The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 PC Meeting MinutesJanuary 14, 2002 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, Krueger, Nystrom, Magnuson, K. Graham, Koss, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was Kamp, Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2001 meeting and the December 10, 2001 work session with no exceptions. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Application 2001-13 for a variance to reduce the required setback from public streets for a fuel pump canopy at 6000 42nd Avenue North (P.I.D. 16-118-21-23-0078). Application submitted by Big B's Gas & Goods (applicant and property owner) The applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a fuel pump canopy to extend into the required 22' setback from the public streets surrounding his property. The proposed canopy will require a setback of 3' along 42" Avenue North and 13' along Adair Avenue North. The filling station was constructed in the early 1950's and has remained in operation as the original use since that time. Although the B-3 district permits the use of a canopy, a variance is being requested because the lot area is not sufficient to allow a canopy on the site in compliance with the setback requirements. At the September 10`h meeting, the applicant submitted some preliminary information for the Planning Commission to review and discuss. As a result of the discussion, staff was directed to research the background of the property for justification of a possible undue hardship. Based on these discussions, the applicant has developed a proposal for the Planning Commission to consider. Planner Sutter explained that due to the unique configuration of the lot, it is not possible for the applicant to construct a canopy while complying with the required setback. The property is zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial, but the lot does not comply with the city's B-3 standards for min. depth (150') and min. width (130'). However, the property was developed before these requirements were in effect. Planner Sutter stated that the applicant has agreed to make several improvements to his property as conditions for approval of the variance, specifically; u remove existing freestanding sign and replace with a handicapped parking spot; provide a 15' triangular landscaped area at the southeast corner of the site ,J install tree and a hedge to provide screening on northeast side of property; Staff opinion is that in order for the applicant to make reasonable use of the property, approval of the variance request must be granted. Planner Sutter stated that the property is a legal, non -conforming use because of the date of construction and the fact that the original use has continued without interruption. The site's B-3 zoning clearly anticipated that the filling station use would continue. If the city's intent was for the site's use to change to a non auto - oriented use, then the city would not have zoned it B-3. Planner Sutter also mentioned that no negative impacts for the neighborhood are anticipated. Staff recommended approval of Application 2001-13 for a variance to reduce the required setback from public streets for a fuel pump canopy at 6000 42"d Avenue North, provided all conditions set forth in section B of the staff report are met. The setbacks would be 3' from 42"' Avenue North and 13' from Adair Avenue North. Tom Loftus, 4217 Adair Ave N, expressed his support for the proposed canopy and any improvements the filling station was willing to make. He stated that he lives adjacent to the property, and feels that the extra light from the canopy would be a benefit to the neighborhood. He also mentioned that several other filling stations, such as the Super America located in north Crystal, have been granted variances and feels Big B's is deserving of the same. Greg Bruch, 4228 Adair Ave N, stated that he welcomed the addition of a canopy, as well as any other improvements to the property. He mentioned that Brad was an excellent neighbor and wanted to do whatever he could to support his business. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing_ Motion carried. Commissioner Nystrom stated that she would be glad to see the canopy come. The canopy is reasonable to improve the land and the city would not have zoned the property B-3 if it did not intend this use. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2001-13 for a variance at 6000 42" Avenue North. Findings of fact and conditions are as follows: As listed in section B of the staff memo. Motion carried. Consider approval of application deadlines and meeting dates for 2002 applications. Planner Sutter noted the only major change to planning and zoning application procedure is the elimination of preliminary discussion date before the applicant has submitted an actual application. Planner Sutter explained that staff wanted to eliminate any discussion that could lead to possible legal action by the applicant. Beginning January 1, 2002, only staff, the Planning Commission, or the City Council can request that discussion items be added to the regular Planning Commission meeting agenda. Planner Sutter stated that if the Planning Commission feels they need additional information to make a decision, besides what the applicant has initially submitted, they are encouraged to continue the public hearing to the following meeting, Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the application deadlines and meeting dates for 2002 applications. Motion carried. At 7:25 p.m., the Planning Commission, staff, Community Development Director Peters, and one member of the public relocated to Conference Room A and reconvened for a work session. Discussion item: Review land uses along Douglas Drive North, south of 32°' Avenue, and discuss the potential for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to address vacant parcels and redevelopment in the area.. Planner Sutter presented existing and proposed land use on Douglas Drive North, between 36"' Ave N and Medicine Lake Rd. He stated that staff has looked at this specific corridor and developed some suggestions to consider for changes in the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map_ Staff believes that there is a high demand by developers to acquire residential property within the city. Several properties along this corridor are anticipated to be developed or redeveloped in the future. Therefore, it makes sense to guide this area to coincide with the city's vision of what sort of development would be most beneficial in the future. The proposed rezoning would include areas of High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential, and eliminate areas zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Planner Sutter explained that one of the goals of rezoning this area is to provide a transition between Douglas Drive North and areas east and west along this corridor, guided Low Density Residential. Planner Sutter advised that the Planning Commission should consider what land use would be most beneficial for the city's future when guiding this area. A majority of the Planning Commission was in agreement that the corridor definitely needed some direction and were open to staff's suggestions. However, some commissioners were specifically concerned about the affects of eliminating the land zoned Neighborhood Commercial and the concentration of High Density Residential along Douglas Drive North. Staff and the Planning Commission discussed several options for the corridor. There was much debate about rezoning the area to Low Density Residential, but Planner Sutter advised that the Planning Commission should look at guiding this area for redevelopment over time. Low Density Residential does not really fit with the anticipated development for this area, and any applicants looking to construct multi -unit dwellings would then have to ask for the area to be rezoned. When areas such as this have several pockets of land that have the potential of being developed, the land should be uniformly zoned. Several Planning Commissioners stated that there is a greater demand and potential for residential, rather than commercial, in this area. Planner Sutter was in agreement and stated it is important to rezone the area to let potential developers know what the city's intentions are. It was noted that except for a few remaining neighborhood businesses, most of the commercial is concentrated in the north end of Crystal. For this reason, Planner Sutter stated that it was unlikely the corridor would attract commercial developers. After much discussion, staff stated that it will prepare a proposal to guide a majority of the area to Medium Density Residential. It would provide a good transition, as well as a reasonable signal to developers for the pockets of land that have the potential for development. Medium Density Residential would allow townhomes as a conditional use. Planner Sutter also suggested that it might be a good idea to include the Planning Commission's intention of developing the land for multi -unit dwellings / townhomes in the Comprehensive Plan text. Facilitated discussion with Craig Rapp of DSU Consulting Due to the longevity of the meeting, it was decided that the discussion be postponed. A special meeting was scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2002. 6; Informational items: ❑ City Council actions on Planning Commission items 7. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried. January 28, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The Crystal Planning Commission convened at 6:00 p.m. for a work session with the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and Von Rueden. Also present were the following: Community Development Director Peters and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was Kamp. Craig Rapp, DSU Consulting, facilitated the work session with the Planning Commission. The following is an outline of topics presented and discussed: 1. Review of the December 10, 2001 work session ❑ Decision making ❑ Commitment ❑ Training ❑ Dialogue vs. testimony ❑ Relationships 2. Group exercise ❑ Personal strengths and areas in need of improvement ❑ Feedback and input ❑ Reflection 3. Goals of the Planning Commission ❑ No barriers ❑ Mutual respect ❑ Defined role and values ❑ Open communication ❑ Improved decision making process 4. Role of the Planning Commission ❑ Devote necessary time ❑ Be objective ❑ Limit focus ❑ Listen to the public ❑ Provide political cover S, Values of the Planning Commission ❑ Be open-minded ❑ Consider best interest of the city ❑ Display patience, empathy, honesty, courtesy, and integrity ❑ Attack the problem, not the person ❑ Share responsibility ❑ Listen and show respect for others ❑ Treat everyone equally ❑ Accept constructive criticism 6. Options/models/ideas ❑ Rules of decorum ❑ Personal growth and development ❑ Leadership rotation ❑ Yearly meeting with council ❑ Public service commitment Staff will organize the role and values of the Planning Commission into a "mission statement" and develop a proposed modification to the Planning Commission Bylaws for consideration at the February 11, 2002 meeting_ The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Chair Magnuson -; Secretary Nystro ' February 11, 2002 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, Krueger, Nystrom, Magnuson, K. Graham, Koss, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was Kamp. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2002 meeting and the January 28, 2002 work session with no exceptions. Motion carried. 2- Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-01 for lot combination and division for the purpose of re -aligning an existing lot line between 5826 West Broadway (P.I.D. 05- 118-21-13-0009) and 5820 West Broadway (P.I.D. 05-118-21-13-0010). Application submitted Carl A. Swenson, Jr. (applicant and owner of 5826 West Broadway) and Betty J. Foster (owner of 5820 West Broadway), Planner Sutter stated that Carl A. Swenson, Jr. owns the property at 5826 West Broadway and Betty J. Foster owns the property at 5820 West Broadway. In October 1997, when Mr. Swenson moved a garage onto the property, he assumed that the fence line was also the property line and placed the garage so that it complied with the minimum setback as measured from the fence. Both the applicant and the adjacent owner are in agreement that they have always considered the fence to be right on the property line, although Ms. Foster and the previous owners have generally been the ones maintaining the fence. Because the property line does not actually follow the fence line, the recently moved -in garage does not comply with the minimum setback for an accessory structure. This did not become known to the applicant or the city until the location of the garage was verified during the field inspection process. The city has initiated enforcement action against the applicant to ensure that the required setback is complied with and the required hard surfaced driveway is installed. This application is intended to resolve the setback issue. The enforcement action regarding the hard surfaced driveway will continue with or without approval of this application. To correct the problem with the newly moved -in garage, and to relocate the property line to the fence line, the applicant is requesting lot combination and division. The modifications to the width and area of each parcel would be quite minimal and would not affect either property's compliance with the lot and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Planner Sutter explained that staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. The dimensions of both parcels would appear to allow their use with or without approval of the request. The main effect of this request would be to make conforming the recently moved -in garage at 5826 West Broadway. It would also reduce (but not eliminate) the nonconformity of the older, existing garage on the same property_ Planner Sutter stated that one concern of staff is that the required hard surfaced driveway has not yet been installed, even though the garage was moved onto the site in October 1997. Completion of the hard surfacing is long overdue. However, because it is currently winter, staff recommended giving the applicant until July 1, 2002 to complete the required hard surfaced driveway. Staff also feels that fences should be on one property or -the other, not directly on the line. This is to ensure that, years down the road after one or both properties have changed hands, it is clear who has ownership of and responsibility of the fence. However, staff could find no such requirement in the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance, and as a result, staff opinion is that, assuming the request is approved, the city should include the following in the approval letter: • The city would prefer but cannot require that the property line be on one side of the fence instead of exactly along the fence; • It is up to the two current property owners to determine ownership of and responsibility for the fence, and to record such legal documents as may be necessary to make said ownership and responsibility clear for future owners of the properties; • Any disagreement over the fence shall be a purely private matter between the two owners and the city will accept no responsibility in the matter. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Nystrom exclaimed that it is very important for property owners to take responsibility for a fence before it becomes an eyesore. Commissioner Elsen pointed out the city used to encourage building fences on the property line. Planner Sutter responded by suggesting that owners adopt a maintenance agreement to ensure future owners of the property know who is responsible for the fence. Commissioner Krueger inquired why this issue wasn't dealt with when the permit was applied for and Planner Sutter stated that in fact, that was when it was discovered by the inspector. Mr. Swenson, applicant and property owner, was asked by the Planning Commission to come forward and help clarify the situation. Mr. Swenson stated that he has been neighbors with Ms. Foster for over 20 years both are willing to negotiate a maintenance easement to designate one property owner as rightful caretaker of the fence. He also explained that the discrepancy was caused by plans that were drawn inaccurately. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-01 for a lot combination and division of 5826 West Broadway and 5820 West Broadway. Findings of fact are as follows: The request is consistent with the requirements of the Crystal City Code, provided the following conditions are met: • No later than July 1, 2002, the applicant shall complete the required hard surfaced driveway as shown in the Building Official's notes attached to Building Permit #13156 issued October 2, 1997. • Staff shall include language in the approval letter that puts both property owners on notice that they and any subsequent owners are responsible for ownership and maintenance issues related to the existing fence and the city has no role regarding those issues. Motion carried. Old business New business ❑ Consider proposed changes to Planning Commission Bylaws Commissioner Koss stated that he did not like the suggested term limits proposed by staff. He argued that if an elected official does well in a certain position, then they should not be limited in how long they can serve. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she thought the bylaws used to have a limit of three consecutive terms, but they were eliminated. She also said that she feels that the commission should have the right to appoint whoever they feel is the most deserving of the officer positions without having to be limited by terms. Commissioner K. Graham stated that the officer positions provide leadership opportunities for others on the commission and by limiting the terms, it would give others a chance to take on these roles. Commissioner T. Graham agreed with Commissioner K. Graham in that he thought the term limit was maybe a good idea. He also reminded the commission that they have the ability to decide what the term limit should be, if any. He said that three years maybe just isn't the right number. Planner Sutter stated that the three year number was arbitrary, and that it had been chosen by staff only because it corresponded to the length of Planning Commissioners' terms. Commissioner Krueger stated that he was against any term limit altogether. He reiterated that the best person should lead the commission, and that is proven through the votes of the commission. Commissioner K. Graham agreed that the best should lead, but expressed that others may have a different opinion of who the best is. Commissioner T. Graham suggested that leadership rotation could operate at each Planning Commission meeting by having the chair appoint a specific member to lead at different public hearings. This way, all members could get an opportunity to take on a leadership role and offer their expertise on specific agenda items. The majority of the Planning Commission was in agreement that they should consider developing Commissioner T. Graham's suggestion further. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to delete the term limits suggested by staff in the proposed changes to the bylaws. Motion carried 6-2, with Elsen, T. Graham, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, and Nystrom voting aye, K. Graham and VonRueden voting nay. Concern was also expressed about the attendance of Planning Commissioners at regular scheduled meetings. Staff suggested limiting absences to three per year, whether excused or unexeused, before removing the individual from the Pluaning Cotrltnissi011. Some commissioners stated that a pattern ol`deliberate abseues by a c.omnrissioner may require removal, but most absences cannot be helped. Planner Sutter explained that for the ;good of the Planning Curnmission, it is imperative for all commissioners to attend the regular she—duled rneedngs. ;For this reason, staff feels that excessive absences cannot be accepted, whatever the reason. In respollse to the comments and Suggestions made by the Plarming Commission, Planner Sutter suggested changing the proposal to read "In the event that a cornInissioner is absent from three or more regular meetings in a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of sUch absences." At that time, the Mayor and City Council would Ellen be responsible for making the decision to remove the individual based on the circumstances of the absences. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the revised changes to the attendance bylaws. Motion carried. The Planning Commission was in agrerrment that the mission statement incorporated the role and values of the commission very well, except for the statement "Striving for excellence", which was said to be too vague. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to eliminate the "Striving for excellence" condition from the mission statement. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Koss to approve the changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Motion carried. ❑ Election of Planning Commission Officers for 2002 Commissioner Koss nominated and Commissioner Elsen seconded the nomination of Commissioner Paulette Magnuson as chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Motion carried. Commissioner Elsen nominated and Commissioner Koss seconded the nomination of Commissioner Richard VonRueden as vice chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Commissioner T. Graham nominated and Commissioner K. Graham seconded the nomination of Commissioner Anthony Kamp as vice chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Because there was more than one nomination for vice chair, voting was done by paper ballot and tabulated by staff. Motion carried 6-2 to elect Commissioner Richard VonRueden as vice chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Commissioner Nystrom nominated and Commissioner Koss seconded the nomination of Commissioner T. Graham as secretary of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Motion carried. ❑ Select possible dates for the next Planning Commission work session and a joint work session with the City Council ❑ Review land uses along Douglas Drive N, south of 36t" Ave N, and consider whether to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment application for a public hearing in March planner Sutker stated that high density development is not realistic in this area. As previously discussed, staff and the Planning Commission Suggested reaming the area to medium density to provide more of a transition to surrouneling residential neighborhoods. Planner Sutter also stated that the City Council has expressed interest in seeing something different in this area, and that is why the Planning Commission is asked to initiate a Compr6ensive Flan amendment and public hearing. Several commissioners had various concerns involving the impact on surrounding properties and how rezoning the area could effect how much control the Planning Commission would have over future development. Planner Sutter stated that the commission might still have a reason to deny an application if they could point out a specific negative impact of the proposed development. Planner Sutter explained that the city is stalling future development with the current zoning. Commissioners T. Graham and K. Graham agreed with Planner Sutter that the people that own this land and want to develop it deserve that opportunity and ultimately it is up to the city to provide it. Planner Sutter recommended that in order to give the city a greater degree of control, the Planning Commission should consider incorporating text into the Comprehensive Plan to specify what sort of development would be permitted in this area. The Planning Commission was very responsive to Planner Sutter's recommendation and requested that staff put together some text that coincides with the proposed rezoning changes for the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was tentatively scheduled for the April Planning Commission meeting. General information ❑ City Council action on items previously reviewed by the Planning Commission ❑ Information on general Planning Commission issues Open forum Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Koss to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Se etary �-,,- � Motion carried. March 11, 2002 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, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Commissioner T. Graham arrived at 7:05. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was Koss. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. Public hearings None Old business ❑ Review results of City Council consideration of Planning Commission Bylaw changes. Planner Sutter explained that the City Council has not taken action on this topic, therefore the discussion will be postponed until further notice. ❑ Consider initiating a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change future land uses along Douglas Drive, south of 36th Avenue by modifying Figure 7 - Future Land Use and associated text. Staff has drafted some proposed text changes that would be part of a potential Comprehensive Plan amendment to facilitate private -sector -initiated redevelopment along Douglas Drive, south of 36th Avenue. Planner Sutter reviewed the changes and explained that staff might refine these further once the Planning Commission authorizes to proceed with the public hearing on the matter. Staff requests that the Planning Commission authorize consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment in accordance with the proposed map and text, with a public hearing to be held on April 8, 2002. Planner Sutter presented the special area plan that staff developed for this corridor: CORRIDOR PLAN — DOUGLAS DRIVE, SOUTH OF 36TH AVENUE. Some of the city's greatest potential for residential infill development can be found among the vacant, underutilized, or inappro?riately zoned parcels scattered along both sides of Douglas Drive south of 36 h Avenue. The specific area included in this corridor plan is the area between Brunswick and Florida Avenue from 36th Avenue south to the city boundary. The Future Land Use map (Figure 7) shows these parcels predominantly being guided for Medium Density Residential, with some of the transitional areas being guided Low Density Residential for better compatibility with the adjacent single- family neighborhoods. It is not the intent of the city for these underdeveloped areas to be redeveloped in a haphazard fashion. Specifically, the city has concerns about the following potential negative impacts of redevelopment along this corridor. CONCERNS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: • Isolation. Redevelopment of some parcels might isolate or otherwise make it more difficult to redevelop other parcels in the area. Compatibility. Due to the odd configuration of many of the parcels and limitations on development such as soils, flood zones and the presence of Bassett Creek, it is likely that redevelopment of many sites will be proposed as a Planned Unit Development. While PUDs offer increased flexibility for the developer and the city, there is also the potential for increased impacts on adjacent low density residential areas. Systems. One of the characteristics of this area that has made it difficult for development is that it is where Douglas Drive, a road with a long history in the area, runs adjacent to Bassett Creek. The area is therefore directly impacted by elements of two regional systems: The transportation system and the natural resources system. The city has determined that preservation and enhancement of both transportation routes and open space corridors are important goals for the future well being of the community, and there is always the potential for development to occur in a way which conflicts with these goals. To address these potential negative impacts, the city has established the following guiding principles for the corridor. These principles shall be used by the city in evaluating any planning, zoning or other land use related application within the corridor plan area. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: Development shall be consistent with the density limits established for the residential uses shown on the Future Land Use map. If a development site includes areas guided for different densities, the developer may request that the city average the guided density on a pro -rated basis over the entire site. However, the city may require the developer to conform with each guided density instead of a pro -rated average. Density bonuses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance may be granted in cases where the city determines that there is a public benefit that will be enjoyed beyond the boundaries of the development itself. Development shall not reduce the development potential of other parcels by impeding access or leaving undeveloped any adjacent small, isolated, difficult -to -develop parcels. Development shall include additional right-of-way for Douglas Drive or other public streets as necessary to preserve and enhance the transportation system. Development shall preserve a public open space corridor along Bassett Creek for the purposes of flood prevention, open space preservation and a possible future public trail. Development shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and systems, including but not limited to issues of traffic, parking, noise, buffering, screening, impervious coverage, building size, form and materials. The city reserves the right to deny any land use related application that does not include site, building, landscaping, or other information deemed necessary by the city to evaluate the application. Commissioner Elsen expressed her concern about the impact of density and the effects of the rezoning. She did not understand how the commission could effectively guide this area for smaller scale development if a proposal meets all criteria for Medium Density Residential. Planner Sutter explained that the special area plans are designed to reflect the comfort level of the commission. Developers may propose a project with the maximum number of units possible in an arca zor}ed Medium Density. However, the PIannnin,g Commission would have the right to deny or requirc changes be made to the project to m ncide with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines. Spejiic issues such as proximity of units and adequate parking space are two examples of legally dcfensible reasons that would justify the Planning Commission's approval or denial of the project. Commissioner VonRueden was concerned that the text might be too vague in specific areas. Planner Sutter replied by stating that the text was not meant to be forceful, but rather consistent. As the text reads, the Planning Commission would have the option to require developers to purchase surrounding parcels to ensure the development would be consistent and prevent smaller parcels from becoming difficult to develop. Commissioner Magnuson asked Planner Sutter how the Planning Commission could limit higher density projects from this area. Her concern was the impact future development would have and what kind of transition Medium Density Residential would provide for the surrounding single -family homes. She stated that she would like to hear from the residents in the area before rezoning. Planner Sutter reminded the Planning Commission what these parcels are currently zoned. The rezoning would decrease the impact on surrounding residential areas from Neighborhood Commercial and High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Planner Sutter stated that when a developer comes in with a specific proposal, it is up to the Planning Commission to make a decision based on sound reasoning. It is impossible to anticipate every scenario and that is why the Comprehensive Plan is important. It provides a general guide for what kind of development the city would like to see in a specific area. Commissioner K. Graham replied by stating that from what is being said, she feels the Planning Commission is trying to control something that they cannot. It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to integrate the new development with the-existing area, not prevent development altogether. Commissioner T. Graham and Kamp were in agreement with K. Graham and stated that they are comfortable with Medium Density Residential. The guiding principles provided by staff allow discretion and the text indicates exactly what the city would like to see for future development. Planner Sutter stated that the Planning Commission should use the Comprehensive Plan to provide general principles and review each application on a case by case basis for consistency with these principles. Commissioner Elsen restated that rezoning will limit the control the Planning Commission would have on development. She also said that in her opinion, spot zoning was not as negative as once thought. Commissioner T. Graham disagreed with Elsen and said that he believes that it is not in the best interest of the Planning Commission to risk a commercial or high density development while the commission debates rezoning the area to Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Kamp agreed with T. Graham and stated that he feels that commercial is not necessary in this area. He said that Medium Density Residential is a good buffer for the rest of the neighborhood and that the commission would be doing a disservice not to rezone the area. Commissioner Krueger stated that the current commercial zoning in this area gives small businesses a chance to succeed and taking away this commercial area would be detrimental to the city. Commissioner Nystrom also brought up the idea of having a public meeting to hear from the residents in the area. Planner Sutter replied that he is concerned that residents will oppose any rezoning that may increase the potential for redevelopment. Therefore, the Planning Commission should decide whether to initiate the application, take it to public hearing, and then consider comments from the neighborhood. Planner Sutter reiterated that conforming uses would remain, even if the property is sold and remains in operation without a vacancy of more than one year. He also stated that if the Planning Commission is adamant about guiding this area for townhouse development, it might be a good idea to include verbiage into the Comprehensive Plan that states so. Commissioner K. Graham suggested including specific examples in the Comprehensive Plan text of what sort of appearance is desired in this area and what would blend well with the surrounding uses. Planner Sutter agreed -and said that staff could develop specific text and include it in the "Guiding Principles" section of the special area plans for consideration. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to initiate consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change future land uses in the area generally along Douglas Drive, south of 36`h Avenue and including text changes to further guide development in this area. Motion carried. A public hearing is scheduled for the April 8, 2002 meeting. �. New Business ❑ Redevelopment update Planner Sutter briefly reviewed current and planned redevelopment activities for the city. Specific projects, such as the rehabilitation of various homes throughout Crystal, land banking for future redevelopment, and anticipated redevelopment projects were discussed in detail. The Planning Commission was very impressed with all of the redevelopment projects. Commissioner Magnuson asked specifically about the area surrounding Cub Foods and wondered if the city had any future plans for that area. Planner Sutter replied by stating that is one of the areas where the city is doing some land banking for future redevelopment. Planner Sutter closed the discussion with a preview of Edgewood Gardens, an upcoming redevelopment project that would create six new home lots for construction. Properties at 6404 38th Ave N, 3821 Douglas Dr N, and 3818 Florida Ave N would be re -platted. Acquisition of the properties, preparation of the preliminary and final plats, completion of the public hearing and approval process, construction of necessary site improvements, and sale of the lots for new home construction would all occur in 2002. 5, General information ❑ City Council action on items previously reviewed by the Planning Commission ti. Open forum 7. Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Secretary r am Apri18, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, T. Graham and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent was Elsen due to her resignation, effective immediately. Commissioner Kamp excused himself at 9:00 P.M. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-02 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Drive N, south of 36"' Ave N. As part of the process for considering an application for development at 3200 Douglas Drive N, staff received indications from some City Council and Planning Commission members that the Future Land Use designations for the entire Douglas Drive corridor south of 36th Ave N might be flawed. Staff agreed with this assessment and began reviewing the current designations and whether there were alternate approaches that might make more sense ,given the conditions in this corridor. Over the past few months, staff has developed a proposal to modify the Future Land Use designations for the areas near Douglas Drive N, south of 36th Ave N. The proposal would also create a place in the Comprehensive Plan for Special Area Plans, with the first such plan being a description of what type of development the city would find acceptable in this particular corridor. The Planning Commission discussed staff's concept at the January and February meetings and, at the March meeting, voted to initiate the application and public hearing to consider the proposed Special Area Plan including both new text and changes to the Future Land Use map. Planner Sutter stated that the Comprehensive Plan generally shows High Density Residential throughout much of the corridor, with Neighborhood Commercial clustered at the intersections of 32nd, 34' and 36`x' Ave N. There are also some Public & Institutional and Community Commercial uses near the south end of the corridor. While the high density areas south of 30`' Ave N cover existing apartment complexes, most of the areas guided high density north of 30th Ave N are not actually developed as such. In addition, few of the commercial -guided sites at 32Nd and 301 Ave N are actually being used by businesses, and fewer still are being used by businesses that are consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial classification. There is also a fair amount of vacant or underutilized land in the corridor. On the east side of Douglas Dr N, such areas run from the "Gale property" (3148 Douglas) north to the large lot, single family homes at 6115, 6125 and 6203 36th Ave N. On the west side of Douglas Dr N, such areas run from 34th Ave N to Bassett Creek, just south of 36th Ave N. The changes proposed by staff would, generally, be either a reduction in allowable housing density and development intensity throughout much of the corridor, or no change from current designations. Existing larger apartment buildings would remain guided HDR, simply in recognition of the likelihood that those uses would remain for the foreseeable future. There may be some small buildings (3, 4, 5 or 6-plexes) that would be made non -conforming by a medium density designation. However, staff feels that these buildings are much more likely candidates for conversion or redevelopment to a different use over time. If conversion or redevelopment does not occur, such uses may continue as lawful non -conforming uses, even if they exceed the maximum MDR density of 12 units per acre. Furthermore, such buildings are typically already lawfully non -conforming with current parking, setback, open space and minimum lot area requirements, so the fact that they might become non -conforming with the new (reduced) maximum density would not have a major impact on those existing uses. There are only three areas where the allowable density would be increased: • The property at 6203 36th Ave N which includes a house plus a large vacant lot at 6213 36th Ave N. These properties are owned by the same party and due to their low ratio of building value to land value, plus their proximity to the small commercial uses at 36th Ave N and Douglas Dr N, are likely to be redeveloped. Similar properties at 6115 and 6125 36th Ave N might also be included in such a development, but because they are east of Colorado Ave N, they would remain guided LDR. • The west half of the "Gale property" and the homes on the east side of Douglas Dr N, south to 30th Ave N would be guided MDR. The area of existing homes along Douglas Dr N (currently guided LDR) would be guided MDR in recognition of the fair to poor condition of many of the existing homes and the need for higher density to make it feasible for the private sector to acquire and redevelop these homes. If there are strong objections to this approach, the existing homes could remain guided LDR with the understanding that it would probably delay or prevent redevelopment of those homes. In recognition of Colorado Ave N as the transition to LDR, the east half of the "Gale property" would remain guided LDR. • The apartment complex on the west side of Brunswick between Medicine Lake Road and 29a' Place N was mistakenly guided LDR in the Comprehensive Plan. This was unintentional and clearly is not reflective of either the current land use or how the land is likely to be used in the future. Staff views this as a non- controversial correction item that we happened to notice during our review of land uses in the corridor. Planner Sutter stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan text change would contain the following: Corridor Plan -Douglas Dr N, south of36th Ave N Some of the city's greatest potential for residential infill development can be found among the vacant, underutilized, or inappropriately zoned parcels scattered along both sides of Douglas Dr N, south of 36`h Ave N. The specific area included in this corridor plan is the area between Brunswick and Florida Ave N, from 36'h Ave N, south to the city boundary.. The Future Land Use map shows these parcels predominantly being guided for Medium Density Residential, with some of the transitional areas being guided Low Density Residential for better compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. It is not the intent of the city for these underdeveloped areas to be redeveloped in a haphazard fashion. Specifically, the city has concerns about the following potential negative impacts of redevelopment along this corridor. CONCERNS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: Isolation. Redevelopment of some parcels might isolate or otherwise make it more difficult to redevelop other parcels in the area. Compatibility. Due to the odd configuration of many of the parcels and limitations on development such as soils, flood zones and the presence of Bassett Creek, it is likely that redevelopment of many sites will be proposed as a Planned Unit Development. While PUDs offer increased flexibility for the developer and the city, there is also the potential for increased impacts on adjacent Low Density Residential areas. Due to the presence of single family neighborhoods adjacent to the Douglas Dr N corridor, it is important that any new development blend in with the existing landscape, adjacent development and surrounding neighborhoods. Systems. One of the characteristics of this area that has made it difficult for development is that it is where Douglas Dr N, a road with a long history in the area, runs adjacent to Bassett Creek. The area is therefore directly impacted by elements of two regional systems, the transportation system and the natural resources system. The city has determined that preservation and enhancement of both transportation routes and open space corridors are important goals for the future well-being of the community, and there is always the potential for development to occur in a way which conflicts with these goals. To address these potential negative impacts, the city has established the following guiding principles for the corridor. These principles shall be used by the city in evaluating any planning, zoning or other land use related application within the corridor plan area. The city may reject any application that does not contain the level of detail necessary to conduct such an evaluation. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: Development shall be consistent with the density limits established for the residenti4l uses Shawn On the Future Land Use snap. If a development .site includes a, guided far- different densities, the developer may request that the city average the guided density on a pfo-rated basis over the entire site, However, the city may requEre rhe developer to fixmform with each guided demiry instead of a pra-rated average. Density bonuses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance may be granted. in cases where thr city determines that there is a public benefit that will be el joycd beyond the boundaries of the development itself: ■ Development shall not reduce the development potential of other parcels by impeding access or leaving undeveloped or any adjacent small, isolated, difficult -to - develop parcels. Development shall include additional right-of-way for Douglas Dr N or other public streets as necessary to preserve and enhance the transportation system. • Development shall preserve a public open space corridor along Bassett Creek for the purposes of flood prevention, open space preservation and a possible future public trail. • Development shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and systems, including but not limited to, issues of traffic, parking, noise, buffering, screening, impervious coverage, building size, form and materials. The preferred residential development style would be townhomes or similar structures where each unit has a private entrance instead of apartment -style buildings, where residents share a common entrance. The city reserves the right to deny any application for development that it determines to be incompatible with these guiding principles or any other part of the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Sutter explained that generally, the purpose of this new text would be to provide additional guidance to prospective developers so they have a complete understanding; of the city's expectati oris and guidelines for development in this area. The proposed Future Land Use designations, if adapted, along with the proposed Special Area Plan text, would facilitate~ development that is more consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive; Plan and more compatible with adjacent, existing single fatnily residential neighborhoods. Staff recommended approval of Application 2002-02, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan convering areas near Douglas Dr N, south of 36th Ave N. Commissioner Kamp asked Planner Sutter to clarify what High Density Residential zoning actually included. Planner Sutter responded by stating that these areas generally consist mostly of established apartment developments that exceed a density of 12 units per gross acre. Planner Sutter reminded the commission that this proposed change is not for a short-term or immediate development. It is because staff does not think that high density is appropriate for this area because it does not coincide with the small parcels of land that have yet to be developed. Planner Sutter referred to the current and proposed land use for this area and noted that staff would like to recommend an additional change be made to include guiding the east half of 3343 Douglas Dr N (south of the medical building) for Neighborhood Commercial. Staff `s opinion is that the most likely long-term scenario is for this property to be incorporated into the medical building property for parking expansion. Commissioner Krueger expressed his concern for getting rid of the Neighborhood Commercial in this general area and would like to see it remain commercial, rather than residential. Commissioner T. Graham asked Planner Sutter to elaborate on what Medium Density Residential zoning included. Planner Sutter responded by stating that medium density primarily consists of transitional areas where a mid -density gradient in housing provides a transition from high to low density and is appropriate and desirable to optimize land use compatibility. Housing types are generally single family attached units that are designed like townhomes or garden apartments that fit into a single-family neighborhood character. Medium density housing is intended to have a density of 5 to 12 units per gross acre. The range of density in MDR is best illustrated by Parkside Acres (at the low end) and Valley Place Estates (at the high end). Stewart Gale, owner of the "Gale Property" on 34th Ave N and Douglas Dr N, asked staff and the Planning Commission if the city has made an ordinance change to include rezoning this area and Planner Sutter replied no, but since development plans must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, this change would have a similar effect to rezoning. Mr. Gale added that about a year ago, an application was submitted to the Planning Commission for a medium density development on his property, however, it was denied. After the application was rejected, Mr. Gale said that he was under the impression that the zoning in this area was not going to change in the near future and that was the reason for denial. He also went on to say that soil tests confirm that pillings would be required for any development on his property. Therefore, because of this cost factor, Mr. Gale would like to see the property guided for higher density to increase the possibility for development. He also stated that he might be interested in building a veterinarian hospital for his daughter on the property and would like to know how the proposed changes might effect this. Planner Sutter reiterated that the west quarter of Mr. Gale's property is presently zoned and guided Neighborhood Commercial. He was not aware there was interest in developing the property for a specific commercial use. Planner Sutter suggested an application be submitted if there is a sincere interest in pursuing the veterinarian hospital. Mr. Gale responded by stating that his main concern before attending this meeting was how much time was left before the zoning was actually changed. He stated that he would rather see the property consistently zoned, instead of being zoned two different ways. Medium Density Residential would probably be the most logical choice if the city was to consistently re -zone the entire property. But Mr. Gale also stated that he is in favor of what staff and the Planning Commission agree is best for the city. Zev Oman, 3200 and 3201 Douglas Dr N, asked how the re -zoning might effect his car lot. Planner Sutter replied that the car lot is currently non -conforming, but would be grandfathered in and that this status would not change due to the proposed amendment. Wally Anderson, 3525 Adair Ave N, stated that he is concerned about the effects re -zoning might have on his business near 34th Ave N and Douglas Dr N. He expressed his desire to someday expand his business onto adjacent properties and keep Neighborhood Commercial in this area. He also was disappointed that property owners only received a one week notice prior to the public hearing, especially on an issue of this magnitude. Commissioner Magnuson pointed out that this property would also be perfect for a townhome development, which could be something for Mr. Anderson to consider. Mr. Anderson agreed and stated that he also owns properties northeast of 34`h Ave N and Douglas Dr N. He would eventually like to develop both sides of the creek with townhomes and would also like to see some Neighborhood Commercial areas remain. Commissioner Kamp asked Mr. Anderson how long he had owned the property being discussed and he replied that it has been about 25 years. Commissioner Kamp then asked why he has not developed this property in this period of time. Mr. Anderson replied that the site was not conducive for the intended use. Commissioner Kamp reiterated that this was the very reason the city would like to re -zone this area and according to Mr. Anderson's statement, it sounds like both Commissioner Kamp and Mr. Anderson are in agreement that commercial is not the best use for the area northeast of 34th Ave N and Douglas Dr N. John Anderson, 3353 Douglas Dr N, stated that it has been the intention of himself and his father (Wally Anderson) to expand their business and develop housing along the creek. He has no desire to relocate and if the Neighborhood Commercial is taken away, it will decrease the property values in the area. Gary Kersten, 3246 Douglas Dr N, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Crystal Terrace Apartments. He explained that six out lots were included with the purchase of the complex. The zoning and the six lots were one of the better selling points of the investment, with the intention of someday expanding the development and beautifying the area. As soon as the zoning is changed, the price per unit increases and the opportunity to provide Crystal residents with stable housing will no longer exist. Planner Sutter explained that the city has control over what density this area should be. Higher end, medium density townhomes could still be built on this property. However, staff feels that additional High Density Residential does not fit the area and coincide with the existing parcel size. The question of whether these parcels should be high or medium density is a policy decision to be made by the city. Commissioner Magnuson pointed out that staff and the Planning Commission are hoping that the proposed changes will add additional housing to the area. A majority of these parcels have never been developed and that is the reason for the proposed changes. Dan Martin, 6308 34th Ave N, expressed his concern for the loss of Neighborhood Commercial and how it might effect the sale of his property. He stated that in his case, the building on his property is more valuable than the land. Therefore, if the zoning is changed, and the building on-site is no longer an asset, he will lose a great investment. Planner Sutter stated that even if the property was re -zoned, the use could continue as long as the use remains the same, no more than 50% of the building is lost (in cases of fire etc.), or the building is not vacant for more than one year. Kevin Greening, 3442 Douglas Dr N, was curious about how this re -zoning might effect his land if he decides to sell it. Commissioner Kamp replied that it really just depends on the market and the buyer. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Koss pointed out that after hearing the public opinion, he feels that the Planning Commission has the responsibility to really consider the impact on businesses in the area. For example, the property owned by Mr. Gale should be zoned consistent throughout. Commissioner T. Graham stated that the reason for the proposed re -zoning is because the area is in need of change. Properties along Douglas Dr N are in need of improvement and new development is hindered by the current high density zoning. The goal of this project is also to make the zoning in the area more uniform. Commissioner Krueger stated that he could not see getting rid of the Neighborhood Commercial and after the public hearing, he can see that many individuals share his opinion. Commissioner Nystrom agreed with Commissioner Krueger, but also pointed out that many years have gone by without any development on the commercially zoned sites, so maybe it is time for a change. Commissioner VonRueden said that a lot of really good points were brought up at the public hearing and he would like to continue looking at this proposal. There seems to be a concern for the properties zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Planner Sutter suggested to still guide the area Medium Density Residential, but add the intention of small scale office businesses as a conditional use in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Another option would also be not to change the existing parcels zoned Neighborhood Commercial, but re -zone only the vacant parcels. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to continue until May 13, the discussion of Application 2002-02 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Dr N, south of 36th Avenue N. Motion carried. o Consider Application 2002-03 for a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Planner Sutter explained that the Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (EDA) has acquired the following four parcels for infill redevelopment: Parcel A: 3818 Florida Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0013 Lot 9, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: Vacant. Owned by the EDA. The platted utility easement across the east 2.5' of this parcel has been vacated. Parcel B: 3821 Douglas Dr N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0001 unplatted land Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Karen Stombaugh) has permission to occupy house through April 30, 2002 and the rest of the property (garden area) through June 30, 2002. The EDA will rehab and sell the house on the open market. Parcel C: 6404 38th Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0006 Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Acres, together with unplatted land Status: One single family house plus outbuildings. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Jeff Tepfer) has permission to occupy property through April 30, 2002. The EDA will demolish the house and outbuildings. Parcel D: 6328 38th Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0005 Lot 1, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. The EDA is presently rehabbing this house for resale as an affordable home for a first-time home buyer. The area is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1. This allows single family subdivisions of single family detached homes at densities not to exceed 5 units per acre. The density of the proposed subdivision will be 3.5 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the city's minimum width (60'), depth (100') and area (7,500 sq. ft.) requirements. It should be noted that, while the cul-de-sac lots are not 60' wide along the curve of the street right-of-way, they are at least 60' wide at the building setback line. For cul-de-sac lots, past practice in Crystal (and standard practice in most other communities) is to measure the lot width at the setback line for compliance with lot width requirements. The plat includes the following streets and easement dedications: • 7' along Douglas Drive (to provide a full 40' width along the west side of the centerline in accordance with Hennepin County's requirements); • 45' radius (90' diameter) cul-de-sac right-of-way; • 10' drainage and utility easements along all front lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all rear lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all side lot lines (except for the north side of lot 8, which will have no easement due to that existing house having a pre-existing nonconforming setback of 2.7'). To serve the new homes on lots 1-5, a new cul-de-sac would be built just south of the existing Edgewood Ave N dead end, approximately 300' south of 391i Ave N. Water and sanitary sewer lines to serve lots 1-5 would be extended a short distance south from their current termini at the dead end. The improved street would have b6-18 concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement in accordance with standard city street requirements. The cul-de-sac would have a 30' radius (60' diameter) from curb -to -curb, which has been approved by West Metro Fire and Rescue staff. The new home on Lot 6 and the existing (rehabbed) home on Lot 7 would be served with existing infrastructure on 38th Ave N. The existing (rehabbed) house on Lot 8 would be served with existing infrastructure on Douglas Dr N. The standard park dedication requirement is now $1,000 per new residential unit. Since this plat would result in a net gain of 5 units, park dedication in the amount of $5,000 is required. The EDA will dedicate as parkland 7,764 sq. ft. (0.18 acres) of the property. At the Hennepin County Assessor's estimated value of $1.15 per square foot (memo in the 6328 38th Ave N rehab project file dated March 6, 2002), the value of this dedication is $8,929. In addition, the EDA is proposing to install a wood chip footpath -type trail to connect the new Edgewood Ave N cul-de-sac with the Florida Park property to the west. The value of this improvement probably approaches $2,000, meaning that the EDA proposing park dedications and improvements roughly double the minimum required by city code. The rehab of the existing homes at 6328 38th Ave N and 3821 Douglas Dr N is expected to be completed by early summer and both homes will be marketed at that time. Site work and installation of public improvements would begin in mid- summer 2002 and be completed by fall. The lots for the six new homes would be sold in the fall and construction on the new homes would be expected to be completed by spring 2003. Planner Sutter reiterated that all of the parcels were voluntary acquisitions. The city would plan to start breaking ground for the project around July 1, 2002. Tim Carney, 3829 Edgewood Ave N, was concerned about the lowland area and proposed runoff from this new development. He questioned staff about whether or not the existing lowland would be filled in, and if not, would it just become cluttered with debris from the increased runoff. He asked if this was a concern of the project and what, if anything, would be done to prevent this from becoming a problem. Planner Sutter responded by stating that most likely the two lots would be built with a walk -out basement. Precautionary measures would be taken to contain runoff on-site, during construction. Also, min. 5' drainage and utility easements would be provided along lot lines. Illegal dumping would also be heavily enforced by the city. Planner Sutter stated that the city would be very selective in choosing a reputable developer that would make sure all demolition materials are disposed of correctly. Mr. Carney asked how the additional runoff would effect the sanitary sewer run. Planner Sutter stated that there is sufficient capacity for additional users and the city Engineering Department had made this determination. Tom Schneider, 3845 Edgewood Ave N, stated that water was definitely a concern of his with the addition of several driveways. He explained that currently, there is no storm drain and the excess runoff from the new homes may cause the water to back up toward the existing homes. Also, he felt that the gas and water pressure would need to be upgraded in order to properly service the area with the addition of the new homes. Commissioner Magnuson replied by stating that the city Engineering Department would make sure this is looked at before development. Planner Sutter added that the city engineers assured him that drainage would not increase. If for some reason this became an issue, it is the city's problem, and would be solved during the future street reconstruction projects. Planner Sutter said that he would discuss this issue with the Engineering Department again and also suggested the possibility of installing a storm sewer under the footpath to solve the problem, if necessary, Commissioner K. Graham questioned staff when street reconstruction is scheduled for this area. Planner Sutter stated that the street study should be finished later this year. The results will determine where reconstruction is most needed. Although, there may be a possibility that the utilities would have to be updated sooner than the scheduled reconstruction. Iver Iverson, 3828 Edgewood Ave N, stated that it has been very nice living at the end of a dead end for many years, however he always knew that the old farmhouse would someday come down. The idea of a cul -du -sac never occurred to him and he questioned what would be done with the excess dirt from the excavation. Planner Sutter stated that the city would prepare the site for construction and any excess dirt would have to be hauled out of the area. He explained that when the EDA acts as the landowner, the city has control over the developer and they would have to abide by the requirements of the EDA. Mr. Iverson stated his concern for the proposed lot sizes and the fact that they might be too small for five new homes. He also questioned how the new homes would blend with existing homes and surrounding ramblers. Planner Sutter stated that most of the new homes would probably be two-story to maximize space. Commissioner Magnuson added that developers have many new styles of homes that are meant to blend with existing older homes. A great example of this in Crystal is the new "Parkside Acres" development. Mr. Iverson asked if there was any thought to extending Edgewood Ave N completely through to 38th Ave N, instead of creating a cul -du -sac. Planner Sutter responded by stating that a through street would not only require the use of more land, but it would also increase the impact of the development on the residents of this area. The city felt that in order to reduce the impact and costs as much as possible, the cul -du -sac would be a more favorable alternative. Planner Sutter explained that the city is acting because an opportunity presented itself and a developer would have done the same. With the city as the developer, residents have more control over what sort of development happens in this area. Mr. Iverson questioned staff about the cost and how much money the city expected to lose on the project. Planner Sutter explained that 6404 381` Ave N was purchased for $156, 000 and 3821 Douglas Dr N was purchased for $280,000. The lots would be sold to the developer for approximately $60,000- 80,000 each. There is a high demand for move -up housing within the city. The project is expected to generate additional revenue, or at least get back the initial investment to use in other EDA projects. The new homes would be sold at market rate. Commissioner K. Graham stated that infill development is extremely valuable and that this particular development was inevitable. The residents of the area are benefiting because this is an EDA project. A private developer would maximize development potential and would not take into consideration the impact the development would have on the surrounding residents. John Schnell, 3852 Edgewood Ave N, questioned staff about what sort of impact the construction vehicles would have on the existing roads, and if the lots would be level with the surrounding homes. Mr. Schneider suggested checking into how the city is going to ensure that the excess water does not back up into the pond. He also proposed that the city use some of the anticipated revenue to supplement the cost of installing curbs, and improving the roads and drainage system in the area. Planner Sutter responded by stating that because most of the installation work would be done by city vehicles, most of the wear and tear on the roads would be from city vehicles, and any damage would need to be repaired by the city. He also stated that the grade would slope up to the front of the new homes and blend with the existing grade as much as possible. Lindsay Krantz, 4724 Quail Ave N, asked if there would be any economic constraints on who may purchase these homes or a limit on how many individuals may occupy each home. Planner Sutter stated that 6328 38th Ave N would be limited to a buyer with an annual household income of no more than $54,400. As far as. occupancy, the city cannot monitor that, other than standard regulations that apply everywhere in the city. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Magnuson stated that there were some unique issues that were brought up for the Planning Commission to consider, such as the water and drainage issues and a recommendation for the city and the developer to make any necessary road repairs after the construction of the cul -du -sac. Commissioner T. Graham agreed and suggested that the drainage issue be resolved before moving forward with the project. Planner Sutter suggested that the Planning Commission continue the discussion of the project until staff has had the opportunity to speak with the city engineers about the drainage concerns. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to continue until May 13 the discussion of Application 2002-03 for a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-04 for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a mausoleum at Glen Raven Memorial Gardens (5100 Douglas Dr N). Cemeteries are not currently listed as a permitted or conditional use in the city's Zoning Ordinance. However, the city presently has two cemeteries and both are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential district. One of these is Glen Haven Memorial Gardens. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens wants to build a 17' x 24' mausoleum on the existing cemetery site. Staff stated that this would be an expansion of the cemetery use, in contrast with the previously approved maintenance building which merely re -located an existing accessory function of the cemetery. Because it is an expansion of a use that is not currently permitted, staff's opinion is that the ordinance must first be changed to allow the use in some fashion. Staff recommended that cemeteries be added as a conditional use in the R-1 District. The way the ordinance is currently structured, this would make them a conditional use in all other residential districts as well. The requested from Glen Haven Memorial Gardens therefore has two parts: Request a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to add cemeteries as a conditional use in the R-1 District; and Request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens Staff suggested that the following conditional use be added to Section 515.19 SubdA e) Cemeteries, subject to the following: ] } Such use shall not include funeral homes, crematoriums or similar uses. 2) No building, including mausoleums and accessory maintenance buildings, shall exceed 5,000 sq. ft. in area or 20 feet in height. The total footprint of buildings on the cemetery cannot exceed I% of the area of the cemetery. 3) Such use may include maintenance and equipment facilities accessory to the operation of the cemetery, subject to the screening requirements of Section 515.07 Subd. 9 and Section 520 (Site Plan Review). 4) The use is consistent with the provisions of Section 515.53 Subd. 1(e). Staff stated that the proposed mausoleum would be consistent with these requirements and also recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the proposed 17' x 24' mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens, upon the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment described above. Commissioner Magnuson asked Planner Sutter if staff was comfortable with the applicant's request. Planner Sutter replied that staff is favor of the request, but would like feedback from the commission. To give the Planning Commission a better concept of the proposed mausoleum, Planner Sutter compared it to the size of a typical two -car garage. Tom Anderson, 13970 Alabama, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Glen Haven Memorial Gardens. He said that the size of the mausoleum is fitting at this time for the community, however there is a possibility there will be a need for expansion in the future. As proposed, the mausoleum will offer 96 additional burial sites. The Planning Commission seemed to be in agreement that the mausoleum is a reasonable addition to the cemetery, but there was concern that several scattered mausoleums throughout the property may occur in the future. Planner Sutter replied that scattering may not be all that bad, if necessary. It would definitely lessen the impact, as opposed to clustering such structures or building a single, larger structure. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-04 for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow cemeteries as a conditional use in residential districts. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-04 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens (5 100 Douglas Dr N). Findings of Fact are as stated in section C of the staff memo. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-5 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Almsted's SuperValu (4210 Douglas Dr N). Planner Sutter stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales in a temporary garden center, to be located in the south parking lot. The proposed display area would be approximately 17' x 42' and would be constructed of cement block and landscape timbers to create an enclosed shopping area. Staff could foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request and recommended approval of Application 2002-05 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at 4210 Douglas Drive N, subject to the following conditions: 1, The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring or abutting residential uses; 2. The area is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use; ;1_ Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way by fencing, screening, or landscaping of sufficient height, width, and density to provide an effective screen; 4_ Storage area is surfaced to control dust; 5. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and neighboring residences; 6. Parking spaces south of the proposed location may not be used throughout the duration of the garden center. Roger Olson, Almsted's SuperValu, stated that he was speaking on behalf of SuperValu. He said that the store was looking forward to having a garden center this year. He said the location is fabulous, due to the high visibility from both Douglas Dr N and 42nd Ave N. Mr. Olson assured the Planning Commission that sales would only be conducted during appropriate hours when the store is also open. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-05 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Almsted's SuperValu (42 10 Douglas Dr N). Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. In addition, the garden center shall not increase the non -conformity of the property. Motion carried. 0 Consider Application 2002-06 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Cub Foods (5301 36th Ave N). Planner Sutter stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales in a temporary garden center, to be located in the parking lot. The proposed display area would be approximately 20' x 60' and would be enclosed by a fence. Staff could foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request and recommended approval of Application 2002-06 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at 5301 36th Ave N, subject to the following conditions: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring or abutting residential uses; 2. The area is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use; 3. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way by fencing, screening, or landscaping of sufficient height, width, and density to provide an effective screen; 4. Storage area is surfaced to control dust; 5. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and neighboring residences. Richard Dorfner, Cub Foods, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Cub Foods. He said that Cub Foods has operated the garden center for seven years and foresees no negative impacts. Commissioner Magnuson and Commissioner Nystrom both suggested locating the garden center closer to the entrance this year, so it does not interfere with the traffic generated from the parking lot. Mr. Dorfner stated that Cub has done so and is experimenting with possible alternate locations on the property. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner VonRueden and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-06 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Cub Foods (5301 36th Ave N). Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. In addition, the garden center shall not increase the non -conformity of the property, 3. Old Business All old business was postponed until May 13, due to the longevity of the meeting. 4. New Business All new business was postponed until May 13, due to the longevity of the meeting. All other agenda items were also postponed until the May 13 Planning Commission meeting. 5. Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Secretary.Graham May 13, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Kamp, Koss, Krueger; Magnuson, Nystrom, T. Graham and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Commissioner K. Graham arrived at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Kamp excused himself at 9:00 p.m. Prior to the meeting, a letter of interest was submitted by Mr. Iver Iverson regarding the agenda item related to Edgewood Gardens. Staff distributed the letter to the Planning Commission for review. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-07 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5590 West Broadway). Planner Sutter stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the addition of a patio to an existing building for the purpose of providing outdoor seating and sales. The proposed concrete patio would be approximately 17' x 32', enclosed with a 4' decorative metal fence and screened with shrubs. The patio would hold approximately 9 tables, with seating for 36 customers and have controlled access through the restaurant only. Hours of operation would be 11:00 am to 1:00 am, Monday through Saturday and 11:00 am to midnight on Sunday during the summer and fall months. Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. However, in order for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales to be approved, the following conditions must be met: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring or abutting residential uses; Since the property is only surrounded by commercial uses, fencing and/or screening is not necessary. However, the applicant is proposing to install both a fence and shrubs to provide privacy from surrounding uses. 2, The area is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use; The restaurant has a gross floor area of 5,234 sq.ft. The proposed floor area of the patio is 544 sq.ft., which is well below 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use. j. Sales area is surfaced to control dust; The patio would be surfaced with a cement floor. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and neighboring residences; Lighting for the patio is not specified on the site plan, but is not anticipated by staff to be an issue. All lighting will need to comply with the conditions listed above, as well as any other applicable lighting requirements listed in the city code. 5, The area does not reduce minimum parking space required for the establishment; The addition of the patio would not reduce the parking for the establishment. ti. The provisions of Subsection 515.53, Subd. I (e) of this code are considered and satisfactorily met: 515.53, Subdivision 1 (e): The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 3 Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. D The geographical area involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. o The character of the surrounding area. ❑ The demonstrated need for such use. Planner Sutter stated that staff feels that the proposed patio would be consistent with these requirements and recommends approval of Application 2002-07 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5900 West Broadway). The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its May 21, 2002 meeting. The Planning Commission agreed that the request was very straightforward and no discussion was necessary. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Koss to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-07 for a Conditional Use Permit for a patio to provide outdoor sales. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. 3. Old Business ❑ Continue the review of land uses along Douglas Drive, south of 36th Ave N to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan. As part of the process for considering an application for development at 3200 Douglas Drive North, staff received indications from some City Council and Planning Commission members that the Future Land Use designations for the entire Douglas Drive corridor south of 36th Avenue might be flawed. Staff agreed with this assessment and began reviewing the current designations and whether there were alternate approaches that might make more sense given the conditions in this corridor. Over the past few months, staff has developed a proposal to modify the Future Land Use designations for the areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. The proposal would also create a place in the Comprehensive Plan for Special Area Plans, with the first such plan being a description of what type of development the city would find acceptable in this corridor. The Planning Commission discussed staff's concept at the January and February meetings and, at the March meeting, voted to initiate the application and public hearing to consider the proposed Special Area Plan including both new text and changes to the Future Land Use map. Based on the testimony received at the April 8th public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion following the public hearing, and additional study since then, staff suggests the following additional changes for Planning Commission consideration: 3443 Douglas to be guided Neighborhood Commercial not MDR. This is a single family rental house located between the Douglas Drive medical clinic (3501 Douglas) and a recently -built 8 -unit townhouse development (3421-3435 Douglas). Staff feels it is much more likely that this property will be converted to office use or be acquired and demolished by the adjacent commercial use for more parking or other expansion. In any event, its potential as a stand-alone MDR property is extremely limited and for this reason staff is recommending that this parcel's land use designation match that of the medical clinic. How to deal with existing neighborhood -compatible commercial uses. As originally proposed by staff, all existing business properties in the corridor would have become lawful non -conforming uses except Lamplighter Square, the medical clinic and the two strip centers near 36th Avenue. (Please note that some of these, like the service station at 3401 Douglas and the used car lot at 3201 Douglas, are already lawfully non -conforming with the Comprehensive Plan.) Some Planning Commissioners and members of the public expressed a desire to accommodate commercial uses that would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels there are two main ways to do this: Alternate A: Designate certain parcels as Neighborhood Commercial. This is essentially the status quo for existing businesses. The problem with this approach is that the NC designation would allow many more uses than the relatively benign office uses that were the focus of much of the discussion. For example, the current B-2 zoning (which is roughly comparable to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation) includes, as permitted uses, the following potentially problematic uses: Amusement places (such as dance halls or roller rinks; bowling alleys; dry cleaning including plant accessory thereto; electrical appliance stores including incidental repair and assembly but not manufacturing; retail stores of new furniture, used furniture, or both new and used furniture.; record and music shops; restaurants, tea rooms, cafes, taverns and off -sale liquor stores; schools (commercial) - music, dance, business, etc.; theatres, not of the outdoor drive-in type; and variety stores, 5 and 10 cent stores, and stores of similar nature. Even assuming we tighten up the Neighborhood Commercial classification a bit, by its very nature it is likely that some NC uses will not be compatible in this corridor. For this reason staff does not favor this approach. Alternate B: Allow office uses by Conditional Use Permit. This approach would continue with staff's original plan to guide the commercial properties MDR but would also state in the text that the intent is to allow, by Conditional Use Permit, limited neighborhood -compatible offices and accessory retail uses adjacent to Douglas Drive. The text would state that the revised Zoning Ordinance should provide for this type of CUP as part of the MDR zoning district but that as an interim measure the standards in 515.27 Subd. 4 [e] & [f] should be applied to properties adjacent to Douglas Drive. Staff supports this approach because it gives the city greater control over the type of commercial uses in an otherwise overwhelmingly residential zone. 3. Slrou[d the entire Gale pmye3148 Douglas) be ided MDR?. The current proposal is to guide the west half Medium Density Residential and the east half Low Density Residential, with the transition at Colorado Avenue. Some Planning Commissioners have expressed an interest in possibly guiding the entire Gale property for MDR. Staff believes that the rationale remains strong for transitioning from MDR to LIAR in the vicinity of Colorado Avenue. Allowing, MDR to extend east to Brunswick Avenue would raise thequestion of why the underutilized parcels in the same area north of 32° would remain LDR. The concept of the Gale property transitioning from MDR on the west to LDR on the east is compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the adjacent land uses. 4. Should the Planning Commission continue this item one more month to allow Mime f r 9AX potentia] applications to be submit#ed? The potential office building at 3200 Douglas would be permitted under the present designation (needing only Site Plan Review). However, it would be either prohibited or in need o f a Conditional Use Permit after the proposed changes become effective. While there may be additional property owners considering similar "before the change" applications, none have submitted any preliminary plans for discussion or review, and none have submitted a formal Planning & Zoning Application for Site Plan Review. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission discuss whether it wants to continue this item so that applications currently under development can be submitted and considered under the present land use designations. Continuing it to the June meeting would require formal applications to be submitted by May 17a'; continuing it to the July meeting would require formal applications to be submitted by June 14a'. Please note that either continuance will require the 60 day decision period to be extended for an additional 30 or 60 days, respectively. The proposed Future Land Use designations, if adopted along with the proposed Special Area Plan text and any additional changes detailed above, would facilitate development that is more consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan and more compatible with adjacent existing single family residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-2, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. Commissioner Magnuson questioned what type of potential commercial building might be proposed for the property at 3200 Douglas Dr N and whether or not it would blend with the surrounding area. She mentioned that the sample sketch included in the staff memo appeared to be too large for the site. Parking, access, and expansion of the use would be major issues of concern. Planner Sutter stated that staff would have to review any applications for issues of this nature, but as of this date, staff has not even received a formal application. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the possibility of receiving an application for this site justifies delaying action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Kamp stated that he would hate to take away the opportunity for possible development on this site, but he is not sure whether that is a good enough reason to delay. Kamp also stated that he would like to see all of the Gale property (3148 Douglas Dr N) guided MDR and would like to see the NC properties continue their use. Kamp agreed with staff that 3443 Douglas Dr N should be guided NC. Commissioner Nystrom stated that she would like to delay discussion of changing these designations until an application is submitted for 3200 Douglas Dr N. Commissioner Magnuson replied by pointing out that if the commission were to continue discussion of this topic and consider the possibility of an application for a commercial use, it would be going against the new designation for the corridor, which is MDR. Commissioner Koss agreed that the new designation for the corridor is for it to be MDR, not NC. The Planning Commission has worked on this plan for many months and it is finally taking form. The property owner had the opportunity to submit an application to develop this site for a commercial use for a long time, and therefore the Planning Commission should not let this property delay the decision process for the entire corridor. Commissioner T. Graham agreed with Koss and stated that it is best to go ahead with the new designation as a MDR corridor. The Planning Commission should not backtrack to accommodate this one property. Neighborhood Commercial is available elsewhere in the city, but is not suitable in this area anymore. In reference to the Gale property, T. Graham asked Planner Sutter if there are any other cases in the city where a single parcel has been divided and zoned differently? Planner Sutter responded that there is potential for this to be an issue with other properties in Crystal, but would have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Commissioners Von Rueden and K. Graham both stated that if the property is zoned two different ways, there is a possibility for the property to be less favorable to developers. Guiding the entire parcel MDR would be most logical. Commissioner Magnuson said she was concerned about the possibility of NC expanding onto adjacent properties if NC zoning remained. Planner Sutter stated that in the case of Twin Oaks Realty, the adjacent property is zoned partially commercial, which lends the possibility for expansion in the future. He suggested the best solution for this particular property, as well as others with similar circumstances along the corridor, would be to guide them MDR according to Alternate B in the staff memo. Zev Oman, 3200 Douglas Dr N, stated that he would like to see NC remain. He feels that Douglas Dr N is a busy street and therefore is best suited for commercial uses, not residential. Wally Anderson, 3525 Adair Ave N, stated that parking is an issue for his business and would like to eventually expand for that reason. His son plans on continuing the commercial use for years to come and therefore he would like to see it remain NC. Kay Kamke, 6115 36th Ave N, asked Planner Sutter if a NC property is sold, would the new owner be able to operate as a commercial use. She also inquired about single family homes, and if there was a possibility for expansion even if the property was guided MDR. Planner Sutter explained that NC could operate under a new owner as long as the business was not out of operation for more than one year, no more than 50% of the property was damaged (as in the case of a fire), or the use is not intensified. Also, the single family home could expand under MDR. The land would remain zoned R-1 (the holding zone) until there was a proposal for development under MDR. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-02 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a Special Area Plan for Douglas Drive N, south of 36th Ave N. Plan elements different from the May 13th staff proposal include the following: • 3443 Douglas Dr N to be guided Neighborhood Commercial • Guide commercial properties MDR, as stated in Alternate B, as well as the property located at 6307 34th Ave N and allow office uses by Conditional Use Permit • Guide 3148 Douglas Dr N entirely MDR Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. ❑ Continue the discussion of the Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Planner Sutter explained that the Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (EDA) has acquired the following four parcels for infill redevelopment: Parcel A: 3818 Florida Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0013 Lot 9, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: Vacant. Owned by the EDA. The platted utility easement across the east 2.5' of this parcel has been vacated. Parcel B: 3821 Douglas Dr N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0001 unplatted land Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Karen Stombaugh) has permission to occupy house through April 30, 2002 and the rest of the property (garden area) through June 30, 2002. The EDA will rehab and sell the house on the open market. Parcel C: 6404 38th Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0006 Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Acres, together with unplatted land Status: One single family house plus outbuildings. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Jeff Tepfer) has permission to occupy property through April 30, 2002. The EDA will demolish the house and outbuildings. Parcel D: 6328 38a' Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0005 Lot 1, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. The EDA is presently rehabbing this house for resale as an affordable home for a first-time home buyer. The area is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1. This allows single family subdivisions of single family detached homes at densities not to exceed 5 units per acre. The density of the proposed subdivision will be 3.5 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the city's minimum width (60'), depth (100') and area (7,500 sq. ft.) requirements. It should be noted that, while the cul-de-sac lots are not 60' wide along the curve of the street right-of-way, they are at least 60' wide at the building setback line. For cul-de-sac lots, past practice in Crystal (and standard practice in most other communities) is to measure the lot width at the setback line for compliance with lot width requirements. The plat includes the following streets and easement dedications: • 7' along Douglas Drive (to provide a full 40' width along the west side of the centerline in accordance with Hennepin County's requirements); • 45' radius (90' diameter) cul-de-sac right-of-way; • 10' drainage and utility easements along all front lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all rear lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all side lot lines except as follows: The north sides of Lots 1 and 5 will have 10' drainage and utility easements to better accommodate side yard drainage between the new homes and the existing homes to the north. The north side of lot 8 will have no easement due to the existing house having a lawfully non -conforming setback of 2.7'. To serve the new homes on lots 1-5, a new cul-de-sac would be built just south of the existing Edgewood Ave N dead end, approximately 300' south of 39a' Ave N. Water and sanitary sewer lines to serve lots 1-5 would be extended a short distance south from their current termini at the dead end. The improved street would have b6-18 concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement in accordance with standard city street requirements. The cul-de-sac would have a 30' radius (60' diameter) from curb -to -curb, which has been approved by West Metro Fire and Rescue staff. Drainage issues are addressed in the attached memo from the City Engineer. The cul-de-sac and five driveways would drain north along Edgewood Avenue following the natural slope of the land north of the development. Other drainage will continue to the west, south and east as it has always done. While there may be existing drainage problems in the neighborhood, the opinion of the City Engineer is that this project will have no significant impact on these pre-existing problems. The new home on Lot 6 and the existing (rehabbed) home on Lot 7 would be served with existing infrastructure on 38a' Ave N. The existing (rehabbed) house on Lot 8 would be served with existing infrastructure on Douglas Dr N. The standard park dedication requirement is now $1,000 per new residential unit. Since this plat would result in a net gain of 5 units, park dedication in the amount of $5,000 is required. The EDA will dedicate as parkland 7,764 sq. ft. (0.18 acres) of the property. At the Hennepin County Assessor's estimated value of $1.15 per square foot (memo in the 6328 38`hAve N rehab project file dated March 6, 2002), the value of this dedication is $8,929. In addition, the EDA is proposing to install a wood chip footpath -type trail to connect the new Edgewood Ave N cul-de-sac with the Florida Park property to the west. The value of this improvement probably approaches $2,000, meaning that the EDA proposing park dedications and improvements roughly double the minimum required by city code. The rehab of the existing homes at 6328 38th Ave N and 3821 Douglas Dr N is expected to be completed by early summer and both homes will be marketed at that time. Site work and installation of public improvements would begin in mid- summer 2002 and be completed by fall. The lots for the six new homes would be sold in the fall and construction on the new homes would be expected to be completed by spring 2003. Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-3, a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council would consider the application at its May 21St meeting. Commissioner Magnuson addressed the letter submitted by Mr. Iverson and stated that it would be forwarded to staff and the City Council. Mr. Iverson has some legitimate concerns, however, most would be best addressed by the EDA. The Planning Commission is to consider zoning, and if the proposal fits wihtin the zoning, the Planning Commission has no reason to deny. Mr. Iverson, 3828 Edgewood Ave N, and his son Bob Iverson reiterated that they feel the cul -du -sac is not the best option. There will be many negative impacts to the neighborhood with the way the development is currently laid out. Loretta Ruby, 3909 Edgewood Ave N, agreed with the Iverson's opinions. She was concerned about additional traffic and how the new homes will blend with the existing. Planner Sutter did mention that the city did look at extending Edgewood Ave N through, however, it just was not economical and there would not be any real benefit to the city or neighborhood. The development is a typical cul -du -sac with proportional lot sizes to the surrounding area. Trak will increase, but not more than a typical suburban neighborhood. The convenience of the residents living on a dead-end is not a reason to prohibit this development. Most of the new homes are anticipated to be two-story, however, the city will take design into consideration when selecting a builder. Drainage issues have been brought to the City Engineer's attention and will be addressed in the next street reconstruction project for that area, if necessary. As a precautionary measure, a 10' utility easement along the north side of lots 1 and 5 will be provided to give builders room to accommodate drainage on each of their own lots. Tom Schneider, 3845 Edgewood Ave N, stated that water was definitely a concern of his with the addition of several driveways. He explained that currently, there is no storm drain and the excess runoff from the new homes may cause the water to back up toward the existing homes. Commissioner Krueger inquired about the anticipated timeline for the project and Planner Sutter stated that grading and marketing of the lots should take place by the end of summer 2002. Moved by Commissioner VonRueden and seconded by Commissioner Koss to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-03 for a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo, lot sizes to meet city requirements, and drainage issue to be acceptable as stated by the City Engineer. Motion carried. ❑ Review City Council action on bylaw changes previously approved by the Planning Commission. This item was postponed until June 10, due to the longevity of the meeting. ❑ Set date for joint work session with the City Council. This item was postponed until June 10, due to the longevity of the meeting. 4. New Business 5, General Information • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • Quarterly development status report • Resignation of Commissioner Koss, effective June 1, 2002 • Request by Commissioner Krueger for the 2001 attendance records 6, Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Secretary T. Ura Motion carried. June 10, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2002 meeting with the following exceptions: Commissioner T. Graham asked that the motion recorded in the minutes to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-02 specifically state that office uses would be allowed by Conditional Use Permit in MDR, instead of how it was originally recorded, as AlternateB in the staff memo. Motion carried. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-08 for a Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive N. Commissioner Magnuson stated that since the applicant submitted an incomplete application, the public hearing would be continued for one additional month to give the applicant time to submit the required items. Planner Sutter added that if the required items are not submitted by June 28th , staff will recommend that the Planning Commission vote to deny the application at its July 8th meeting. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to continue until the July 8th meeting the public hearing on Application 2002-08 for a Site Plan Review to construct an office building at 3200 Douglas Drive N. Motion carried, ❑ Consider Application 2002-09 for a Lot Combination and Division for 3528 Brunswick Ave N and 3538 Brunswick Ave N. The Crystal Economic Development Authority (EDA) is in the process of purchasing 3528 Brunswick Ave N for demolition and re -sale of the lot for construction of a new house. As part of this acquisition, the EDA has also reached an agreement with the owners of 3538 Brunswick Ave N to realign the common lot line between their property and 3528 Brunswick. Upon approval of the request, the properties would each be approximately the same dimensions: 85' wide and 196' deep, with an area of 16,660 sq. ft. (0.38 acre). Planner Sutter stated that staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. The dimensions of both parcels would appear to allow their use with or without approval of the request. The main effects of this request would be to (1) rearrange the lot lines to give both parcels a more typical lot layout, and (2) complete the Brunswick Ave right-of-way by granting the west 10' of 3528 Brunswick to the City of Crystal for street purposes. Staff recommended approval of Application 2002-09 for Lot Combination and Division at 3528 and 3538 Brunswick Ave N. Findings of fact are that the request is consistent with Crystal City Code. The Planning Commission was asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its June 18th meeting. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-09 for a Lot Combination and Division of 3528 Brunswick Ave N and 3538 Brunswick Ave N. Findings of Fact are that the request is consistent with the city code and 10' of 3528 Brunswick Ave N would be donated to the City of Crystal for street purposes. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-10 to adopt the proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives. Planner Sutter stated that as part of its review of our Comprehensive Plan update in 2000, Metropolitan Council informed Crystal that we would need to adopt a Storm Water Management Ordinance. Staff had asked that Metropolitan Council allow the city to wait until the watersheds' Second Generation Storm Water Management Plan is complete before adopting new regulations, since the regulations will have to be significantly revised once the Second Generation plan is done. Metropolitan Council has refused this request. For this reason, staff is bringing the Metropolitan Council's model ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council for your consideration, even though it will need to be significantly revised once the Second Generation plan is done. The ordinance either does not typically apply to projects in Crystal or it duplicates what the city already does as part of its plan review processes. Nevertheless, failure to adopt Metropolitan Council's model ordinance may jeopardize applications for Livable Communities finding and requests for approval of Comprehensive Plan amendments. Planner Sutter stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission was asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its June 181h meeting. If First Reading is approved at that time, Second Reading would occur on July 2°d, publication would occur on July 10th and the ordinance would be effective on August 9th. Commissioners were concerned how the adoption of the ordinance may affect current practices. Planner Sutter assured the Planning Commission that, since the city has implemented the practices where applicable, there would be little or no effect. Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-10 to adopt a proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives. Findings of Fact are that the adoption of the ordinance is necessary to complete the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried. Old Business ❑ Review City Council actions on bylaw changes previously approved by the Planning Commission. Planner Sutter stated that to address the concerns of the City Council, staff is suggesting the following additional changes to the bylaws be made: Article II, Section A (Election of Officers) to add the following language: "No officer shall serve for more than three consecutive years in the same position." Article III (Meetings), Section A shall read as follows: "The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve regular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise set by the Commission at the January meeting of each year or cancelled by the Chair due to there being no business to consider. In addition, the date and time for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum." Article IV (Attendance) shall read as follows: "Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from more than three regular meetings in a calendar year is unacceptable because it impairs the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the community. For this reason, upon a Commissioner's fourth absence from a regular meeting within a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences and the City Council may take action to remove the Commissioner." Planner Sutter stated that a motion should be made to either (1) refer the bylaws back to the City Council for consideration as they were previously approved by the Planning Commission, or (2) refer the bylaws back to the City Council for consideration with additional changes such as the ones noted above. Several commissioners expressed concern about the possibility of adding term limits for officers to the bylaws. Commissioner Krueger questioned why the City Council would refer this issue back to the Planning Commission for discussion when a vote was already taken to forgo term limits. He stated that he sees no reason for term limits, but if the City Council has decided that term limits would be in the best interest of the Planning Commission, they should just approve the bylaws as they choose. Commissioners VonRueden, Nystrom, and Magnuson were in agreement. Commissioners T. Graham and Kamp stated that introducing term limits would give other commissioners the opportunity to take on a leadership role and that different officers may provide a different perspective, as well as implement team building. Commissioner K. Graham agreed and stated term limits are necessary for the vitality of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Krueger reiterated that term limits encourage inexperienced people to run for officers and may prevent the best Planning Commissioner from continuing their run as an officer. Commissioner Magnuson tried to clarify this issue by stating that the term limits are not meant to limit any Planning Commissioner from running as an officer. It would just give others the opportunity to run for officer positions, instead of having one person occupy the same position for an extended period of time. Commissioners were also concerned about the number of absences each member was able to have without consequence. Suggestions were made to decrease the number of excused absences to no more than two in a calendar year and also to change the period of time in which the absences could occur to a 12 month period. Also, commissioners agreed that it was imperative for any Planning Commissioner not able to attend a regular meeting, to contact staff prior to the meeting to notify them of their absence. Planner Sutter reminded the commission that attendance would only be taken at the regular meetings and an absence at a special meeting would not be counted against the commissioner. He also stated that the reason for rewriting this article was to eliminate the task of trying to distinguish what determined whether or not an absence should be considered excused or unexcused. The article would now state that any absence for any reason will be counted toward their allotted total. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to refer the bylaws of the Planning Commission back to the City Council with the following changes to the staff recommendation: Article Il, Section A (Election of Officers) to add the following language: "No officer shall serve for more than twee five consecutive years in the same position." Article III (Meetings), Section A shall read as follows: "The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve regular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise set by the Commission at the January meeting of each year or cancelled by the Chair due to there being no business to consider. In addition, the date and time for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum." Article IV (Attendance) shall read as follows: "Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from more than three regular meetings in a calendar year is unacceptable because it impairs the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the community. For this reason, upon a Commissioner's fourth absence from a regular meeting within a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences and the City Council may take action to remove the Commissioner. All Commissioners are expected to notify city staff prior to any_ meeting if unable to attend." Motion failed 4-3, with T. Graham, Kamp, and K. Graham voting aye and Krueger, VonRueden, Magnuson, and Nystrom voting nay. Commissioner Magnuson suggested referring the issue back to the City Council and have it be noted that the Planning Commission is in agreement with all recommended changes, except for the article referring to term limits. Also, the Planning Commission would like to ask the City Council to add the language to Article IV that refers to notifying staff prior to any absence from a regular meeting_ Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to approve Article III and Article IV with additional text and refer the bylaws back to the City Council. Motion carried. o Set date for joint work session with the City Council. Because setting a date for this work session has been postponed since the February Planning Commission meeting, conflicts have come up and the original dates suggested by staff will no longer work. Planner Sutter suggested that the meeting be scheduled for sometime in August or September, to allow adequate notice for both the City Council and the Planning Commission. G New Business _ General Information City Council actions on Planning Commission items The Planning Commission asked staff to send a copy of the unapproved minutes out at or before the same time the City Council receives the unapproved minutes 6. Open forum 7. Adj ournment Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Chair Magnuson Secretary T. Graham July 8, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, and Strand. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent were K. Graham, T. Graham, and VonRueden. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. New Planning Commissioners Joseph Sears and Michelle Strand were sworn in by Chair Magnuson. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-08 for a Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive N. Commissioner Magnuson stated that the applicant has failed to submit a complete application. No one appeared to testify before the commission.. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krieger to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2002-08 for a Site Plan Review to construct an office building at 3200 Douglas Drive N. Findings of Fact are that the applicant has failed to submit a complete application. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-11 for Rezoning 3200 Douglas Drive N from B- 4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential and Site Plan Review for a two-family dwelling. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: D This site plan approval shall not be effective until an ordinance rezoning the subject property to R-3 becomes effective. u The existing water service on 32nd Avenue shall be abandoned at the applicant's expense, in accordance with the requirements of the city's utilities division. Ei No less than two garage stalls and four surface parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with sketch showing the layout recommended by staff. In the event that parking demand exceeds the number of off-street spaces provided, staff may order the applicant (or their successor) to install additional spaces as necessary to accommodate all parking off-street. U All turf and landscaped areas shall be irrigated with an underground system. ,D Planting beds shall be filled with wood mulch, not landscaping rock. o Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into a Site Improvement Agreement and provide financial surety in the form of a cash deposit or letter of credit to ensure satisfactory installation of the site improvements shown in the submitted plans. ra In the event that the facility ceases to be used in a manner similar to a state licensed residential facility as described in M.S. 462.357, the Zoning Ordinance prohibition on more than three unrelated people occupying a single dwelling unit shall apply. Several commissioners expressed concern about complications that may arise if a second garage was proposed in the future. Planner Sutter responded by stating that since a second garage is not included in this specific application, the issue has not been discussed in detail. Dwelling units require one indoor parking space. Since there is a two car garage on the property, one indoor space is provided for each dwelling unit. Planner Sutter added that there is indeed enough space for a second garage to be built (where the proposed patio would be located) at a later date. However, permission would have to be obtained through Hennepin County for the addition of a driveway and curb cut off of Douglas Drive N. Also the lot would have to be divided so the north lot would change from a rear yard to a side yard. Commissioner Sears questioned whether or not soil studies had been done on this property and if so, what the outcome was. Representatives of Living Works Ventures confirmed that soil studies were done last year and some fill will be required to correct the inconsistency in the soil. Susan Rivard also gave a brief description of the type of residents that would be living in the dwelling as well how the dwelling will be used. Commissioners Sears and Magnuson were concerned about the use of the basement of the dwelling and its pruximity to the flood plain of Bassett Creek. Planner Sutter replied by stating that although the dwelling is close to the flood plain, it is not included in the designated 100 year zone. Therefore, the elevation of the basement is not a concern. Commissioner Magnuson pointed out that the installation of a sump pump may be something to consider, regardless. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-11 for Rezoning 3200 Douglas Drive N from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential and Site Plan Review.. Findings of Fact are as follows: Findings of Fact to approve Rezoning and Site Plan Review as stated in the staff report. The Planning Commission also recommended that the applicant address the issues related to the addition of a second garage and the installation of a firewall between the two dwelling units. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-12 for a Lot Division at 4957 Florida Ave N and variances to increase the maximum rear yard coverage for both lots from 30% to 40%. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: ,.Li A street easement over the east 10' of the property shall be granted to the City of Crystal. Li The existing garage shall be relocated as necessary to bring it into compliance with Crystal City Code. If the garage is relocated to the rear yard, its driveway shall connect to the alley, not Florida Avenue. The existing shed shall be removed or relocated in compliance with Crystal City Code. The existing driveway and other paved areas in the north yard of 4957 Florida shall be removed. This requirement does not apply to stoops, steps and sidewalks needed for access to the house. Disturbed areas must be landscaped. The existing curb cut on Florida Avenue shall be removed and new street curb —� installed in -accordance with city. requirements. u The city will not record the lot division resolution until it has received the $1,000 park dedication fee for the new lot. Rose Osbourne, 4957 Florida Ave N, stated that the survey does not indicate the preferred driveway relocation for the existing parcel. She stated that she would prefer the option discussed by staff to move the garage and provide access from the alley instead of Florida Ave N. Ms. Osbourne also questioned if the location of the new house could be moved back in order to prevent some trees from having to be cut down to make room for ccnstruction. Commissioners Magnuson and Kamp stated that the location of the house would affect the rear yard coverage area, but that this public hearing was only to consider the lot division and variances. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kamp 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 2002-12 for a Lot Division and Variances at 4957 Florida Ave N. Findings of Fact are as follows: 1. Lot division would comply with city code 2. Strict application of the coverage requirement in this particular case would constitute and undue hardship as follows: * "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code." # "The plight of the landowner is dace to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. " + "The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Motion carried. o Consider Application 2002-13 for a Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire Ave N to detach the east 173 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Strand to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commmissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-13 for a Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire Ave N. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-14 for a Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive N to detach the west 145 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Magnuson wanted to know how landlocking this parcel would affect surrounding properties. Planner Sutter replied that it would not affect neighboring properties. This was a voluntary acquisition by the property owner and the division should not affect the value of the home the city is re -selling. Nothing would be done with the parcel until access through other properties would allow the parcel to be connected to the park. Several commissioners were concerned how the city intends to gain maintenance access to this parcel until it is directly connected to the park. Planner Sutter stated that he was not exactly sure how the city intends to gain access for the short term, but he guessed probably it would be with a temporary easement. For the long term, the city would prefer to incorporate it into the park. Commissioner Kamp suggested that the issue regarding maintenance access should be resolved before the lot division is granted. All commissioners agreed that without knowing where the temporary easement would be located, they cannot anticipate how this may affect surrounding properties. Denise Seth, 4047 Douglas Drive N, asked the Planning Commission what the future plans are for this area and the park. She expressed concern that her property would be affected by adjacent acquisitions. Planner Sutter responded by stating that 4047 Douglas Drive N is a unique property because of how the house is situated on the lot. If the property ever became available for acquisition, the city could incorporate a smaller portion of the lot into the park, or tear the house down altogether and add the entire parcel to the park. However, lot configuration, etc. would be taken into consideration to minimize the impact to surrounding parcels. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Strand to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to continue until the August Planning _ Commission meeting, the discussion of Application 2002-14 for a Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive N. Motion carried. _.. Old Business ❑ Set date for joint work session with the City Council. The Planning Commission agreed to set Tuesday, July 23, 2002 as the date for the joint work session with the City Council. The work session is scheduled from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Location to be determined by city staff. 4. New Business 5. General Information • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • Quarterly Development Status Report > Open forum Discussion about the City Council's actions regarding the Planning Commission Bylaws. Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Sears to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Sec ary T. Graham' August 12, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter, Community Development Assistant Dietsche, and Public Works Director Mathisen. Absent was Commissioner Strand. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-14 for a Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive N to detach the west 145 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. This public hearing was continued from the July 8, 2002 meeting. Planner Sutter reviewed the staff report from the last meeting and added that staff could foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request, as long as the city has maintenance access to the new parcel until such time as it can be combined with the park property. In the short term, access for maintenance will be available via a 15' easement along the south side of the property. No one appeared to testify before the commission. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden 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 2002-14 for a Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive N. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-15 for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41s' Ave N (City of Crystal Public Works Facility), together with Variances to reduce the side yard setback and increase the maximum allowable height. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Variances. Several Planning Commissioners were concerned about the request for a variance for the side yard setback. Both Planner Sutter and Public Works Director Mathisen stated that the site is already very tight. In order to maximize the use of the space and allow adequate access and traffic clearance for vehicles, the proposed placement of the building is necessary, The proposed height of the building also seemed to be of concern. Mathisen replied by stating that city did not design the building. The building height is determined by the volume of materials necessary to make the salt/sand mixture. Commissioner T. Graham questioned the findings of facts stated in the staff nierno, specifically whethc;r or not the property could be put Lo reasonable use without the proposed storage building. Several commissioners agreed and added that if'a resident were to request tine ,same variances, the Planning ConlLraksion would probably deny their request based on lack of hardship as defined in the zoning ordinance, Planner Sutter stated that Commissioner T. Graham's paint was indeed valid, and it would be a judgement call for the Planning Commission to decide what it considers to be a reasonable use. Maintaining safe city streets during the winter season is as essential function of the city, Since the storage building has to be located within the city, the proposed location is the most logical, econoarucal, and efflicient_ Mathisen added that a relatively large, paved area is necessary to mix the salt and sand and the existing parking lot would serve this purpose. Many of the trucks and equipment use to mix the salt and sand are also housed on site. Therefore, it wouId not he very economical to locate the storage building elsewhere. Several suggestions were made to re -design the storage building to eliminate the need for the variances. Also, screening from adjacent residential homes was a concern of many commissioners, as well as the increase in noise the storage building would create. Mathisen stated that he was aware of both issues and stated that the proposed storage building would create a noise buffer from the rest of the public works facility from the adjacent residential homes. However, he said that he would be willing to install additional screening to minimize the impact to surrounding homes. Kevin Van Emmerik, 4020 Douglas Dr N, stated his concern for the loss of trees that may result from constructing the storage building so close to the tree line. The city has already started to grade the property, and he felt that some of the trees that had already been taken down did not necessarily need to be removed. He also stated that he understood that the building had to be a certain height, but would like to see it built at least 10 feet inward from the property line. The Plamiing Commission continued to discuss the issue at length and reiterated reasons why or why not variances for the storage building should be granted. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing, Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to increase the maximum building height from 20 to 37 feet as defined in the ordinance. Findings of fact are the first four points stated on page 4 of the staff memo. Motion carried 7-1 with K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, and VonRueden voting aye and Kamp voting nay. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff memo. Role call for the vote was started, but Commissioner Nystrom asked for clarification of the motion because she was confused as to what was actually stated in the motion. Because several other commissioners were aiso confused by the wording of the motion, the suggestion was made to strike the motion and vote altogether. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to strike the previous motion and vote. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to 7 feet. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried 5-3 with K. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Sears, and VonRueden voting aye and T. Graham, Kamp, and Nystrom voting nay. • Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to recommend to the City Council to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41" Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried 6-2 with K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Sears, and VonRueden voting aye and Kamp and Nystrom voting nay. +. Old Business None. New Business None. General Information • City Council actions on Planning Commission items 6. Open forum 7, Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Secretary T. Graham Motion carried. CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 A. CALL TO ORDER Page I of 6 The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, T. Graham, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent were Kamp, Krueger, and Magnuson. R. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2002 meeting with the following exceptions; T. Graham suggested to strike the second bullet point and following four paragraphs included in the motion for Application 2002-15, a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41St Ave N. Motion carried 5-1 with T. Graham, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden voting aye and K. Graham voting nay. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS l . Consider Application 2002-16 for a Preliminary Plat to divide 7025 46th Ave N into two lots, together with variances to reduce the minimum lot area and rear yard setback requirements. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended denial for a Preliminary Plat and variances based on the suggested findings of fact stated in section "c" of the staff report. Lorraine Bedman, 7025 46th Ave N, addressed the Planning Commission and distributed a packet of information related to her application for their review. Ms. Bedman stated that she had previously submitted a similar application and feels that she is entitled to approval of the application because of an undue hardship and the fact that many properties in Crystal have been granted variances for the same reason. Commissioner T. Graham pointed out that Lot 2 is short of the minimum lot area requirement by a couple hundred feet and wondered if Ms. Bedman had offered to buy some land from her neighbor to make up the difference. Ms. Bedman replied that she did offer to buy some land from the neighbor, but received no response. Page 2 of 6 Jack Irving, 7020 45th Place N, stated concern about the existing garage, drainage issues, loss of trees, and new garage placement if the variances were to be granted. Paula Menth, 7013 45th Place N, stated that she did not like the idea of building a large home on a small lot and does not understand how Ms. Bedman considers the property to meet the classification of an undue hardship. Greg Bimberg; 4517 Louisiana Ave N, asked whether a study had been done to determine how the addition of a new home on the proposed lot might affect the surrounding property values. Commissioner Von Rueden replied that property values usually increase with the construction of a new home in the surrounding area, however no study is being done to determine whether this area would be affected this way.. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner T. Graham stated that in order to grant a variance, all three criteria of an undue hardship must be met. The property in question does not meet the criteria, and therefore should not be granted a variance. Commissioner Nystrom was in agreement. Commissioner K. Graham stated that she felt like the Planning Commission was not necessarily being consistent lately in granting variances. At the August 12, 2002 meeting, a variance was granted even though it was questionable whether or not the property met the criteria of an undue hardship. She stated that the neighborhood of this area is already crowded and the addition of a new home on a small lot would not have that much of an impact. Although she stated there was no undue hardship unique to this property, Lot 2 is not that far from meeting the minimum lot area requirement. _> Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to recommend to the City Council to deny a request for a variance from the minimum lot area requirement for Lot 2 of Bedman Addition as proposed In Application 2002-16. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and because there is no undue hardship. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to deny a request for a variance from the minimum rear yard setback requirement for Lot 1 of Bedman Addition as proposed in Application 2002-16. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and because there is no undue hardship. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Strand to recommend to the City Council to deny a request for a Preliminary Plat of Page 3 of 6 Bedman Addition as proposed in Application 2002-16. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and because variances were denied. Motion carried. 2. Consider Application 2002-17 for a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to a single family house at 6922 42"d Ave N. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition, based on the suggested findings of fact stated in section "c" of the staff report. Bill Wolff, 6922 42nd Ave N, stated that the addition would match the existing roof line and sided with cut stone that looks like brick. Eventually, Mr. Wolff stated that he would also like to add a full second story onto the house and that is the reason for not matching the exterior siding of the proposed addition to the existing stucco exterior. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Several commissioners were confused as to what was considered to be the front yard and side yard of the property. Planner Sutter stated that for the purposes of zoning Kentucky Ave N was the front yard and 42nd Ave N was the side yard. A majority of the Planning Commission was in agreement that since the property was a non -conforming use, it should not be permitted to be expanded. Since the house is situated on a sizable parcel and an addition could be proposed elsewhere, a variance to allow expansion into the setback is not really justifiable. —f Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2002-17 for a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback at 6922 42nd Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and that the property can currently be put to a reasonable use. Motion carried 5-1 with K. Graham, T. Graham, Nystrom, Strand, and VonRueden voting aye and Sears voting nay. 3. Consider Application 2002-18 for a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to allow an addition to a single family house at 5709 Wilshire Blvd. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and staff recommended approval of the garage variance request, but denial of the house variance request in accordance with the suggested findings of fact and conditions for approval as stated in section "c" of the staff report. Although the lot suffers from an undue hardship by the city platting the lot too shallow, the house could be expanded differently, as proposed by staff. Page 4 of 6 Kevin Harty, 5709 Wilshire Blvd, stated that there are some interior challenges that constitute the proposed location of the addition. He stated that the house variance was most important, because of the necessity to expand the kitchen, but the garage variance would be appreciated so the renovations could be done at the same time. Mr. Harty expressed that he would be willing to compromise on the garage dimension, as well as framing of the garage and the house addition to match the existing appearance. He also stated that none of the surrounding neighbors had any objections to the addition. Commissioner VonRueden questioned whether or not the existing breezeway that connected the garage with the house was ever approved and Planner Sutter stated that he was unsure. Moved by Commissioner Strand and seconded by Commissioner Sears to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Several of the commissioners stated that an undue hardship was evident. Commissioner T. Graham stated that reasons for granting a variance should be consistent for each application. Since the property is currently a conforming use, granting the variance for the addition would not have that much of an impact to the surrounding area. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-18 for a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to 14 feet for an attached garage at 5709 Wilshire Blvd. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Strand to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-18 for a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback for the proposed addition to the kitchen at 5709 Wilshire Blvd. Findings of fact are that the variance is necessary to provide access from the house to the garage and the lot depth is inadequate where the house addition would go. Motion carried. Consider Application 2002-19 for a lot combination and division to reconfigure 6621 32°d Ave N and 3156 Hampshire Ave N into three single family residential lots. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for a lot combination and division to reconfigure 662132 d Ave N and 3156 Hampshire Ave N into three single family residential lots, in accordance with the findings of fact and conditions of approval stated in section "c" of the staff report. Planner Sutter stated that Housing Maintenance Compliance Orders issued by the city's Housing Inspector will be completed within six months. Page S of 6 Commissioner VonRueden questioned what will be done with the existing garage and Mr. Fleck replied that it will be demolished and a new garage will be constructed elsewhere for the existing house. Nancy Danielson, 3149 Hampshire Ave N, asked Mr. Fleck if he intended to reside on the property and he replied that he did not. Ms. Danielson was also concerned about the: possibility of the new structures being rental or multi -family properties. Commissioner VonRueden replied that single-family homes may be rented out in this area, but that any start of multi -family dwelling construction would be prohibited can the property because the area is not zoned for that type of use. Ms. Danielson also asked if the new lots would remain vacant. Planner Sutter stated that a property owner may choose to not build on a vacant lot but that for financial reasons most developers prefer to get something built on the property as soon as possible. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Sears to close the public hearing Motion carried. -. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-19 for a lot combination and division at 662132 d Ave N and 3156 Hampshire Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and that the existing garage will be removed. Motion carried. i, Consider Application 2002-20 to rezone 6820 44th Ave N from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for rezoning the existing two family dwelling at 6820 44th Ave N. The property complies with the requirements for R-2 zoning, Commissioner K. Graham questioned whether the existing structure was a duplex and Planner Sutter replied that it was indeed a two-family dwelling. Lorraine Redman, 7025 46t' Ave N„ stated that she was not aware that a single-family dwelling could be converted into a two-family residence and that she might consider that to be a possibility for her property. Planner Sutter replied that thiere would be many additional requirements such as the building code for construction of a new two family dwrelling, or conversion of an existing structure into a two Family dwelling.. He stated that the structure an the subject property was originally built a.; a lawful two Family dwelling and that made this situation different from the situation on Ms. Bedman's property. =t� Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to close the public hearing, Page 6 of 6 Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-20 for rezoning 682044 th Ave N from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and that the property meets city code requirements. Motion carried. M OLD BUSINESS None. E. NEW BUSINESS None. F. GENERAL INFORMATION • City Council actions on Planning Commission items + First -Ring Suburb Forum G. OPEN FORUM 1. ADJOURNMENT —21 Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m: Secretary T. raham CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2002 A. CALL TO ORDER Page 1 of 4 The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Ti. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. CPUBLIC HEARINGS 1, Consider Application 2002-21 for a variance to increase the maximum 30 % rear yard structure coverage to allow installation of additional pavement at 3513 Kyle Ave N. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for the variance based on the suggested findings of fact stated in section "c" of the staff report. He also stated that the applicant had amended their request to allow up to 50% coverage instead of the originally requested 45%. Staff has no objection to 50% coverage in this case. Several of the commissioners questioned whether the subject property was representative of the configuration of other lots in this area and were concerned how the variance may impact surrounding properties. Planner Sutter responded by stating that a majority of the lots in this area are only 40 feet wide, as in the case of the subject property. In fact, the subject property may not even be as crowded as some oi' the surrouading lots, He added chatwhat the applicant is requesting is not unusual or out of line compared to other properties in the neighborhood. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Von Rueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Krueger questioned whether a precedence is being set for this area by granting variances concerning rear yard structure coverage. Planner Sutter replied yes, Page 2of4 but that each property will have to be examined individually because certain lots may have certain building configurations that justify more structure coverage. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to approve a request for a variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage to 50% as proposed in Application 2002- 21. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report. Motion carried. Consider Application 2002-22 for a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to a single-family house at 6511 58th Ave N. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended denial to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition, based on the suggested findings of fact stated in section "c" of the staff report. Several of the commissioners were confused whether or not a building permit was actually issued for the addition of the window. Planner Sutter explained that building permits are issued based on the information provided by the applicant but subject to the conditions indicated on the drawing by the Building Inspector. These conditions included ensuring that the window did not encroach into the 30 -foot setback if the floor area of the house was increased by the addition. Thomas Bergen, 6511 58`' Ave N, stated that his intent was to build the addition according to the plans submitted for a "bay window". He stated he thought he was following all of the correct procedures. Upon what he thought was the Building Inspector's direction, he went ahead and poured the footings and finished the project while waiting for the final inspection. He stated he was told by the Building Inspector how to proceed with the project and thought that he was abiding by all of the ordinances. Several of the commissioners were concerned that this may have been a case of miscommunication. Mr. Bergen replied that the footings were discussed and that the Building Inspector was aware that the window addition would increase the floor area of the house. However, Mr. Bergen said that he was instructed to mark the property line before beginning the project to make sure the window did not encroach into the 30 -foot setback, which he admitted that he did not do until after the project was completed. The Planning Commission was in agreement that the addition was very appealing and would not have any negative impact to surrounding homes. The commission suggested updating the ordinance to allow the addition of windows such as this into the front yard setback. Gary Hawkes, 5170 West Broadway, stated the definition of a bay window includes increasing the floor area of the home. He stated he could understand how both the homeowner and the Building Inspector could be easily confused. Planner Sutter agreed that some individuals may interpret the term "bay window" differently, but the city ordinance is very clear in definition. Page 3 of 4 Tom Kuchinski, 6503 58th Ave N, stated that in his opinion, the applicant tried very hard to follow all of the necessary steps for approval of the addition. The window is a great addition and an improvement to the home. Commissioner Magnuson stated that it sounds like there was definitely some misinterpretation by both the Building Inspector and Mr. Bergen, but the Planning Commission could see no negative impacts resulting from allowing an addition to remain. The Planning Commission stated they would like to see the ordinance revised to allow such improvements in the future. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Strand to close the public hearing. Motion carried. A motion was started by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to approve the application for a variance. Before a vote was taken, Planner Sutter advised the Planning Commission of their option to deny the application, pending a rewrite of the zoning ordinance to allow the bay window to remain, because findings of fact cannot be determined at this time. Commissioners Kamp and T. Graham agreed with Mr. Sutter's suggestion and withdrew the original motion. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2002-22 for a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback at 6511 58t" Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report. No enforcement should take place until such time the zoning ordinance is rewritten. If after the rewrite, the addition does not meet the requirements set forth by the new ordinance, the applicant may apply for a variance before any enforcement action is taken, without any additional cost. It is the understanding of the Planning Commission that this addition will coincide with the new zoning ordinance. Therefore, the applicant may go ahead and complete the finish work on the project, i.e. carpet, electrical work, roof, and siding. Motion carried 8-1 with K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden voting aye and Krueger voting nay. F). QLD BUSINESS iq',. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner T. Graham questioned why the City Council voted to approve application 2002- 17 when the Planning Commission recommended to deny the application. Planner Sutter replied that a reasonable case could be made for either approval or denial of that particular application and that a majority of the City Council simply had a different opinion than a majority of the Planning Commission. Page 4 of 4 Commissioner T. Graham suggested the officers of the Planning Commission be seated at the center of the panel during Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission agreed. F. GENERAL INFORMATION • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • Quarterly Development Status Report C, OPEN FORUM 1.1. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adj ourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. a� Chair Magnuson r Secretary T. CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2002 A. CALL TO ORDER Page 1 of 4 The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Krueger, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter, Community Development Director Peters, and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent were Commissioners K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, and Magnuson. M APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider Application 2002-23 for a lot division to detach a 30' strip from an industrial property at 7301 32"`' Ave N and add it to Valley Place Estates (7225-7289 32"d Ave N) for landscaping purposes. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for the lot division based on the suggested findings of fact in the staff report. Commissioner Krueger questioned what the subject property was currently zoned and whether or not the lot division would constitute re -zoning the 30' strip to match the townhouse development. He also was concerned with the maintenance of the additional land and who would be responsible for the additional taxes. Planner Sutter replied that staff had not considered that but it would be logical to re -zone the strip to match the towi-diouse development when the new zoning map is drawn. The association would be responsible for maintenance of the common property of the development and typically the taxes are divided equally among each unit in the development. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-23 for a lot division Page 2 of'4 at 7301 32"d Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and that the city will re -zone the 30' strip to match the rest of the townhouse development. Motion carried. D, OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discuss preliminary draft of the new Zoning Ordinance including opportunities for public input and tentative schedule for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Planner Sutter summarized and detailed areas of the draft with considerable revisions. The Planning Commission engaged in specific discussion about the following: 1, Definition of basement and cellar. A majority of the commission agreed that the term "cellar" is outdated and most of the general population now uses the term "basement." Community Development Director Peters pointed out that from a zoning perspective, the concern is whether or not the space is habitable. Therefore, the term "basement" seems more appropriate. Planner Sutter also suggested adding the term "story" to the definitions to help define specific areas of a dwelling. Staff will continue to work on the definitions section to remove unnecessary or archaic terms. Height restrictions on fences and walls in R-1. Commissioner Nystrom questioned whether or not this applied to only structural fences and walls, or those made up of vegetation as well. Planner Sutter replied that the 6 foot limit would apply to structural fences and walls only. Planner Sutter also stated that this requirement may be too restrictive for properties that abut a busier street or a commercial property and the Planning Commission may want to consider revising this requirement to allow fences or walls to extend up to 8 feet on this side of the property only. Commissioner VonRueden stated that several fences throughout the city seem to enclose the property from the rest of the neighborhood and the 6 foot limit would still allow adequate privacy without creating the appearance of a "fortress." He also stated that property owners should be required to locate all property lines before constructing a fence or wall.. Community Development Director Peters stated that the city advises property owners to do' ust that, but since a building permit is not required for fences or walls 6 feet in height or less, the city has no real way of enforcing this prior to construction. _ Front setback requirements for R-1. Commissioner Krueger was concerned that residents on narrow streets get penalized by the 60 foot setback requirement from the centerline of the street. Planner Sutter agreed that Commissioner Krueger had a valid point and that staff would investigate specific impacts to Page 3 of 4 these properties by "spot checking" randomly selected properties on streets with right-of-way less than 60 feet wide. Commissioner Nystrom was concerned how allowing certain structures into the front setback may impact the property if sidewalks were ever added in front of the property in the future. Planner Sutter replied that might be a possibility on state aid or busier streets, but that in such cases they are typically right behind the curb, not right next to the property line. The Planning Commission was in agreement that the revisions make sense and are great steps toward making the ordinance more "user-friendly." 2. Discuss necessary by-law changes. Planner Sutter stated that the City Council has adopted ordinance 2002-08, which requires all advisory commissions to establish term limits. Staff has drafted the necessary by-law changes for Planning Commission consideration. Commissioner Nystrom stated that she would abstain from any vote to approve the changes to the by-laws. If the City Council wants these changes, then they should mandate them. Voting means each commissioner has a choice, and according to the City Council on this issue, the Planning Commission does not have a choice in the matter. Planner Sutter pointed out that it requires at least five affirmative votes to amend the by- laws, and that since only five commissioners were present, if anyone abstained or voted against the changes, they would not pass. Planner Sutter suggested that the Planning Commission had four options: approve the suggested changes; reject the suggested changes; continue the matter to the December n-keeting; or to refer the Cnatter back to the City Council without taking any action. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to refer the by-laws back to the City Council without taking any action. The Planning Commission will await further action by the City Council to mandate the changes. Motion carried. 1+. GENERAL INFORMATION ■ City Council actions on Planning Commission items The Planning Commission discussed the City Council's action on Application 2002-22, a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 30 feet to 27 feet at 6511 58`x' Ave N. %p. OPEN FORUM Page 4 of 4 It. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. f 'ice Chair VonRueden Secretary T. Cp � ffi CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2002 A. CALL TO ORDER Page 1 of 3 The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. !3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. D. OLD BUSINESS r. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discuss preliminary draft of the new Zoning Ordinance sections pertaining to R-2 and R-3 district regulations. Plamler Sutter summarized and detailed areas of the draft with considerable revisions. The Planning Commission engaged in specific discussion about the following: 1, Maximum densities in R-2. Plamler Sutter stated that the maximum density for R-2 is based on the Comprehensive Plan, which states that densities are to be no less than 5 and no more than 12 dwellings per gross acre. Commissioner T. Graham questioned if densities would be determined during site plan review and Plamler Sutter replied yes and would depend on the character of the surrounding area and the potential for negative impacts on the community. 2. Home occupations as an accessory use in R-2. Commissioner Magnuson expressed concerned that unlawful home occupations are becoming more and more prominent throughout Crystal neighborhoods and was curious as to how the city was handling the situation. Planner Sutter explained that some home occupations are permitted, but must comply with specific standards set forth by the zoning code. Enforcement action on unlawful or "nuisance" home occupations is usually on a complaint basis. City staff investigates the complaint and then notifies the property owner if a violation is observed. If legal steps have Page 2 of 3 to be taken, the process can be lengthy and the outcome uncertain. T. Graham suggested exploring home occupations in more depth during the public hearing of the draft ordinance. ?l. Garage sale signs as a permitted accessory use. Commissioner K. Graham inquired about the difficulty of enforcing garage sale signs throughout the city. Planner Sutter stated that any non-governmental sign placed in the right-of-way is considered abandoned litter and it is important to state that garage sale signs are only permitted on the property where the sale is to be conducted or the private property of others, with their consent, for the very reason of enforcement. Several commissioners also stated that it might be a good idea to state that real estate signs are also not permitted in the right-of-way or on public property. Planner Sutter stated that real estate signs are not really a zoning issue and that any non- governmental signs in public rights-of-way are prohibited by state law, as well as city code. 4. Bed and breakfast establishments. Planner Sutter stated that bed and breakfast establishments would be a conditional use in R-2 and R-3, but posed the question of how the Planning Commission would feel about adding these to R-1. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was not in favor of allowing bed and breakfast establishments in R-1 and was concerned that they would alter the character of a single-family neighborhood. Commissioners T. Graham and Kamp stated that these establishments are usually well kept and suggested the Planning Commission consider adding them to R-1. 5. Minimum lot requirements in R-2. Planner Sutter stated that staff is suggesting a minimum lot area of 4000 square feet per dwelling, but in no event less than 15000 square feet. Several commissioners stated that the minimum lot requirements were too lenient, while some stated they were too restrictive. After much debate, the majority of the Planling Commission agreed that the minimum lot area should be 5000 square feet per dwelling and that the 15000 square foot minimum lot area could be eliminated, because the minimum lot depth and width of 100 feet determines a 10000 square foot minimum lot area. Planner Sutter also suggested that attached dwellings would be exempt from the minimum lot depth and with requirements. Co. Minimum floor area for multiple dwellings in R-2. Planner Sutter summarized the minimum floor area requirements and Commissioner K. Graham questioned if these requirements also applied to senior housing facilities. Commissioner Magnuson stated that the floor area requirements were average and advised not to lower the requirements for senior housing, because the Plarming Commission cannot determine future use of the facility. Commissioner K. Graham stated that was a valid concern, but also stated the commission should consider affordability, especially for seniors. Planner Sutter suggested changing the minimum floor area requirements as follows: Efficiency unit 600 square feet 1 bedroom unit 700 square feet C' 6'. ll Page 3 of 3 2 bedroom unit 850 square feet 3 bedroom unit 1000 square feet 4+ bedroom unit 1000 square feet and 100 square feet of floor area for each bedroom Planner Sutter explained that these figures are near the lower end of what is being built in the suburban market, and therefore would be appropriate minimums. 7. Front setbacks in R-2. Commissioner Krueger suggested to consider measuring the front setback from the property line only, instead of the street centerline to account for narrow streets. Planner Sutter stated that the city intends on conducting a study to find out how many properties would actually be at a disadvantage because their property is located on a narrow street. If need be, the zoning ordinance could be changed to account for these properties or variances could be granted in those cases. GENERAL INFORMATION City Council actions on Planning Commission items Letter of Resignation from Planning Commission Chair Commissioner Magnuson announced her resignation and stated it was a pleasure to have served on the Planning Commission for many years. The Planning Commission and staff thanked Commissioner Magnuson for helping to guide so much new development in the city through the years. OPEN FORUM ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Secretary T. Graham Vice Chair VonRueden