2018.02.05 Work Session Packet (2nd)
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Posted: Feb. 2, 2018
City Council
Second Work Session Agenda
Feb. 5, 2018
Following the EDA meeting
Conference Room A
Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter,
the second work session of the Crystal City Council was held at ______ p.m. on Feb. 5, 2018 in
Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota.
I. Attendance
Council Members Staff
____ Dahl ____ Norris
____ Deshler ____ Therres
____ Kolb ____ Gilchrist
____ LaRoche ____ Ray
____ Parsons ____ Revering
____ Adams ____ Sutter
____ Budziszewski ____ Serres
II. Agenda
The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items:
1. Accessory dwelling units, “tiny houses” and temporary family health care dwellings.
2. Potential lease agreement with Verizon Wireless to place a telecommunications tower on
city property at 3200 Vera Cruz Ave. N.
3. Review chapter 8 proposed changes.
4. Constituent issues update.
5. New business.*
6. Announcements.*
III. Adjournment
The work session adjourned at ______ p.m.
Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531-
1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529.
Page 1 of 4
_____________________________________________________________________
FROM: Dan Olson, City Planner
____________________________________________________________________
TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for February 5 City Council Meeting)
DATE: February 1, 2018
RE: Discuss Housing Related Zoning Issues
A. BACKGROUND
At its December 19, 2017 meeting, the City Council approved first reading of the
unified development code (UDC), which included allowing accessory dwelling
units with use-specific standards. During that discussion, the Council expressed
an interest in further discussion about housing related zoning issues. This staff
report is provided in response to that request and discusses accessory dwellings
units, temporary family health care dwellings and residential lot widths.
B. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - GENERALLY
The defining characteristic of ADUs is that they must be accessory and
subordinate to the principal use of the property as a single family home.
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) can be either attached to the principal building
or in a detached accessory building:
Attached ADU: An attached ADU is a separate unit within or attached to the
existing home, such as a basement apartment or wing addition.
Detached ADU: A detached ADU is located in a separate building from the
principal home.
If the second unit is not accessory and subordinate to the principal use of the
property as a single family home, then the property is really just a two -family
dwelling (duplex) and should be regulated as such. The new UDC reduced the
minimum lot area for duplexes in the R-1 district from 15,000 to 12,000 sq. ft.
This allows more properties in R-1 to have a duplex without the second unit
needing to be accessory and subordinate to a single-family home. To further
relax the limitations on duplexes in R-1, staff is proposing to reduce the minimum
lot width from 100 to 80 feet; see Section E of this report.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Discuss Housing Related Zoning Issues
Page 2 of 4
For those properties in R-1 that don’t meet the requirements for a duplex:
The previous zoning code did not allow ADUs at all.
The new UDC only allows ADUs that are part of a detached garage.
Staff recommends amending the UDC to allow attached ADUs and also
detached ADUs that are not part of a detached garage.
C. PROPOSED CHANGES TO UDC FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Proposed changes for Crystal are shown in red in the table below, together with
a comparison with other cities:
REQUIREMENT Crystal Richfield Roseville Eagan Bloomington Minneapolis St. Paul
Property owner
must reside on
property
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Separate sewer
and water
connection
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Minimum or
maximum size
of ADU
Max: 50% of
principal
dwelling
Min: 300 SF
Max: 800 SF
or house
footprint
No Min: 300 SF
Max: 960 SF
or 33% of
house footprint
Min: 300 SF
Max: 960 SF
or 33% of
house footprint
Min: 300 SF
Max: 800 SF
Max: 1,000 SF
or 50% of
principal
dwelling
ADU subject to
additional
dimensional
requirements
(setbacks, etc.)
No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Detached ADU
must be on a
frost-protected
foundation
Yes (just like
detached
garages)
Yes Yes Does not allow
detached
ADUs
Does not allow
detached
ADUs
Yes Yes
Additional
parking
1 space 3 spaces 1 spaces 2 spaces None None None
Limit number of
residents
No
(but standard
overcrowding
limits apply)
No Max: 2 Max: 2 Max: 2 No Max: 1 family
as defined by
zoning code
Rental license,
required
Yes, unless it
is exempt (like
a relative
homestead)
Yes No, but the
unit must be
registered with
the city
No, but the
unit must be
registered with
the city
Yes Yes No
Must be part of
a detached
garage
Current: Yes
Proposed: No
Yes No Does not allow
detached ADU
Does not allow
detached ADU
No No
Allow ADU
entrance facing
street
Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Page 3 of 4
The most significant change would be for Crystal to not require that a detached
ADU be part of a detached garage. Staff recommends this change, but only if
accompanied by a requirement that ADUs be installed on a permanent frost-
protected foundation in the same manner as detached garages or other
accessory buildings. Portable tiny houses with wheels are really just recreational
vehicles in disguise and should not be allowed as residences in Crystal.
Another change would be to limit the floor area of an ADU to 50% of the finished
floor area of the principal dwelling. This is intended to ensure that the ADU is
truly accessory and subordinate to the single family home on the property.
D. TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS
In 2016 the state legislature adopted requirements for temporary family health
care dwellings in city codes. These structures provide a temporary dwelling,
similar to a recreational vehicle, for mentally or physically impaired family
members. Staff believes that a vendor who sells these dwelling units influenced
the legislature to create the state law authorizing these structures. None of the
five cities adjacent to Crystal allows these temporary dwellings. According to the
League of Minnesota Cities, more cities opted out of adopting an ordinance than
adopted one in conformance with state law, but the League does not track which
cities have adopted ordinances.
At the November 7, 2017 City Council work session, the Council discussed
whether to include requirements for temporary family health care dwellings in the
UDC and decided not to allow them. The following issues were identified as the
reasons for not allowing these dwelling types:
o If these dwellings were allowed temporarily for a specific, limited period, it
would be difficult for the city to remove the resident once the ir permit has
expired;
o If these dwellings were allowed in Crystal, those residents who own
recreational vehicles may request that they also be able to use their
vehicles as living space;
o It would be difficult and expensive to connect these temporary dwel lings to
city sewer and water;
o The city has not had any requests for these dwelling types, and if there is
a desire by residents for these dwellings, the city could create an
ordinance at that time;
o The city’s residential properties are generally too sma ll to accommodate
these dwellings.
Staff opinion is that all of these reasons remain valid. Furthermore, by allowing
ADUs the city is providing many other ways for homeowners to provide a living
space separate from the principal dwelling that can be used to house family
members in need of care.
Page 4 of 4
E. MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS
For discussion by the City Council, staff proposes the following changes to minimum lot
widths in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts:
Minimum lot width for single-family homes: Change the minimum width from 60’
to 50’. This would provide the opportunity for the market to respond to changing
consumer demand including a market trend away from large yards.
Minimum lot width for two-family homes: Change the minimum width from 100’
to 80’. This would provide marginally more opportunities for duplexes in the R-1
district while ensuring that single family homes continue to dominate the housing
stock in the R-1 district.
Proposed changes for Crystal are shown in red in the table below, together with
a comparison with other cities:
REQUIREMENT Crystal Richfield Roseville Golden
Valley
Brooklyn
Park
Robbinsdale New Hope Brooklyn
Center
Minimum Lot
W idth for one-
family dwellings
In R-1
60’
(current)
50’
(proposed)
50’
60’
80’ Ranges
from 70’ to
330’
50’ 70’ -75’ 75’
Minimum Lot
W idth for two-
family dwellings in
R-1
100’
(current)
80’
(proposed)
50’
60’
prohibited prohibited 60’ 75’ 75’
F. CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff requests Council discussion and direction regarding these proposed
changes. The next step would be for staff to prepare a text amendment for a
Planning Commission public hearing and subsequent Council action.
_____________________________________________________________________
FROM: Dan Olson, City Planner
____________________________________________________________________
TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for February 5 City Council Meeting)
DATE: February 1, 2018
RE: Discuss Verizon Lease Agreement for a Telecommunications Tower
A. BACKGROUND
Verizon is asking whether the City Council is interested in entering into a lease
agreement to locate a telecommunications tower on city-owned property at 3200 Vera
Cruz Avenue North.
Attachments:
A. Site location map
B. Elevation drawing showing proposed tower – stealth design
C. Elevation drawing showing proposed tower – non stealth design
D. Narrative describing project need
B. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER PROPOSAL
The proposed 60-foot tower would be located at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North, a city-
owned property that has a sanitary sewer lift station and city-owned utility pole for power
to the lift station. Verizon is proposing to lease the property from the city and replace the
existing utility pole with the telecommunication tower. The nearest residential property
line to the proposed tower is approximately 185 feet and the nearest home is 250 feet.
The following is further information about this proposal.
Proposed lease
At the February 5 City Council work session, the Council is being asked to express
interest in entering into a lease agreement with Verizon for use of city-owned property
for the telecommunications tower. The facility would be constructed at Verizon’s
expense and would include the ability to co-locate future antennas. The city attorney
would write the lease for review and signature by the city and Verizon. The value of the
lease is estimated to be $20-$30,000 annually, plus the possibility of a percentage of
the revenues that Verizon would receive from co -locating other antennas.
Tower design and project need
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Discuss Verizon Lease Agreement
A complete tower design would be submitted as part of the CUP and variance
application (see below). However Verizon has submitted preliminary drawings to show
what the tower could look like, and has submitted a narrative describing the project
need. Verizon has submitted both a stealth tower design (attachment B) and a non-
stealth design (attachment C):
Stealth design: This design would be more compatible with the residential
character of the neighborhood and according to Verizon would be able to
accommodate a total of 9 antennas (6 for Verizon and 3 for other
providers co-locating on the tower). The utility cabinet serving the tower
would be slightly larger than the non-stealth designed tower.
Non-stealth design: This design would be less compatible with the
residential character of the neighborhood, and according to Verizon would
be able to accommodate a total of 24 antennas (12 for Verizon and 12 for
other providers co-locating on the tower). The ability to co-locate more
antennas could represent more revenue for the city in the lease
agreement with Verizon.
Color: For either design, the City Council can determine the color of the
tower.
For the project need, Verizon has submitted a narrative with maps to show coverage
with and without the proposed tower (see attachment D). Verizon indicates that
service would be significantly improved with the new tower and that there are no co-
location opportunities in the area. The nearest Verizon facility is located at Memory
Park (3980 Quebec Avenue N in New Hope) and this facility will soon reach capacity.
Tower approval process
If the Council expresses interest in entering into a lease , then Verizon would submit a
conditional use permit (CUP) and variance application for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council. For the CUP, the unified development code
(UDC) requires that Verizon address the following criteria:
The applicant has demonstrated that there is a significant gap in coverage in the
area proposed for the telecommunications facility and that co -location on another
tower is not feasible;
Verizon has used stealth techniques to minimize the impact of the tower on the
surrounding area;
At least one other facility can be co -located on the tower; and
The new facility will not interfere with the continued operation of the lift station
and from public safety communications. With a preliminary review of Verizon’s
planned tower, City Engineer Mark Ray believes that the tower will not interfere
with the lift station, but this will be confirmed during the CUP process.
Verizon would be requesting variances from the following UDC requ irements:
The size of the parcel must be a minimum of 3 acres. The city’s property is 0.09
acres (3,827 square feet) in size
The tower must be at least 82.5’ from any property line . The proposed tower
would be approximately 20 feet from the property line of the city -owned parcel.
The parcel must be large enough to accommodate the potential collapse of the
tower, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the tower would collapse within
the property. If the applicant cannot demonstrate this, then a variance is required
from this property dimensional requirement.
For the Planning Commission public hearing for the CUP and variance, staff would
notify all property owners within 600 feet of the property of the hearing. A
neighborhood meeting could be held by Verizon prior to the public hearing to gauge
interest in the proposal.
C. CITY COUNCIL ACTION
This agenda item is being presented so the Council may discuss interest in entering
into a lease agreement for a telecommunications tower at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue
North.
RF Coverage Maps for Proposed Site in Crystal, MN
1-18-2018
Nithya Jaipuriyar, RF Engineer, Verizon Wireless
The following maps demonstrate the need for a new site near Bassett Creek Park, Crystal,
MN 55422. The measurements considered in this study will be the Coverage and the Best Server
Coverage Distribution - a map showing the geographic areas served by a site’s sector. A new site
such as the one proposed in this document will be designed with the goal of improving coverage
in an area, especially in target areas such as neighborhoods, shopping areas or busy
highways/roads. Another design goal for a new site is to balance the load between the existing
sites in the area and the proposed site. This way if a proposed site experiences a large amount
of traffic, that traffic will be divided among existing and proposed sites resulting in an increased
speed and connection reliability for customers.
First case: Coverage
In general, at analysis we can identify three levels of coverage:
- Good (Red) – at this level customers will be able to establish and maintain reliable
connections both indoors and outdoors;
- Fair (Yellow) – at this level customers will be able to establish a reliable connection
outdoors but performance will most probably suffer indoors. Reliable connections will still
be possible in vehicle;
- Poor (Green) – at this level, connections can only be established outdoors. Reliable
connections indoors or in vehicle are highly unlikely.
If the coverage is below poor level, it is generally considered that the signal is ‘non -existing’,
meaning that no reliable connection will likely be possible. The following maps show the existing
and expected coverage in the area surrounding the proposed site.
Figure 1. Existing Coverage (Without the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site)
The above map shows the existing coverage in the area surrounding the proposed site Quail. Areas with Good coverage
levels are shown in red; areas with Fair coverage are shown in yellow, and areas with Poor coverage levels are shown in
green. Areas shown with no color have a coverage level below Poor which is considered to be unreliable signal. The
expected coverage impact of the proposed site is not simulated in this case.
As can be seen in the above coverage map, the area surrounding the proposed site, Quail has
mostly Fair to Poor level of coverage. Fair to Poor coverage will experience connection reliability
issues especially for customers in indoor locations or in vehicles.
Figure 2. Expected Coverage (With the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site)
The above map shows the existing coverage in the area surrounding the proposed site Quail. Areas with Good coverage
levels are shown in red; areas with Fair coverage are shown in yellow, and areas with Poor coverage levels are shown in
green. Areas shown with no color have a coverage level below Poor which is considered to be unreliable signal. The
expected coverage impact of the proposed site is simulated in this case.
As can be seen in the above map, the coverage with the proposed site, Quail, is expected
to be significantly improved. To be noted that the areas that are currently being served at fair to
poor coverage level are expected to be eliminated on MN-100 and in the residential neighborhood
east of MN-100.
Second Case: Best Server Distribution
The following maps will show the server coverage distribution with and without a new
site near Bassett Creek Park, Crystal, MN 55422. At Verizon, a lot of effort is being placed to
ensure that all sites in our network are balanced in terms of the amount of traffic they are
managing. In other words, if a site is experiencing too much traffic, a new site would be needed
to offload a portion of that traffic. The new site would make it possible to deliver a better network
experience to our customers and increased speeds in the area that is currently being served by
the existing overloading site.
This is especially true in the commercial, residential neigborhoods and well-travelled
highways (i.e. MN-100). A new build site would help offload the high amount of traffic served by
the existing site located Northwest (Memory Park) of Quail, which will translate into increased
speeds for our customers.
To gauge the amount of traffic that will be offloaded by a new site, the Best Server
Coverage Distribution is analyzed. The Best Server Coverage Distribution is a measure used to
display the different sectors of a site and identify the geographical areas served by those sectors.
In this type of simulation, several colors will be present on the map, each color identifying a site,
and more specifically, identifying a sector of a site, that is serving in a geographical area. The
identified sector has the best coverage level in that area.
The following two maps display the existing and expected Best Server Coverage
Distribution.
Figure 3. Existing Coverage (Without the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site)
The above map shows the existing best server coverage distribution of the area surrounding the proposed site (Quail). The
expected effect of the proposed site is not simulated in this case. Each color on the map represents the area currently
being served by individual sectors of existing sites. For example, if we consider the existing site (Memory Park) located
Northwest of Quail, in dark blue we can identify the area covered by the west-facing sector of the site. In light-blue we
can identify the area covered by the site’s north-facing sector. Similarly, green identifies the area served by the site’s
southeast-facing sector.
In the above map we can see that the southeast-facing sector (displayed in green) of the
existing Verizon site (Memory Park) is currently serving a large residential neighborhood and
MN-100 between Duluth St and 36th Ave. Analysis has shown that these sectors need an
additional site to balance the traffic, thus the need for the proposed new site.
Figure 4. Existing Coverage (Including the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site)
The above map shows the existing best server coverage distribution of the area surrounding the proposed site (Quail). The
expected effect of the proposed site is simulated in this case. Each color on the map represents the area currently being
served by individual sectors of existing sites. For example, if we consider the existing site (Memory Park) located
Northwest of Quail, in dark blue we can identify the area covered by the west-facing sector of the site. In light-blue we
can identify the area covered by the site’s north-facing sector. Similarly, green identifies the area served by the site’s
southeast-facing sector.
As can be seen in the above map, the northwest-facing and southwest-facing sectors of the
proposed site (Quail) would take over some of the traffic in the residential neighborhood and
MN-100 between Duluth St and 36th Ave. This reduction in the amount of traffic served by the
existing site Memory Park translates into an enhanced user network experience and increased
speeds on MN-100 and users in the residential neighborhoods.
Analysis of Alternate Locations
The location of a capacity site such as the one proposed herein is very important and
chosen only after careful analysis of both existing and future predicted capacity demands.
Several alternatives in the area are considered before identifying a specific location that would
meet the radio frequency engineering objectives.
Verizon Wireless intention is to meet the needs of the public in the area without adding
to the number of tower but in this area, there were no colocation opportunities for us to consider.
Analysis of current and future traffic demands have identified that the existing Verizon Wireless
site (Memory Park) will exhaust its capacity in the very near future. Because of the high traffic
demand in this area, the existing Verizon Wireless sites near this area are reaching its capacity
limitations and, thus, a new site is needed in order to balance some of the existing site’s traffic
with the new proposed site. By offloading a portion of that traffic, an increased network
experience and increased speeds can be provided to our customers in this area.
Your approval of this project will enable Verizon Wireless to continue to maintain the
best, most reliable wireless service in your area for all of Crystal’s citizens and visitors.
Sincerely,
Nithya Jaipuriyar
Verizon Wireless RF Engineer
Email: Nithyakalyani.Jaipuriyar@vzw.com
Mobile: 612-720-9030