy Buse, 8108 Yates Ave. N., Brooklyn Park, spoke to the Planning Commission. He
said even if they don't occupy the site, Regal will still be there. He recently watched 15 cars
leaving Super America and cutting through the "back way". They would plan to use it as an
exit only.
If they do rent it out, they would be doing diagnostics repair, oil changes and brake jobs.
There would be no out -of -vehicle transmissions and engines. There are 4 bays and they
would have 3 technicians. Cars would be put into the bays and not left out overnight. Any
cars left outside would be able to be driven and waiting to be picked up.
Planner Sutter said that after looking at the ordinance, screening is required, and the curb cut
has to go away. If the applicant submits an application, he will investigate why screening
wasn't required before.
Kurt Johnson, real estate broker, said Regal has no incentive to close the curb cut and
questioned if the city would consider allowing them to keep it. They could use it as an
entrance only and put a sign up saying Do not Exit.
Planner Sutter reiterated that he didn't believe staff has the option of keeping the curb cut
due to city ordinance.
S. Informational Item: Quarterly Development Status Report
t,. Informal Discussion and Announcements.
Planner Sutter said nothing has come in for May yet. Staff hopes to have the first draft of
the new zoning ordinance and new zoning map by early summer.
Community Development Director Peters told the Planning Commission that the city has
hired Rebecca Brown as the new Code Enforcement Coordinator. He also mentioned that
Kevitt has purchase agreements on two of the properties at Parkside Acres and building
7-
permits on eight townhouse units plus the models.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
4Chlaignuson
Secretary Nystrom
May 14, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
following present: Eisen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom
and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Recording Secretary
Van Krevelen.
Nli v . -d by Cormmissioncr Nystrom and seconded by Comrnissioner Ellen to approve the
minutes of the April 9, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
Public Hearin: Consider Application 2001-4 for Preliminary Plat of Crystal Town
Center. Application submitted by Paster Enterprises (applicant) and Bass Lake Road
Retail Associates (property owner).
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission this was basically a clean up item. As part
of the redevelopment, the twelve original parcels needed to be replatted to create three
parcels. Lot 1 is the older northwesterly portion of the property, Lot 2 is the area in TIF,
and Lot 3 is not in the TIF district.
No one was heard.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
The applicant will correct the discrepancy between the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
no later than May 25, 2001.
The applicant will provide evidence that the Final Plat has been recorded with
Hennepin County within 60 days of the Mayor and City Clerk signing the Final Plat.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend
to the City Council to approve Application 2001-4 for Preliminary Plat of Crystal Town
Center. Application submitted by Paster Enterprises (applicant) and Bass Lake Road
Retail Associates (property owner). Findings of Fact are as follows:
Provided the discrepancy in the plat boundary is corrected, the Preliminary Plat is
consistent with the requirements of Crystal City Code.
Motion carried.
. Public Hearing: Consider Application 2001-5 for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation of 3148 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-32-
0001) to Medium Density Residential. Application submitted by Al Stobbe Homes
(applicant) and Stuart & Sandra Gale (property owner).
Planner Sutter said the applicant would like a higher density to build 20 townhouse units,
Medium Density Residential would allow up to 27 — 28 townhouses units.
Planner Sutter also stated that nothing has changed since last fall when the
Comprehensive Plan was approved to justify changing the land use from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential. The abutting property to the south, facing
Douglas, is a row of` single fannily Domes and the rest is parkland,. The southeast,
northeast, and northwest corners of 32" and .Douglas are guided Neighborhood
Commercial. On the southwest across Douglas Drive is High Density Residential. The
Comprehensive Plan was set up for gradual transition between different cl assi ficati oils of
land use, and this wouldd not follow that. Under the present Comprehensive Plan, if the
portion eurrendy showing as Neighborbood Commercial were changed to Low Density
Residential to match the existing, designation on the rest or the parcel, tip to nine single-
family lots or eleven townhouses could be created.
While staff would recommend changing th
Low Density Residential, they recommend
use to Medium Density Residential.
corner from Neighborhood Commercial to
denial of the application to amend the land
Al Stobbe, Ai Stobbe Homes, 2373 Cherrywood Rd, minnetorika, is the applicant. He
said he's been a developerlbuilder for 39 years and displayed pictures of iownhouses that
hers developed. He said that this is a very difficult piece of property to develop because
the sail isn't desirable and would either have to be replaced or drive pilings. 14c also said
the sewer and water lines running along 32156 can't be used for this property, they would
have to have an additional sewer and water line run which would be very costly. With
values going up, he felt that single -Family homes are gettir�9 rout of range for eve3�
second -time home buyers.
Several Planning Commission members questioned him. It was asked why, other than
cost, should they vote to approve this application, has he thought about doing only eleven
townhouses or building single-family houses, and what would the average price be?
Al Stobbe responded to their questions, sta,L,Hig that it wc9s clow: to the park and would be
perfect for families. The reason for requesting a .higher density was it will be very costly
to develop, driving pilings is probably Clic easiest way. He had done another project with
parking underneath, but doesn't know if that would be the best use on this site. lie was
unsure about the average price for a townhouse, but estimated a 1,200 square foot one to
be $175,000 on up. Fie .also said if they built single family horrtes, the price would have
to stag about $250,000 on tip and he didn't feel those properties could be sold for that
price.
Stuart Gale, 10132 Beard Ave S, Moo nington, one of the owners of'the property, spoke
next. He stated he's owned that parcel since 1962. He felt that the coanment~s of Planner
Sutter were too narrow in focus, the parcel is in a sea of High Density residential and
Commercial properties, and felt Planner Sutter was dwelling on thy: Low Density
Residential. .He said lie has an inherit right to develop his property, and there would be
serious economic consequences if the land couldn't rulfill it's purpose.
He said Nafstad incorporated a plan to develop the Heathers and did soil borings, and the
soil is bad. Nafstad made application for 20 units per acre, the City wanted 16 but they
wouldn't go for that. He also mentioned there is a development with 50.2 units per acre
1,000 feet away.
Mr Gale said the Army Corps of Engineers also tested the soil and determined there is
organic soil at great depths, Mr. Gale also decided to have the soil tested and was told
that to build on this property they would have to go down to bedrock (approximately 60'
per his engineer). He said tlsere are econoanic consequences in order to develop
properties and staters you would treed 25 pilings per each single family dwelling. The
estimate to have lot prepared to build on is $35,000, plus an additional $35,000 for the lot
would equal .$70,000. He also stated that water and sewer is un the north side of 32"",.
and although a storm sewer line was installed it was no hese to him, if they laid new ones
it would cost $40,000. He also said they Have $27,400 in unpaid special assessments on
the property. hie said. the city prGpUses to have the developer donate 7' on Douglas and
20' on Brunswick to the city. The testimony of the tax assessor was that the property is
worth $30,000 ,per lot and that they would have ten lots. if they are required to donate
land to the city they would only be able to get nine bots out of that property. Also he said
they would have to pay 'SAC and WAC cImrges, anis if you add in all costs you now have
each lot for $83,000.
He said the average 1,200 square foot home is about $132,000, and if they built a house it
would cost $216,000. He checks prices of properties being sold in area and says it can't
support a $240,000 - $250,000 house.
Members of the Planning Commission spoke at this point, saying they are only here to
approve whether to change the Comprehensive Plan, and are having a problem with the
relevance of this information.
Mr. Gale said that the Planning cuniainission may not design their plan in order to hinder
the development or property can an economically feasible basis. He said parking is
allowed on the south :side of Douglas and felt access to property can be drone on site to)
ensure reasonable safety. Traffic is already heavy and lie doesn't tl-ink 20 units will
impact it and said single-family homes generate more trips than multi -families.. There art:
13,000 cars a day on Douglas, He Also said equality would suggest Douglas and
Colorado would be High Density Residential and feels Middle Density Residential would
be a fair compromise. lie said he ,sat down with developers, and felt an obligation to
bring to the city a developer who is responsible, has dealt with difficult soil, and he feels
Al Stobbe is that type of developer.
Chair Magnuson responded that she felt medium density is too high for that property, it's
in a residential area and there would be an impact there. She wants him to build there,
but there was no way she would support changing the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Gale stated he believed the Planning Commission and City Council have an
obligation to look at the economic impact on property owners.
Chair Magnuson clarified that the Planning Commission doesn't look at the property
owner, they look at the land.
Mr. Orale asked if the Planning Commission would need an arclillectural rendering before
considering this. Ile was told that these items are not applicabh1 , mid would only be
considered if it was delerniined that the C=omprehensive Plan is flawed. The details of
what will be built is not relevant. Mr. Gale was also, told that lie can build a townhouse
ccantplex or single family residences within the density allowed. He was also told that it
will go to a vote before the Planning Commission and them the City Council, which has
the final vote. He can come to the open forum at the Council meeting if he would like.
Sandra Gale, 10132 beard Ave S, Bloomington, is co-olhmer of 3148 Douglas Dr. N. She
said they've tried over the yms to do something with that property and the city has no
interest in it. They just paid $3,106 for the first half taxes on the property. She also said
they paid for streets, curbs and gutters and sued the city and gat their assessment reduced
from $40,000 to $311,000. She said she respects the Planning Commission members
commitment as volunteers, but they need to look at what's happening at the properly. 1'tt
one time she said Beltline was talking about going on their property and she referred to
the previous Comprehensive Plan and allowing that.
Mrs. Gale was told that the Comprehensive Plan is updated as areas change and as
needed and the previous Comprehensive Plan was no longer applicable.
Mrs. Gale questioned the P U D built south of their property and was told that it was
rezoned to R-4 in 1999 from R-1 but that property abuts another property zoned R-4.
Mrs. Gale said she felt the city can do what it wants to do and that the city was trying to
force them into tax forfeit. She stated the problem with not being able to develop
property puts government into real estate business and they are held hostage by the city
controlling development. She stressed that the Planning Commission are representatives
of taxpayers and owners.
Chair Magnuson responded that the city doesn't hold them hostage, they can develop
their property but it may be more costly. She said the Planning Commission would be
willing to meet for a limited time to discuss options for this property and in the past they
have made some wonderful suggestions to builders.
Ed Deppner, 3337 Brunswick Ave N, said he thought to change density would change the
feel of the area. He believes the property should be developed but only at the 5 units per
acre allowed.
Mark Nelson, 5908 291h PI N, said he volunteers on the task force and there will a
pedestrian bridge connecting the bike path that goes right in front of this property. He
felt the park is getting encroached upon on all sides and this would be of no benefit to the
neighborhood.
Carol Biscardi, 3343 Brunswick Ave N, said she thought this would have a huge impact.
Brunswick goes up to a residential area and there are no sidewalks so people are in the
streets. She also stated she just happened to find out about it, and felt that if building is
going on in the area the residents should be notified.
Planner Sutter responded that the City of Crystal did send out a public notice to
properties within 350 feet of the subject property in addition to publishing a legal notice
in the Sun Post.
Commissioner T. Graham wanted to clarify that there was a difference between rezoning
and a Comprehensive Plan amendment and asked what the rationale would be for
changing the Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Sutter said that the density gradient should go from one level to another and in
regards to issues of accessibility, currently there is no traffic study to make a conclusion
one way or the other on impact. Land uses in the area and more importantly right next to
the site need to be considered.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Von Rueden to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner recommend to the
City Council to deny Application 2001-5 for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change
the land use designation of 3148 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-32-0001) to
Medium Density Residential. Findings of Fact are as follows:
Medium Density Residential land use on the subject property would be inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan because:
u The only abutting properties are guided Low Density Residential or Parks &
Conservation.
u There have been no changes to the subject property and the immediate surrounding
area which justify changing the future land use designation for the property.
❑ The extension of Medium Density Residential east of Colorado Avenue would
directly and specifically conflict with the purpose and intent of the Medium Density
Residential land use as stated in the Plan.
❑ The current future land use designation does not prohibit the construction of attached
housing such as townhomes.
Motion carried.
4. Informal Discussion and Announcements.
Planner Sutter said the City bus tour is on Thursday, May 17. Patrick and John hope to
have a rough draft of the development code in July and adopted by the end of the year.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Secretary Nystrom j
June 11, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
following present: Elsen, T. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom and
VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Recording Secretary Van
Krevelen. Absent (excused) was K. Graham.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to approve the
minutes of the May 14, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
�. Public Hearing: Consider Application 2001-6 for Conditional Use Permit to allow Motor
Vehicle Sales on property zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented +t:ommcre ial at 5301 Douglas Drive
North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-11-0134). Application submitted by National Sales & Leasing
(applicant) and Regal Car Wash XIX (property owner).
Planner Sutter said that this property is currently zoned B-3, which does allow vehicle
sales as a Conditional Use Permit, There would be no major physical changes, just an
additional use for the property, According to the building official, this would be
considered one principAl structure because it is connected by a canopy, Regal had
previously applied for a Conditional Use Permit to use this area as a "quick lube", but
never completed their plans and the Conditional Use Permit has since expired,
There are 38 parking .spaces on this site. There would be five employee'; parking spaces
for National Sales & Leasing. Requirements state that you iieed one parking space per
employee or a minirnlinj of 10, wluchever is greater. Regal has stated that on maximum
shift they have up to 15 emplcsyees so per requirements they would need to have 15 spots
f'or their employees, Five customer and employee spaccs would be required for the sales
operation, leaving 18 spaces for vehicles on display,
Planner Sutter stated that staff has not observed any spillage from Regal onto West
Broadway in the last couple of years, and doesn't feel that this use will affect the
stacking. One of the Planning Commission members questioned why the letter from
Regal's Director of Operations indicated only 33 spaces on the site, Planner Sutter said
he didn't know where they got that number.
There are five single-family properties on the west which were originally zoned B-4. The
homes are in good to excellent condition and there is nes reason to assume they will be
redeveloped. In 1999 they +mere c:hmiged from B-4 to R-1, It is required that R-1
property be screened, it it; especially important with auto -oriented commercial businesses.
Staff feels the curb cut should be removed and the fence and shrubs extended, The owner
of the Regal property is very unhappy with that and suggested they put an opaque gate
across the curb cub that can be elosed at night. Planner Sutter also mentioned having
received a letter from the adjacent residential property owners requesting that the curb cut
be closed.
Staff recommends approval if conditions listed in the staff memo are met and
recommended putting an hours of operation restriction from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. into
the Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit tends to run with the property
and future occupants/owners may want to extend the hours, so it's important that
maximum hours be set now.
Robert Letendre of National Sales and Leasing spoke to the Planning Commission and
said lie has two issues. One is the parking situation. He stated the manager ul' Regal Car
Wash was unable to make, the meeting but had indicated to hirn that although he has lip to
15 employees, most of them take buses etc. to work and not more than 3-4 employees
drive, For the curb cul, he suggested a swing gate and said that they too were Concerned
about cars pulling out at night and shining into houses. He also stated that closing the
curb cut doesn't concern them, they can do without the access, but Regal car wash wants
it.
Commissioner Magnuson stated she felt that many times there isn't enough parking at
Regal so they park on Edgewood. She feels screening is highly important, and she
brought up the gas station on Hwy 81 as a good example of heavy screening.
Commissioner T. Graham also expressed concerns about the parking and felt it would be
a crunch and wouldn't approve it without a curb being put in.
Commissioner VonRueden asked if the curb cut was closed could parking be increased
and Planner Sutter felt 4 — 6 spaces could be added. Staff will work with Regal Car
Wash and Robert Letendre about this issue.
Robert Letendre also questioned whether the Planning Commission would approve of
thein placing two small velsieles in the triangul,ir area between the West Broadway
entrance and Regal's pole sign. He didn't feel it would block access to the property.
Planner Sutter stated that area was all bituminous and not required to be screened but if
cars were there you would have people walking across the entrance access. He said that
can be looked at if the applicant requests it but staff recommends keeping that area clear.
Commissioners also questioned signage and Planner Sutter said there would be an
awning type sign less than 150 squares Feet, which would be added as part of sign permit
application and there is also an empty face on Regal's existing pole sign.
Some commissioners stated that they are either not considering the corner as a possible
spot for parking vehicles, or felt it really needed to be looked at. It was also thought too
many issues were left hanging.
Planner Sutter said he felt the applicant would like a decision now so they can go
forward.
Conimissioner Kamp said th2t lie beck they need to submil a revised, Complete parki.ig
plan. He also has an issue with the drive aisle and thinks changing the striping to allow
parking in the triangular area would make it a great deal worse. He wants them to be in
full agreement about the curb cut and we haven't heard from Regal yet.
Commissioner Magnuson said she thought this should have been a discussion item first
and that something is needed saying owner has agreed to this.
Planner Sutter again stated the property owner is very unhappy with the city, he doesn't
want the curb cut closed. He will speak with them to try to get them to submit a new
parking plan.
Kenneth Klie:k, 5319 Edgcwood Ave lel, said he is concerned about loudspeakers. It's a
small site, he's been dealing with SuperAmerica for years. He's spoken with the city
before but was told that if it's intermittent it's not violating the noise ordinance. He also
mentioned that Regal employees hang out by the back curb cut.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner Elsen continue the
discussion of Application 2001-6 for Conditional Use Permit to allow Motor Vehicle
Sales on property zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial until staff meets with applicant
regarding curb cut and parking.
Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Consider Application 2001-7 for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan
Review for construction of a new building for an existing Motor Vehicle Sales business
on property zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial at 5241 West Broadway (P.I.D. 09-
118-21-22-0048), 5269 West Broadway (P.I.D. 09-118-21-22-0041) and 5160 Douglas
Drive North (P.I.D. 09-118-21-22-0053). Application submitted by Dunlo Motors
(applicant) and Noblin Limited Partnership (property owner).
Planner Sutter stated this is currently three separate parcels, the existing site would be
reconfigured, the old building would be torn down and replaced by a new, larger one.
Parking would basically remain the same. A previous site plan that proposed to remove a
curb cut and add landscaping appears that it wasn't done. The 1996 site plan seems to be
accurate, currently there is a shared curb cut with Aamco, the new curb cut would allow
access to both north and south bound traffic. They would have to meet 5' setback for
encroachment. The new building would have lots of glass, but it's unclear as to the type
of exterior material, it looks like colored concrete. The landscape plans show all fairly
low shrubs, the forester instead suggested two trees. The grass is in tough shape, it needs
central irrigation. Staff recommends approval providing conditions are met.
Andy Duncanson, president of Dunlo Motors, said that regarding the previous site Ilan
the council turned down the curb cut he had proposed because it was too close to the
building and they didn't own the other piece of property involved. He also stated they
had planted the trees and shrubs but they died. He has no problems with combining the
parcels, but questioned the wisdoms of planting shade trees, thought it might affect his
property's visibility from the street, which is important when selling cars. He was willing
to work with the forester on this issue. He is also planning on putting in a sprinkler
system.
Brian Houwman, Houwman Architects, said on the drawing the vertical lines represent
pre -cast wall panels. Above the glass is colored stucco -like material. The color hasn't
been determined yet, but they will have the color panel before the council meeting. They
also have decided not to build the detailing area (the low part) at this time, only the office
area is being built.
Planner Sutter mentioned that a neighbor to the west of Douglas Dr, (in an R-1 zoning),
has called in the past to complain about Dunlo's loudspeaker. It isn't relevant to this this
proposal, there is no expansion of use. It would only be an issue if the Planning
Commission wants it to be.
Andy Duncanson said that he has spoken with this neighbor. Dunlo turned down their
loudspeaker and haven't heard from him for a couple years.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to
recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2001-7 for Conditional Use
Permit and Site Plan Review for construction of a new building for an existing Motor
Vehicle Sales business on property zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial, subject to the
following conditions:
A All three parcels shall be combined into a single parcel for zoning and tax
purposes. The building permit shall not be issued until the property owner
has signed the form requesting such a parcel combination.
B. The new curb & gutter being installed along part of the boundary with the
Aamco property shall be installed so the face of the curb is no less than 5'
from the property line as per our standard 5' setback requirement for
parking lots.
4
C. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing, in addition
to the landscaping currently proposed, trees to be installed along West
Broadway and Douglas Drive of a type and quantity necessary to provide
some buffering and shading of the property and adjacent sidewalks. The
building permit shall not be issued until the new plan has been submitted
to and approved by the City Forester.
A revised Site Plan Review showing only the office building portion being
built.
Findings of Fact are as follows:
The request is consistent with the requirements of Crystal City Code provided the
recommended conditions are met.
Motion carried.
el n Discussion Item: Possible townhouse development at 7221 32"d Avenue North.
Planner Sutter said that just east of Pet Food Warehouse on 32"d Ave there is a house on a
very large lot that a developer would like to tear down and build townhomes. If this
project went forward the city would propose to vacate the unused Nevada Ave right-of-
way. The developer is proposing constructing 15 units, and would need a Conditional
Use Permit. The applicant wanted to discuss this with the Planning Commission before
applying.
Arnie Zachman, ZB Company, said this would be a twinhome development with an
association. There would be an in -ground sprinkler system. He mentioned they did a
project in Golden Valley and would be copying that. When one of the Commissioners
commented they thought that the Golden Valley complex was crowded and didn't feel
there was enough green space, he said that in the center portion there is a green area.
These twinhomes would have 20' concrete driveways, designer shingles, aluminum
fascia & soffit, high grade vinyl siding and bricks in front. The master bedroom would
have a walk in closet, and the front area would protrude out to give more character to the
building.
One of the Commissioners questioned whether he had spoken with any of the residents in
the area, he said he had talked to the owner of the big parcel, but they wanted too much
for their property.
When asked, he said the Golden Valley units sold for about $200,000 and are now worth
about $250,000 — 270,000. These are planned to be owner -occupied units, and would be
in the upper $100,000's.
One of the commissioners questioned whether he would have a problem reducing the
triplex to a twinhome, he said it would be breaking the theme. The outside units are 24' x
42', the center unit is 28' x 42' and would have skylights. The square footage for the
units would be approximately 1,300 on the main floor, 700-800 on the lower. They
would be a split with a 2 -car garage.
There was discussion on the parking issues, Planner Sutter said the new townhomes on
Memory Lane created seven additional parking spaces, the Planning Commission can
require additional parking but he wasn't sure how that could be accomplished with this
plan without getting rid of a unit. There is a requirement of 20' for a fire lane, the fire
department has not looked at this site yet. If the developer was willing to remove a unit,
they could get 6-7 additional parking spots and could narrow the road to 24' and sign it as
no parking.
Snow removal was also discussed and Arnie Zachman said that snow removal is done on
site, but would be hauled out if necessary. He also said another possible option could be
that if the road is reduced to 22', they could put the triplex on the end and a double where
the triplex is shown.
Informal Discussion and Announcements.
None.
(a_ Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
See re ary Nystrom
Motion carried.
6
July 9, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m.
with the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger,
Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were the following:
Planner Sutter, Community Development Assistant Dietsche, and Recording
Secretary Van Krevelen. Staff did not hear from T.Graham.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to
approve the minutes of the June 11, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
2, Public Hearing (continued from June 11`h meeting): Consider Application 2001-
6 for Conditional Use Permit to allow Motor Vehicle Sales on property zoned
B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial at 5301 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 08-118-
21-11-0134). Application submitted by National Sales & Leasing (applicant)
and Regal Car Wash XIX (property owner).
Planner Sutter stated that as of July 5, 2001, the staff believed that the property
owner was willing to close the Edgewood Ave curb cut. However, this
understanding was incorrect and the property owner has since stated that he is
not willing to close the curb cut.
Planner Sutter stated that since the property owner has refused to remove the
curb cut along Edgewood Ave and extend the screening fence and shrubs to the
northwest corner of the subject property, the requirements of 515.35 Subd. 4
(g)(6) are not satisfied. Staff recommends denial of application and asks
Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the request for City
Council consideration.
Robert Letendre, National Sales & Leasing, told the Planning Commission that
he was not concerned about extensive traffic though his lest, but agrees with
City's recommendation to close the curb cut and provide adequate screening for
adjacent residents. Mr. Letendre also stated that he intended to talk to the
property owner and find out if he is willing to reconsider his position on the
curb cut. It was noted that the property owner had chosen not to attend either
Planning Commission meeting to date.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Elsen to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom
to extend the Application 2001-6 for conditional Use Permit to allow Motor
Vehicle sales on subject property for no more than 60 days, with review in 30
days at the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Purpose for
extension is to give Mr. Letendre time to confer with property owner regarding
curb cut issue.
Motion carried.
The Planning Commission had several concerns about the proposed use for the
subject property.
All commissioners were in agreement that the removal of the curb cut along
Edgewood Ave is necessary to contain traffic of Regal Car Wash and National
Sales & Leasing and protect adjacent residential properties from the congestion
associated with regular operation of these businesses. Commissioners
VonRueden and Kamp were willing to allow the applicant parking spaces along
Douglas Drive but expressed concern for pedestrians and were interested in how
the property owner intends to handle the increase of parking and traffic flow,
while ensuring pedestrian safety.
3. Public Hearing: Consider Application 2001-8 for Preliminary Plat, Conditional
Use Permit, and Site Plan Review for development of 15 townhouses on
property zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential located at 722132" Ave North
(P.I.D. 20-118-21-31-0005). Application submitted by ZB Companies, Inc.
(applicant) and Leon Walters (property owner).
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission that after reviewing the submitted
plans on Friday, June 290', the Development Review Committee has identified
several technical items that still need to be addressed. Staff has since met with
the developer and it appears that both parties would like more time to refine the
plans before bringing them before the Planning Commission for consideration.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for
one month, in anticipation of revised plans to be reviewed at the August 13'
meeting. The 60 -day time period in which the city is required to issue a
decision begins when all required application items are submitted. In this case,
the last required item was submitted on June 26'. This means the city must
make a decision on the application no later than August 25'. Assuming the
Planning Commission completes the public hearing and makes its
recommendation at the August 13'' meeting, the City Council would consider
the application at its August 21" meeting.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to
continue until August 13, 2001 the public hearing on application 2001-8 for
Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for development
of 15 townhouses.
Motion carried.
4. Discussion Item: Possible request from Morries Brooklyn Park to establish
motor vehicle sales in addition to minor auto repair at 5264 West Broadway
(American Brake Service).
Planner Sutter stated that the subject property is currently zoned B-3 Auto -
Oriented Commercial and was rezoned to B-3 in 1995. A Conditional Use
Permit is required to establish Motor Vehicle Sales in the B-3 District.
A minimum lot area of 22,500 sq. ft. is required, and the site area is
approximately 18,750 sq.ft., falling short of the requirement by 17%. A
variance had already been granted in 1995 to allow American Brake Service to
use the property (since the same lot area requirement applies to auto repair
businesses). Staff cannot foresee recommending another variance from this
requirement because the situation clearly doesn't meet the criteria for a finding
of undue hardship.
Generally, staff is concerned about the small size of the site and the fact that a
variance has already been granted from the lot area agreement. Commissioner
Kamp agreed with Planner Sutter that the site was not large enough for the
proposed use.
Tom Anderson, realtor, stated than he was aware of the additional space
required to meet the requirement of 22,500 sq. ft. Anderson said there is a
possibility that additional land may be available for purchase from the
neighboring property to increase the square footage of the subject property,
however, it is doubtful that enough land could be acquired to fulfill the 22,500
sq. ft. requirement for each business on site. He also inquired about the sale of
motor vehicles on the property and was curious if B-3 District would allow this
use.
Planvicr Sut lei, advised the Planning Commission if the additional space can he
acquired from the neighboring property, to specify the minimum square footage
acceptable for consideration and approval. He added that according to B-3
zoning, the sale of motor vehicles is not a permitted use in this district. It is a
conditional use and as such, a Conditional Use Permit would be required.
Planner Sutter reiterated that the staff would likely recommend denial of the
variance and Conditional Use Permit if such a request were submitted.
Discussion Item: Possible request from The Vinland Center to construct a two
family group home on currently vacant property at 3200 Douglas Drive North.
Planner Sutter stated that the potential applicant had notified him that they were
not ready to bring this item to the Planning Commission for discussion. They
expect to be ready for a discussion at the August 13' meeting followed by a
possible application at a subsequent meeting.
Commissioner Magnuson expressed her concern for the item by depicting the
location as a dangerous and heavily congested traffic area to build a group
home.
Commissioner Elsen stated that to her knowledge, the City of Crystal had more
than its fair share of group homes in the area.
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission that staff is becoming concerned
about the potential for concentration of group homes. He also mentioned that
staff is working on an ordinance requiring any new group home be a '/a mile or
more away from another group home.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that the Comprehensive Plan would also support
and provide a strong basis on which to reject the request. She pointed out that
the subject property has much potential and that there have been and will be
many other favorable options to consider.
Planner Sutter stated that, based on the initial reaction, he would inform The
Vinland Center that the proposed use is not a favorable option among the
Planning Commission and to perhaps reconsider moving forward on the request.
All commissioners were in agreement to consider a more favorable option for
the subject property.
Informational Items:
City Council actions since last Planning Commission meeting
Quarterly Development Status Report
7, Informal Discussion and Announcements
Planner Sutter introduced Sara Dietsche, Community Development Assistant, as
the new recording secretary for the Planning Commission.
8. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
eA 4-,
Secre ry Nystro
Motion carried.
f
w
agnuson
August 13, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m.
with the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Koss,
Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were the
following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to
approve the minutes of the July 9, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
Item continued from the June 11' and July 9' meetings: Consider Application
2001-6 for Conditional Use Permit to allow Motor Vehicle Sales on property
zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial at 5301 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 08-
118-21-11-0134). Application submitted by National Sales & Leasing
(applicant) and Regal Car Wash XIX (property owner).
Planner Sutter reminded the Planning Commission that the subject property
consists of a single parcel zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial. In April 1998
the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and site plan for the
construction of a new building addition for a detailing shop to be used by an oil
change business. However, the oil change business never began operating and
the C.U.P. expired one year after approval. It is this space that National Sales
& Leasing is proposing to use.
Motor vehicle sales is a conditional use in the B-3 District. The subject
property is guided for Community Commercial uses. Staff believes that the
expansion of motor vehicle sales use would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, if steps are taken to protect the residential properties
across Edgewood Ave to the west and to ensure that impacts such as overflow
parking do not spill over onto adjacent streets.
Planner Sutter reiterated the importance of closing the curb cut along Edgewood
Ave in order to protect the surrounding neighborhood from the impacts of an
intensified auto -orientated commercial use. In addition, a screening fence and
shrubs identical to those currently in place would need to be extended to the
northwest corner of the subject property to provide an adequate buffer. Planner
Sutter also addressed areas of concern, such as parking, pedestrian traffic, and
sidewalks or crosswalks across the drive aisle that need to be considered before
a decision can be made.
Jerry Bingham, Regal Car Wash, told the Planning Commission that he is not
willing to close the curb cut along Edgewood Ave due to the fact that one-third
of his customers use that entrance, making it an indispensable asset to his
business. He expressed frustration because the curb cut has been in existence a
long time and feels that he should not be subject to denial of the C.U.P. based
on his refusal to close the curb cut. However, he told the Planning Commission
that he was willing to install a fence, shrubs, and gate to close the curb cut
whenever businesses on the site are not open.
Planner Sutter explained that because the residential properties adjacent to the
proposed site are guided and zoned for residential use, the city has an obligation
to see that these properties are protected from commercial uses. Therefore,
screening must be enforced, which in this case means closing the Edgewood
Ave curb cut along with installing appropriate fencing and shrubbery. Staff
recommends denial of application based on the property owner's refusal to close
the Edgewood Ave curb cut and asks the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation on the request for City Council consideration.
Mr. Bingham told the Planning Commission that by protecting the adjacent
residential properties, the city is hurting his property. He said that he needs to
keep the curb cut in place to sustain the high volume profit generated by that
entrance.
Commissioner Magnuson suggested the possibility of widening the curb cut on
53`d Ave currently used as an exit, to accommodate traffic entering and exiting
the subject property. Even after removing the Edgewood Ave curb cut, this
would still allow two access points for traffic to enter and exit the property.
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission that widening the curb cut on 53`d
Ave to allow traffic to enter and exit the subject property is a possibility, but
Mr. Bingham did not really see that as an option.
Commissioner Koss expressed his concern for congestion that may be caused by
operating two separate businesses on the subject property. He stated that the
only way to make sure these businesses are separated is to close the curb cut on
Edgewood Ave.
The Planning Commission was in agreement that unless the property owner
agrees to close the curb cut along Edgewood Ave, recommendation to council
would be to deny the Conditional Use Permit.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Koss to recommend to the
City Council to deny Application 2001-6 for Conditional Use Permit to allow
Motor Vehicle Sales on property zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial at 5301
Douglas Drive North.
Findings of fact for denial are that the property owner refuses to close the curb
cut along Edgewood Ave as described in Section C of the staff report. The City
Council will consider the application at the August 21't meeting. The Planning
Commission recommended if the city denies the C.U.P., the property owner
could reapply and look into widening the curb cut on 53' Ave to accommodate
both traffic entering and exiting the property.
Motion carried.
3, Public Hearing continued from the July 9' meeting: Consider Application
2001-8 for Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review for
development of 14 townhouses on property zoned R-3 Medium Density
Residential located at 7221 32"d Ave North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-31-0005).
Application submitted by ZB Companies, Inc. (applicant) and Leon Walters
(property owner).
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission that ZB Companies is proposing to
develop the property for 14 townhouse units. The units would be developed as
7 buildings, each with two units sharing a common wall but being otherwise
separate and located on their own individual parcels.
Planner Sutter stated that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property is guided and zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential,
Townhouses are a conditional use in the R-3 District if they are developed in
accordance with Planned. Unit Development requirements. Surrounding
properties are guided and zoned for a mixture of uses ranging front low density
residential to heavy industrial.
Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-8 for Preliminary Plat,
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for development of 14 townhouses
on property located at 722132 d Avenue North.
The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for
City Council consideration.
Arnie Zadhman, ZB Companies Inc., infon-ned the. Planning Commission the he is
aware that refinements need to be made to the hiiidscaping plan for the proposed
property. He suggested scttin;g up a meeting with the City Forester to discuss the
possibilities for alternative landscaping methods and suitability ofplsndngs. Mr.
Zachman :also agreed to work with staff on possibly extending the 6' privacy
fencc a]Dn,g the east property line, to accommodate resident Marr Wietzke, 3137
Louisiana Ave N. Lighting was also discussed and Mr. Zachman stated that he
would like to avoid the freestanding lights as recommended by staff if possible.
Paul Wood, 3200 Maryland Ave N, stated that he is a neighbor of the proposed
site and is not very enthused about the possibility of another multiple family
dwelling coming into his neighborhood. He feels that the neighborhood is already
struggling to keep its continuity and that another multiple dwelling will decrease
property values and resale « i'single family homes in the area. Mr. Wood told the
Planning Commission that he hopes they will consider community issues in
addition to land issues when making a recommendation.
Commissioner Magnuson referred to the informational meeting held for residents
of this neighborhood on June 28th. She also stated that if the City Council decides
to approve the proposed development, hopefully it will become an asset to the
neighborhood and community.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close
the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Commissioners K. Graham and Magnuson were sympathetic with Mr. Wood, but
were in agreement that the proposed development would be a valuable addition to
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Nystrom expressed the importance to preserve mature trees on the
proposed site, so as to coincide with the rest of the neighborhood and feels the
City Forester's recommendations should be implemented.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2001-8 for Preliminary
Plat, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review for development of 14
townhouses on property zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential located at 7221
32' Ave North with landscaping, fencing and natural buffer issues to be
reviewed and resolved before going to City Council, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall install "No Parking Any Time" signs along all of the
development's private drives except for the seven "guest" parking stalls
located south of unit #11.
2. Townhouse drives will need to be built to city standards (6" gravel, 2" bit.
base, 1'/2" bit. wear).
3. The townhouse owners' association shall be responsible for plowing the
private drives, individual driveways and sidewalks.
4. Developer shall grant to the city a permanent drainage and utility easement
over all of Lot 15 (the common property). This easement shall be executed
and provided to the city before the city releases the Final Plat.
5. For the development to comply with the building height setback and
maximum impervious coverage, the areas above or below the decks shall
never be enclosed, the floor of the decks shall be constructed with gaps
between the boards so it is pervious, and the ground underneath the decks
must either have vegetation or be covered with pervious landscaping such as
wood chips or loose rock with landscaping fabric not plastic.
Via_ To better protect the 30" oak on the south property line, the location of the silt
fence and retaining wall in the vicinity of unit #10 shall be modified as
follows: The silt fence shall be at least 20' from the oak's trunk and the
retaining wall shall be at least 25' from the oak's trunk. (See attachment #13.)
No construction activities, including material stockpiling and equipment
driving/parking, shall occur within the between the silt fence and the oak's
trunk.
7. No permits shall be issued for this development until a revised landscaping
plan has been submitted to and approved by the City Forester. The revised
plan shall address the issues raised in B — Staff Comments above. On the
landscaping plan, Black Hills Spruce shall be substituted for Colorado Blue
Spruce.
Park dedication fee of $5,600 shall be paid to the city prior to release of the
Final Plat.
Findings of Fact are as follows:
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and City Code,
provided all the conditions are met.
Motion carried.
4, Public Hearing: Consider Application 2001-9 for a Variance to reduce the
required setback from 20' to 5' for a detached garage facing a public street.
Property address is 6702 51St Place North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0015).
Application submitted by Brent J. Weyer (applicant and property owner).
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission that redevelopment is foreseeable in
the area east of the subject property. Presently the site is situated on a dead-end
on Hampshire Ave, but the city right-of-way may be used to extend 51St Place in
the future between Florida and Hampshire, making the proposed property no
longer on a dead-end, and increasing traffic and congestion in the area.
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission that the property is not subject to a
"undue hardship", therefore the requested variance should not be not granted. The
property can also be put to reasonable use without the variance and the desired
garage could be built in compliance with the setbacks. The garage would just
take up more of the rear yard than the owner would like. Furthermore, it is not
appropriate for the city to grant variances solely to enhance rear yard spaces by
reducing required setbacks.
Staff feels that the variance would alter the essential character of the locality. The
current ordinances have been effective in keeping the public right-of-way clear.
The city has a responsibility to protect public right-of-way from private
encroachments and this applies to dead-end streets as well as regular streets.
Staff recommends denial of the application and asks the Planning Commission to
make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration.
Brent Weyer (applicant), 6702 51St Place N, presented several circumstances that
make the subject property unique and therefore deserving of the variance. Mr.
Weyer also stated that the requested variance would not pose any safety,
visibility, or traffic hazards and would ultimately add value to the neighborhood.
Several Planning Commissioners made suggestions to Mr. Weyer of ways to
achieve the desired three -car garage without requesting a variance.
Commissioner K. Graham suggested moving the entrance of the garage to 51St
Place or altering the layout to preserve as much of the backyard as possible.
Commissioner Magnuson and Kamp agreed with Commissioner K. Graham that
the property owner needs to compromise or consider other options to achieve the
desired garage.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Von Rueden to
continue the public hearing on Application 2001-9 for a Variance at 6702 51St
Place N until the next Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried.
5. Discussion Item: Possible request from the Vinland Center to construct a two
family dwelling on currently vacant property at 3200 Douglas Drive North.
Planner Sutter informed the Planning Commission that the proposed dwelling is
not actually a group home he had previously stated. It is a two family dwelling
that provides independent housing for disabled adults.
Susan Rivard, President LivingWorks Ventures, explained to the Planning
Commission why this project is so important and how the proposed location
meets the necessary criteria for this type of dwelling.
Dwayne Reynolds, LivingWorks Ventures, and Jeff Bangsberg, an advocate for
the disabled, stated that the proposed project is designed to assist disabled, but not
incapacitated individuals and is greatly needed in this area. They informed the
Planning Commission that it is very expensive to retrofit existing homes to
accommodate disabled individuals, therefore it is more reasonable to build a
custom facility, such as the proposed dwelling.
Several of the Commissioners expressed concern for the safety of the residents
based on the location of the dwelling. On-site parking and traffic congestion were
also major concerns, especially since the site plan proposes the dwelling to face
32nd Ave, forcing traffic to enter from Douglas Drive. Although only a few of the
residents would have vehicles on the premises, Planner Sutter advised that
parking might be a long-term concern.
Commissioner Koss disclosed that he owned adjacent properties and would
therefore be abstaining from any vote related to the subject property. He also
expressed concerns about the impact of the facility on neighborhood safety.
The Planning Commission requested staff to look closely at zoning density,
guided land use, parking, and long-term usage of the dwelling.
C3. Informal Discussion and Announcements
None
7. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
4
Sec%e nary Nystr
U
Motion carried.
on
September 10, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with
the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom,
and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community
Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) were Kamp and Koss.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the
minutes of the August 13, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
2. Public Hearing (continued from August 13th meeting): Consider Application 2001-9 for
a variance to reduce the required setback from a public street for a detached garage.
Property address is 6702 51St Place North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0015). Application
submitted by Brent J. Weyer (applicant and property owner).
Planner Sutter stated that the three -car garage proposed by Mr. Weyer could be built in
accordance with the ordinance. The applicant does not wish for the garage to take up as
much of the useable rear yard and that is the reason for requesting the variance. The city
has not typically granted variances for this reason. However, the subject property is
unique due to the following factors:
D 'l'}tc platted drainage and utility easement along the north side of the lot is unusually
wide (10' instead of 5') and it becomes wider (20') on the east side of the property.
:a A utility pole guy wire anchor is located in the portion of the rear yard that would be
otherwise available for placement of a detached garage.
Planner Sutter noted that for a situation to constitute an undue hardship, all of the
following conditions must be present:
"The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as rLtguired by
this Zoning Code."
"The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the Property aild
not created by the property owner.,,
"The variance if anted will not alter the essential character of the locality_""
Staff believes that a variance might be appropriate if it were granted only to the extent
necessary to compensate for the combination of the unique features of the property and
its substandard lot area. However, staff also feels that there is an argument to be made
that no variance is justified because a three -car garage could be built in accordance with
the ordinance.
Since the August 13th meeting, staff and the applicant have explored some additional
issues and options for the property. Based on discussions with the property owner, staff
has developed two alternates for the Planning Commission to consider.
Planner Sutter explained that Alternate #1 would be a modification of the original request
in accordance with the finding of the guy wire anchor as a permanent limitation of the
usability of the property. The result of this would be a variance of 4', which would
reduce the setback from 20' to 16'.
Planner Sutter explained that Alternate #2 would involve vacating the "excess triangle"
portion of the platted drainage and utility easement to allow a three -car garage to fit on
the east side of the guy wire anchor. The result would be a variance of 7', which would
reduce the setback from 10' to 3' for a side -loaded garage. This variance would be
similar to the one granted in 1998 at 4532 Florida Avenue North. Planner Sutter also
stated that Alternate #2 was preferred by the applicant.
Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-9 for variance from Crystal City Code,
in accordance with either Alternate #1 or Alternate #2 described above, for a detached
garage at 6702 51St Place North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0015).
Brent Weyer, applicant and owner of 6702 51St Place North, stated that he is pleased that
staff was able to compromise with two acceptable alternatives to his original proposal
and that Alternate #2 seemed to be the best proposal to accommodate his requests. Mr.
Weyer also stated that he has written approval from the utility company to build on the
proposed area of the easement.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the city foresees any problems associated with
Alternate #2 and Planner Sutter responded that staff feels that there is no real reason for
the additional easement along the rear of the property , and that it is a good option to
consider. However, Planner Sutter stated that if the Planning Commission was not
convinced of Alternate #2, to consider Alternate #1, the possibility of a two -car garage,
or denial of the application.
Commissioner Nystrom inquired about the possibility of moving the guy wire to a
different location to provide for additional yard space.
Planner Sutter explained that to move the guy wire would be very difficult because there
are actually three separate guy wires on the property that are anchored at that location.
Mr. Weyer also added that he put in a request to move the wires to the power company,
however, it was denied.
A majority of the commissioners were in agreement and pleased that both staff and the
applicant compromised to come up with an alternative to the original proposal.
Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to
recommend to the City Council to approve staff's Alternate #2, Application 2001-9 for a
variance at 6702 51St Place North.
Findings of Fact are as follows:
The request is consistent provided that the recommended conditions listed in the staff
memo are met, along with the following requirements:
The proposed variance will not:
❑ impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; or
❑ increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety;
❑ unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets;
❑ unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood
or be contrary to the intent of the zoning code.
Furthermore, the property is subject to an undue hardship and therefore the requested
variance is granted. Specifically:
❑ The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Reasonable use
of the property would include an adjustment to the setback to compensate for the
presence of the guy wire anchor, which is essentially a permanent feature and cannot
be moved by the applicant.
The plight of the landowner is due to the unique combination of the property's
substandard lot area, the presence of a utility pole guy wire anchor in the area that
would otherwise be buildable.
The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality if the granting of
the variance is conditioned upon no parking on the part of the driveway within the
public right-of-way.
Motion carried 4-3 with Elsen, K. Graham,
Magnuson, and Von Rueden voting aye and
T. Graham, Krueger, and Nystrom voting
nay.
The City Council will consider the request at the September 25, 2001 meeting.
Discussion item: Possible request for a variance from the setback requirements to allow
construction of a fuel pump canopy at 6000 42"d Avenue North (Big B's Gas & Goods).
Planner Sutter stated that Brad Carlson, owner of Big B's Gas & Goods, is considering
applying for a variance to allow construction of a fuel pump canopy extending into the
required 22' setback. The applicant wanted to discuss this issue and ask for suggestions
from the Planning Commission before applying.
Planner Sutter discussed similar instances where variances have been granted in the past,
but advised that granting such a variance may have a negative impact on the surrounding
area. To intensify the use of an existing property may cause future problems, as in the
case of at least one of the stations that were granted such a variance.
Staff recognizes the need for such canopies and the ordinance could be revised to include
canopies under a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioners were in agreement that the
ordinance needs to be updated and were surprised that the issue had not been addressed at
an earlier date.
Commissioner MagnusonJuestioned any property loss that may have occurred in the past
due to the widening of 42 Avenue North, and if the loss could be considered
justification for a variance.
Brad Carlson, Big B's Gas & Goods, thought loss of property may have occurred years
back, perhaps accounting for the unique configuration of the pumps as they stand on the
property today. He expressed his enthusiasm in being the only filling station on 42nd
Avenue North in Crystal with full and self-service, and a 24-hour pay at the pump
service. By installing a canopy, he would not only be providing customers with the
convenience of an overhang while at the pump, but improving the appearance of the
station as well. The canopy would also incorporate attractive signage and allow the
removal of the freestanding sign on the west end of the property to make for additional
parking.
Commissioners were in agreement that the proposed canopy would really add to the
convenience for customers and enhance the appearance of the property and 42nd Avenue
North.
Mr. Carlson expressed that he would prefer the 24' x 30' canopy to ensure that four
vehicles are covered while using both sides of each pump. Commissioners agreed that
the 24'x 30' would be the most practical size for the canopy, with only a two foot
difference for the variance.
Planner Sutter stated that based on the lot size, the Planning Commission has discretion,
but must also have justification for their decision on a variance. Factors to minimize the
impacts of a commercial use should also be discussed, such as appropriate lighting and
screening from surrounding neighbors.
The Planning Commission expressed interest in finding out how much if any property
was lost in the reconstruction of 42nd Avenue North, and exploring the possibility of
adding some screening along the property to contain operations of the business. Mr.
Carlson was encouraged to proceed with the appropriate application materials.
Informal Discussion and Announcements
Roger Fetterly, 5831 Quebec Avenue North presented a tentative proposal to build a new
garage on his property. Discussion of location, size, accessibility, and suitability of the
garage followed. The Planning Commission suggested that Mr. Fetterly work with staff
to. find an alternative to a variance.
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission to expect a complete application and
proposal from the Vinland Center to construct a two-family dwelling on currently vacant
property at 3200 Douglas Drive North. Discussion of land use and suitability of location
followed.
Commissioner T. Graham initiated a discussion about an article in the latest newsletter.
The article referred to the parking of motor and recreational vehicles and questions arose
concerning whether or not residencies of Crystal were required to have a garage. planner
Sutter stated this used to be a requirement, but it had been eliminated at some point in the
past.
Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
r Magnuson
October 8, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m.
with the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger,
Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were the following:
Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent
(excused) was T. Graham.
- Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to
approve the minutes of the September 10, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
i3. Public Hearing: Consider Application 200 1 -10 for a variance to reduce the
required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755 Twin Lake
Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). Application submitted by Laurene A. Rick
(applicant and property owner).
Planner Sutter stated that the owner has constructed a freestanding deck extending
5' into the required front yard. The deck has been built with railings and posts
that make it look like a front porch. Staff has notified the owner that the structure
is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed. The owner does
not wish to remove the deck and is requesting a 5' variance in the front yard
setback so that the deck may remain.
Planner Sutter told the Planning Cornmiss on that due to a medical condition, the
owner believes there is a need for a protected %valkway from the front door to the
garage. However, protection front rain or ,snow already exists in the forin of a 3'
t gave which is located along the front and rear of the house. Staff believes that the
main question here is whether a raised deck is necessary in the area under the
eave for the owner to have the desired access across the front of the house to the
garage.
The Planning Commission was also instructed to note that the deck has been built
to look like a front porch extending all the way across the front of the house. As
clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance, a deck is a structure and therefore must
meet the minimum front yard setback.
For a variance from a setback to be granted, state law requires that an "undue
hardship" must be present. For a situation to constitute an "undue hardship", all
of the following three conditions must be present:
Q The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as
required by this Zoning Code. "
u "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
and not created by the property owner. "
u "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality. "
Staff does not believe that this request meets any of these criteria and feels that
the owner has reasonable alternatives that would be consistent with the setback
requirements. The alternates suggested included removing the blocks, railing, and
posts currently extending above the deck, and lowering the deck so that it sits
directly on grade or to remove the deck entirely (possibly re -using it in the rear
yard) and install a sidewalk or patio under the eaves across the front of the house.
Staff recommends denial of Application 200 1 -10 for a variance to reduce the
required front yard setback from 30' to 25' at 5755 Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D. 03-
118-21-32-0022).
Laurene Rick, owner and applicant of 5755 Twin Lake Terrace, stated various
reasons of why she thought the structure needed to be built. She felt the previous
walkway was insufficient due to the lack of protection from the rain and snow and
needed to be elevated in order to create a safe walkway to the garage from the
front door.
Commissioner Magnuson explained that the Planning Commission had never
granted a variance to reduce a front yard setback in the past, so even if the
property owner would have requested the variance prior to construction, the
request would most likely have been denied.
Ms. Rick presented several photographs of other properties in Crystal with similar
structures that also appear to encroach on the front yard setback. She asked the
Planning Commission for clarification as to why these properties were approved
for construction.
Commissioner Magnuson referred the property addresses to Planner Sutter, who
was asked to determine whether or not these properties were granted variances
from the front yard setback requirement. She also stated that it is impossible to
know what was recommended by staff per telephone conversation with reference
to specific guidelines and procedures that need to be taken in order for the
structure to comply with City Ordinance.
Tom Rick, 5755 Twin Lake Terrace, and son of property owner and applicant told
the Planning Commission that when he inquired about building such a structure,
he was assured that if the structure is not attached to the house, it was allowed.
Planner Satter admitted that staff could have discussed the issue, but would have
also told the property owner that they should brim in a drawing of what they want
to build do that thea was nig misunderstanding, Planner Sutter recommended that
the applicant meet with the Building Official to discus possible alternatives, or [o
consider altering the existing structure: to conform witli the requirements of the
Tont yard setback,
Don Bohn, 5747 Twin .Lake Terrace, and neighbor to the applicant expressed his
concern for the safety of the walkway for the elderly, including the property
owner. Ee also stated that the structure is very well built and a beautiful addition
to the front of the liouse. Mr. Bohn added that lie did not understand why the City
of Crystal insists on picking on residents who want to better their property, when
there arc all sorts of properties that are in desperate need of attention and repair.
Commissioner Magnuson explained that the city has ordinances and variance
regulations for a reason. She stated that staff will look into the other properties
with similar structures and some alternatives for the applicant. She assured the
property owner that the city will do what they can to work with them to resolve
the matter.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to table
the public hearing until staff and the applicant have a chance to look at other
properties with similar structures and present further information.
Motion carried.
Planner Sutter stated that the city could consider rewriting or altering the City
Ordinance to allow for this type of structure without a variance.
The Planning Commission agreed with Planner Sutter. Many commissioners
stated that the structure really enhanced the house and property and would like to
see it stay.
Public Hearing to consider Application 2001-11 requesting the following actions
at 3200 Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by LivingWorks
Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner):
* Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from
Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential;
❑ Rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density
Residential; and
°D Site Plan Review for construction of a two family dwelling.
Commissioner Koss was asked to step down from the commission, due his
location of residence and other property near the proposed site.
Planner Sutter stated that Living Works Ventures would like to build a two family
dwelling on a property that is presently guided Neighborhood Commercial and
zoned B-4 Community Commercial. The property is vacant. The facility would
be used as a supportive housing facility for 12 low income disabled adults. Six
people would be housed in each of the two dwelling units. Under the present land
use designation and B-4 zoning, residential uses are not permitted. The following
changes would be required for the development to proceed:
rc3 Change the property's Future Land Use designation (Comprehensive Plan,
Fig. 7) from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
a Change the property's zoning classification from B-4 Community Commercial
to R-3 Medium Density Residential.
o Approve the submitted site and building plans.
Planner Sutter noted that the original application requested a change to High
Density Residential and R-2 zoning. Because the two are not typically
compatible, staff suggested that the applicant request Medium Density Residential
and R-3 zoning, which are compatible. The applicant has agreed to accept this
suggestion.
Planner Sutter stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows a mixture of residential
and commercial land uses in the area near the property. These include Low
Density Residential, High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and
Parks & Conservation. The basic issue appears to be whether Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) or Medium Density Residential (MDR) is the appropriate long-
term use of the subject property.
Planner Sutter stated that this situation is clearly one where the Planning
Commission and City Council need to make a judgement between two equally
defensible positions. Decisions regarding the Comprehensive Plan's land use
designations are where the city has the greatest degree of discretion and
judgement. The fundamental issue was the land use designation and that the
commissioners have the ability to deny the request based on the land use
designation alone.
Planner Sutter reviewed the submitted site plan with the Planning Commission
and noted specific alterations and areas of concern. He pointed out that the north
portion of the porch would have to be eliminated because it extends into the
required rear yard setback. Fire sprinkling may be required and Planner Sutter
referred the applicant to discuss the issue with the city Building Official. Parking
was also mentioned as being insufficient and staff discussed an alternate
arrangement of how additional stalls could be placed on the site. In addition,
irrigation of turf and landscaped areas will be required as a condition of approval.
Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-11 requesting Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Site Plan approval for property located at 3200
Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by LivingWorks
Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner). The Planning Commission
is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that there are various zoning designations in the
surrounding area. She explained that this particular parcel was zoned
Neighborhood Commercial and intended for commercial uses and feels it should
remain.
Commissioners K. Graham and Kamp stated that they did not see a problem with
the proposed use and thought it would fit in just fine with the surrounding uses.
Commissioner K. Graham sees no opportunities for better use at this time.
Commissioners Elsen, Von Rueden, Krueger, and Nystrom all were in agreement
that the site should remain zoned Neighborhood Commercial and that an
amendment should not be made to the Comprehensive Plan.
Tom Davis, Vinland Center, stated that he was under the impression that the
Comprehensive Plan is to allow development of the community. He explained
that two areas very close to the subject property contain many shops that this
property is intended for and therefore, sees no reason why the parcel should
remain zoned Neighborhood Commercial.
April James, Edina Realty, expressed her opinion by stating that no one else has
been interested in the property and she is glad that there is finally a proposal for
development.
Marty Gates, 5108 48`h Ave N, agreed with and supported the statements made by
Tom Davis. She explained that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to
guide the city, but not limit it. She asked the Planning Commission to consider
the proposal because it would really add to the community.
An individual who identified herself as Peggy, objected to the proposal because of
the impact it would have on the surrounding area. She claimed that there are
plenty of commercial opportunities that would be a better fit to this area and does
not agree with changing the Comprehensive Plan.
Lyn loss, 3200 Coloradan Ave N, stated (fiat to her recalleetion, a proposal was
made recently to rezone an adjuent pareed of land to the subject property from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density residential. Because the Planning
Commission denied that request, Ms. Koss does not understand why this proposal
is now being considered for approval, especially since the applicant is requesting
the same rezoning, Medium Density Residential.
Frank Caruso, 3235 Brunswick Ave N, supported Lyn Koss and stated that the
Comprehensive Plan should be implemented as intended.
An individual who identified himself as Matthew LaBissoniere, encouraged the
Planning Commission to think about what the community is facing. He expressed
that he did not understand why such a facility that assists animals was approved
for the site and a facility that assists humans is not.
Commissioner Magnuson addressed Mr. LaBissoniere by stating that once a
parcel is rezoned, the entire area is subject to rezoning and these are important
conditions that the Planning Commission has to consider.
Barb Sadler, 3447 Hampshire Ave N, reiterated how hard it is to keep commercial
businesses in the area already and recommended the Planning Commission
change the intended use to accommodate other uses.
Tess Moleski, 4076 Hampshire Ave N, asked the Planning Commission what uses
would be approved in a Neighborhood Commercial district.
Planner Sutter listed several typical permitted uses of a Neighborhood
Commercial district, including a barber shop, office, ice cream parlor, drug store,
gift shop, hardware and convenience stores, and medical and dental offices.
Roger Skare, Vinland Center, asked Planner Sutter about the intensity of B-4
zoning.
Planner Sutter stated that commercial zoning for this area was originally set 25
years ago. When the recent Comprehensive Plan update was being discussed,
staff and the Planning Commission felt that a mix of use would be favorable and
that Neighborhood Commercial use would fit this area. The B-4 zoning uses may
not always be consistent with Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as
Neighborhood Commercial. Until the zoning is updated to B-2, and compatible
with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission would have the
discretion to deny any request that does not ft the Neighborhood Commercial
uses.
Mr. Skare stated that B-2 zoning includes multiple family dwellings as a
conditional use, therefore making the proposed use for this site acceptable.
Planner Sutter stated that the proposal from the applicant is not a multiple family
dwelling.
Mr. Skare replied by asking if the proposal was changed to a multiple family
dwelling, would the proposal be approved?
Planner Sutter said that the Planning Commission is here to consider the proposal
that was in front of them tonight.
Mary Tietjen, City Attorney, was asked by the Planning Commission to give her
opinion as to the relevance of past applications being approved or disapproved in
this area. She replied that past applications may be used to justify a decision
made by the Planning Commission.
Jeff Bangsberg, Vinland Center, stated that at a previous Planning Commission
meeting, Commissioner Todd Graham mentioned the Comprehensive Plan and its
reference to expanding accessible housing. He urged the Planning Commission to
look at accommodating the community.
Pat Goetz, 7012 Markwood Dr, stated that in looking at the businesses around the
area, there is an abundance of Neighborhood Commercial businesses already. By
adding more, it would just create competition and be detrimental to the area.
Tess Moleski, 4076 Hampshire Ave N, stated that plans are always challenged
and that the Planning Commission should consider changing the Comprehensive
Plan.
Tony Nelson, 3301 Brunswick Ave N, mentioned that he was concerned for the
adjacent properties and he advised the Planning Commission to keep the
Comprehensive Plan as is.
Steve Gabbert, 3254 Brunswick Ave N, asked if it was because of the
Comprehensive Plan that the adjacent property was denied rezoning. He also
stated that if the Comprehensive Plan is changed all of the time, that it isn't very
useful.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close
the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Commissioner K. Graham expressed her concern for why some of the Planning
Commissioners wanted to turn down the proposal. She pointed out that the
Comprehensive Plan was not worked on all that hard and that the subject site is
not that suitable for Neighborhood Commercial uses. She stated that the
Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed.
Commissioner Kamp agreed with Commissioner K. Graham and feels that some
of the Planning Commission is more concerned about the operation of another
facility such as this in the City of Crystal, rather than the issue of land use.
Commissioner Magnuson responded by stating that Commissioner Kamp was
wrong in the assumption that the Planning Commission is not concerned with land
use.
Commissioner Krueger stated that he would be in favor on the project if the
Comprehensive Plan did not have to be changed and would not affect the future of
the area.
Commissioners K. Graham and Kamp both stated that future use was not really
relevant. The area is in need of this housing and it is a good site.
Moved by Commissioner Magnuson and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to
recommend to the City Council to approve 2001-11 requesting a Comprehensive
Plan amendment, rezoning to Medium Density Residential, and site plan approval
for property at 3200 Douglas Drive North, subject to the findings of fact detailed
in the staff memo and the following conditions:
ci Increase available parking to include two additional spaces
o Add landscape buffering to the east side of the property
Motion failed 3-3-1,with K. Graham,
Kamp, and Magnuson voting aye,
Elsen, Nystrom, and Von Rueden
voting nay, and Krueger abstained.
The Planning Commission proceeded to discuss the site plan issues when Planner
Sutter and Attorney Tietjen informed the Planning Commission that in order to
make a recommendation, there has to be a majority vote.
Commissioner Magnuson asked the Planning Commission to consider the
proposal once again and advised for a second motion to be made. Further
discussion of the proposal took place.
Moved by Commissioner Magnuson and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to
recommend to the City Council to modify the Comprehensive Plan to Medium
Density Residential for property at 3200 Douglas Drive North.
Motion carried 5-2, with K. Graham,
Kamp, Magnuson, Krueger, and
Nystrom voting aye, and Elsen and
Von Rueden voting nay.
Motion by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to
approve rezoning to Medium Density Residential and site plan approval for
property at 3200 Douglas Drive North, subject to the findings of fact detailed in
the staff memo and the following conditions:
u Increase available parking to include two additional spaces
J Add landscape buffering to the east side of the property
Motion carried 5 -1 - l ,with K.
Graham, Kamp, Magnuson, Krueger,
and Nystrom voting aye, Elsen
voting nay, and VonRueden
abstained.
The City Council will consider the request at its meeting on October 23rd
1 Discussion Item: Possible application for rezoning from B-4 to B-3, Conditional
Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow conversion of the existing Video
Update building at 5101 361h Avenue North to a car wash.
Planner Sutter expressed his concern about the use of the site for auto -oriented
businesses.
The Planning Commission expressed their concern for noise, congestion, hours of
operation, location, and as an auto -oriented use.
Dan Poorman, representative for the car wash, told the Planning Commission that
the entire car wash would be enclosed, that he was open to changes of the site
plan to eliminate congestion, and operation would be during regular business
hours.
Commissioner Magnuson told Mr. Poorman that rezoning of the area may be a
long-term issue and the Planning Commission does not foresee this location as
favorable for an auto -oriented, commercial use.
5 e Discussion Item: Presentation from Northwest Corridor Coalition regarding the
planning process for land uses along County Road 81 in Crystal and other cities.
The presentation included possible zoning adjustments, as well as the
improvement of transportation systems along County Road 81 for future use.
Dan Marckel and Jeff Miller, representatives for the Northwest Corridor
Coalition, suggested the Planning Commission look at their website,
www.cala.uinii.edu using the link "design center" for further updates and upcoming
meetings.
Informational Items:
❑ City Council actions on Planning Commission items
❑ Quarterly Development Status Report
Informal Discussion and Announcements.
None
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
Secretdry Nystrom 1
November 13, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m.
with the following present: Elsen, T. Graham (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Kamp
(arrived at 7:17 p.m.), Krueger, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were
the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche.
Absent (excused) were Magnuson, K. Graham, and Koss.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to
approve the minutes of the October 8, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
2. Item continued from October 8th meeting: Consider Application 2001-10 for a
variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property
address is 5755 Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). Application
submitted by Laurene A. Rick (applicant and property owner).
The owner has constructed a freestanding deck extending 5' into the required front
yard setback. The deck has been built with railings and posts that make it look
like a front porch. Staff has notified the owner that the structure is in violation of
the zoning ordinance and must be removed. The owner does not wish to remove
the deck and is requesting a 5' variance in the front yard setback so that the deck
may remain.
At its October 8th meeting, the Planning Commission held the required public
hearing and voted to continue this item to the November 13th meeting so that staff
could check into the status of some other properties that the applicant felt might
be in violation of the same setback requirement. The Planning Commission also
discussed the possibility of including in the upcoming zoning ordinance text
amendment, an exception to the front yard setback, allowing unenclosed porches
and decks.
Planner Sutter stated that staff s review of the four properties cited by the
applicant revealed that two were not in violation, one was granted a variance in
1975 because it had three street frontages, and one might be in violation and was
referred to the Building Official for possible enforcement action.
Planner Sutter mentioned that staff has also discussed the possibility of allowing
unenclosed porches and decks to extend into the required front yard setback.
There is general support for this idea but the extent of the allowable encroachment
is still an open question. Staff expects that the allowable encroachment would be
at least 5', but could be more. Another question is whether this encroachment be
allowed to extend all the way across the front of a house, as with the applicant's
deck, or be limited to a maximum percentage of the house's front or a maximum
square footage. These are issues that staff will discuss with the Planning
Commission as part of the ordinance revision.
Planner Sutter stated that because these discussions will be underway soon, staff
will suspend enforcement action against the applicant until the new ordinance is
adopted. However, none of this changes the fact that there is no hardship in this
case. The property is not unique in any way and none of the three criteria for an
undue hardship, as described in state law (M.S. 462.357 Subd. 6), have been met.
For these reasons, a variance is not appropriate for this situation.
Staff recommends denial of Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce the
required front yard setback from 30' to 25, but recommends consideration of
possible revisions to the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner T. Graham inquired if someone had requested further discussion of
this issue.
Commissioner Elsen responded by stating yes, that the Planning Commission
thought that the porch was a great improvement and staff should consider the
possibility of a revision to the zoning ordinance to allow this sort of structure.
Planner Sutter added that he would be surprised if the City Council would object
to the idea, at least in general terms. The details would need to be worked out by
the Planning Commission as part of the zoning ordinance re -write.
Commissioner T. Graham asked if this was a motion to amend the zoning
ordinance and Commissioner Elsen responded by stating that it was not a motion
to amend, but to explore alternative options and ideas.
Tom Rick, 5755 Twin Lake Terrace, expressed that he was still confused as to
why the structure was in violation of the zoning ordinance. He said that it was his
understanding that if the structure is not attached to the house and capable of
being moved, it is legal.
Planner Sutter replied by stating that the structure is above grade and that if the
property owner lowered it, it would be acceptable. He reiterated that there are,
other options to consider, but he also stated that a revision of the ordinance makes
sense. Until a decision is made whether or not to make revisions, the porch may
remain in place.
Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Kamp reminded Commissioner Elsen that the Planning
Commission should only be concerned with land use. The Planning
Commission should not discuss or be concerned with city revenue.
Commissioner Nystrom stated that she did not understand how any
resident could look at land and not think about taxes.
Plarmer Sutter replied that in this pai-ticular case, there is a possibility of a
PILOTage 4c ment. The City Council may choose to explore its options
regarding the tax issue. For example, city might develop a policy that
stipulates if an applicant seeks funding from Hennepin County, the state,
or HUD, a PILOT agreement may be a condition for city approval of the
funding request,
Commissioner Krueger brought up the issue of parking space and asked if
it would be adequate for an alternative use for the site. Planner Sutter
explained that there will be a total of 12 spaces for the dwelling and that it
could be modified to meet the minimum requirement for the most likely
future use, a 4-plex.
Commissioner Van i ueden asked Planner Sutter if he checked on why the
Planning Commission had to revue on the issue at the last meeting.
Planner Sutter explained that the City Attorney stated at the October 23'"d
City Council meeting that City Ordinance does not allow the Planning
Commission to move forward with an issue until there is a majority vete
to make some sort of recommendation to the City Council. 'I'hat vote may
be to recommend approval, recommend denial, or forward an itern to the
City Council with no recommendation. Staff also made it clear to the
Planning Commission at the October 8thmeeting that they did have the
option of continuing the item until the next meeting.
Planner Sutter mentioned that the application for a variance to reduce the
required setback from a public street at 6702 51St Place North was denied.
He said as it turned out, the guy wire could have been moved after all.
Therefore, there was no justification to grant the variance without the guy
wire hardship. The applicant and city staff were misinformed by Xcel
Energy, leading us to believe that there was no way to relocate the
structure.
Commissioner Kamp was curious if the applicant had started building the
garage and Planner Sutter said that no permits had been pulled. yet.
. Informal discussion and announcements.
Planner Sutter announced that there have been no applications submitted
for next month's Planning Commission meeting yet and suggested the idea
of an informal work session if a regular meeting isn't necessary.
s. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kamp
to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Motion carried.
December 10, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 6.00 p.m.
for a work session with the following present: Eisen, K. Graham, T. Graham,
Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, and Nystrom, Also present were the
following: Community Development Director Peters, Planner Sutter, and
Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was Von
Rueden.
Craig Rapp, DSU Consulting, facilitated the work session with the Planning
Commission and presented the following topics for discussion:
1. Job description of the Planning Commission
❑ State statutes
❑ City ordinances
❑ Commission by-laws
❑ Spoken and unspoken expectations of the Planning Commission
■ Advisory to the City Council
■ Upholding the expectations of the City Attorney
■ Upholding the expectations of the citizens
■ Upholding the expectations of businesses and developers
2 Strengths of the Planning Commission
❑ Familiar with the city
❑ Commitment
❑ Consider best interest of the city
❑ Desire to be involved
❑ Relatively unanimous in beliefs
❑ City Council affirms high percentage of decisions made by Planning
Commission
❑ Represent a cross-section of the community
❑ Experience
3. Weaknesses
❑ No common opinion of weaknesses
a Meetings often get off track
❑ Strong feelings of disrespect that impact the group
❑ Constant interruption of speakers (dialogue vs. testimony)
4. Opportunities
❑ Use work session to reflect
❑ Improve organization of the commission before decisions are affected
❑ Training for continuous improvement and education
❑ Capitalize on common commitment
❑ Take advantage of the diversity the commission possesses
S. Threats
❑ Simple issues becoming destructive
❑ City Council is concerned about Planning Commission effectiveness
❑ Citizens are losing confidence
❑ Poor decisions may result in confusing signals being sent to applicants
6. Additional concerns
❑ Audio or video recording of the meetings
❑ Attendance regulations
❑ Staff recommendations
❑ Public hearing procedures
Following Mr. Rapp's presentation, the work session was opened up to the
Planning Commission for discussion and feedback concerning these topics.
Commissioner Elsen addressed the issue of staff recommendations that are
included with each staff report as being a great resource for justification and
clarification. She stated that it is only a recommendation, and feels free to agree
or disagree with staff based on her own findings. Commissioners Nystrom,
Kamp, and K. Graham all agreed.
Commissioner Koss replied to Commissioner Elsen's statements by stating that
he thought the recommendations sometimes come as a disadvantage in the
decision making process of the Planning Commission. By providing a
recommendation, staff makes it too easy for commissioners to agree, instead
making their own decision. Koss suggested that staff should include a few
options to consider, but not give a specific recommendation.
Commissioner T. Graham stated that he feels in some instances, when staff has
not made a recommendation, it has been a good learning experience for the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Magnuson agreed with Commissioner Koss that it might be a
good idea for staff to provide the Planning Commission with a few options and
leave the recommendation open ended so it doesn't mislead the public.
Planner Sutter stated that staff always tries to make a recommendation and
provide contradictory findings to assist the Planning Commission in the decision
making process. Planner Sutter also reminded the Planning Commission that
the recommendation is just the opinion of staff and commissioners should feel
free to make their own decisions.
Commissioner T. Graham asked if everyone really thinks this is a problem with
the Planning Commission. He stated that Planner Sutter and the commission
always remind the public that staff recommendation is just that.
After giving feedback, Mr. Rapp and the Planning Commission came to a
general consensus that staff recommendation is beneficial and all commissioners
expressed that they did not feel pressured to agree with the recommendations.
Commissioner K. Graham commented on the experience of the Planning
Commission, and stated that she wasn't really familiar with the commissioners'
backgrounds. She thought that it would be very helpful to learn more about one
another to gain a better understanding of each commissioner. All
commissioners were in agreement that gaining more knowledge about one
another would be very beneficial and assist in group interaction.
Commissioner T. Graham stated that he did not agree with labeling the Planning
Commission as disrespectful. Commissioner Nystrom agreed with
Commissioner T. Graham and added that it was very rare for the Planning
Commission to have disagreements.
Mr. Rapp responded by clarifying that disrespect and disagreement mean
different things to different people. From the reaction he received when talking
to each commissioner, Mr. Rapp stated that the Planning Commission is
primarily having trouble with issues related to disrespect.
Commissioner Magnuson admitted that the Planning Commission may not
always be as courteous to the public and to other members of the commission as
they should be. Although, Commissioner Magnuson did state that she felt these
episodes are fairly isolated and mostly take place during controversial public
hearings. She added that disrespect is not intentional by anyone on the
commission. It simply happens when people get upset or have emotional
outbursts.
Commissioner Krueger stated that only the chair of the Planning Commission
should recognize speakers and use Robert's Rules of Order to ensure a well -
organized meeting.
Commissioner Koss expressed that the commission is sometimes disrespectful
towards citizens who choose to speak at public hearings. He stated that on more
than one occasion, citizens have been treated inappropriately by the way they
are talked to by commissioners, especially when dealing with ethical issues.
Mr. Rapp suggested the Planning Commission explore this issue further and
develop some "rules of conduct" for the meetings. The following were
common values mentioned by the commissioners:
❑ Integrity
❑ Consider best interest for the city
❑ Patience
❑ Empathy
❑ Open-minded attitude
❑ Honesty
❑ Courtesy
Commissioner K. Graham stated that everyone communicates and interprets
communication differently and that could be the reason some feel disrespected.
Commissioner Koss suggested that video taping the Planning Commission
meetings might ensure a more professional atmosphere. Several commissioners
agreed that video taping would also be a helpful reference material.
Commissioner Kamp brought up dialogue vs. testimony with speakers and stated
that it is definitely an issue that should be addressed. Commissioners T.
Graham and Krueger agreed that dialogue with the applicant might be
appropriate at times to clarify the situation, but not with anyone else.
Mr. Rapp replied by stating that the discussion process during the meetings
seems to be a concern among all commissioners and needs to be addressed. He
also suggested discussing some management techniques for future meetings.
Several commissioners inquired about the possibility of receiving additional
training to teach innovative decision making techniques. Meeting with the City
Council was also suggested as a way to network, make better decisions, and
build a stronger city.
Planner Sutter stated that he supported the idea of an annual joint meeting with
the City Council, however, he warned that additional meetings may create a
problem with conflicting decisions, opinions, and recommendations. Only
general objectives should be addressed among the commission and the council.
Mr. Rapp concluded the work session by prioritizing steps for improvement as
follows:
❑ Spend time getting to know and understand one another
❑ Work on defining the decision making process and accountability
system
❑ Meet with City Council
❑ Discuss, prioritize, and receive training on decision processing
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Chair Magnuson