2006.01.09 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY
January 9, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers
4141 Douglas Dr N
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ANNUAL ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
1. Election of Officers
• Chairperson
• Vice -Chairperson
• Secretary
2. Approval of Meeting Calendar and Application Due Dates for 2006*
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• November 14, 2005 regular meeting*
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider Application 2005-14 for Rezoning of 3249 Douglas Drive North from R-1
Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential*
2. Consider Application 2005-15 for Variance to modify setback requirements at
5330 Perry Avenue North*
3. Consider Application 2005-16 for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a
Special Area Plan for unaddressed Canadian Pacific Railroad property north of
the tracks and west of Douglas Drive, together with 5153 Idaho Avenue North*
E. OLD BUSINESS
F. NEW BUSINESS
G. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. City Council actions on recent Planning Commission items*
2. Development Status Report for quarter ending December 31, 2005*
3. Updated Planning Commission roster*
4. Staff preview of likely agenda items for February 13, 2006 meeting
H. OPEN FORUM
I. ADJOURNMENT
*Items for which supporting material will be included in the meeting packet
2006
City Council Meetings
Council Chambers
7:00 P.M.
January
3
(Tuesday)
January
17
(Tuesday)
February
7
(Tuesday)
February
21
(Tuesday)
*** March
6
(Monday)
March
21
(Tuesday)
April
4
(Tuesday)
April
18
(Tuesday)
May
2
(Tuesday)
May
16
(Tuesday)
June
6
(Tuesday)
June
20
(Tuesday)
*** July
5
(Wednesday)
July
18
(Tuesday)
*** August
2
(Wednesday)
August
15
(Tuesday)
September
5
(Tuesday)
September
19
(Tuesday)
October
3
(Tuesday)
October
17
(Tuesday)
*** November
8
(Wednesday)
November
21
(Tuesday)
December
5
(Tuesday)
December
19
(Tuesday)
***Denotes a change in the regular meeting schedule for the City Council. Meetings are re -broadcast at
6:30 P.M. each Sunday on Channel 16 with Northwest Community Television.
C'.\Documents and Settings\jsutter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7\confirmedMtgdates.doc
Du., 'dates & meeting schedule for,-, becial Land Use Applications i.,-'2006
DUE DATE FOR
APPLICATION, FEE,
AND REQUIRED
ATTACHMENTS
3% weeks before the
Planning Commission
meeting date.
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING AND
PUBLIC HEARING
Typically the 2„d Monday
of the month, except
where indicated (*).
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING #1
(REQUIRED FOR
ALL APPLICATIONS)
Typically the 3rd Tuesday,
of the month, except
where indicated (*).
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING #2
(ONLY REQUIRED
FOR ORDINANCES)
Typically the 1St Tuesday
of the following month,
except where indicated (*).
January 20, 2006
February 13, 2006
February 21, 2006
March 20, 2006
February 17, 2006
March 13, 2006
March 21, 2006
April 4, 2006
March 17, 2006
April 10, 2006
April 18, 2006
May 2, 2006
April 14, 2006
MaV 8, 2006
May 16, 2006
June 6, 2006
MaV 19, 2006
June 12, 2006
June 20, 2006
July 5, 2006*
June 16, 2006
July 10, 2006
JuIV 18, 2006
August 2, 2006*
July 21, 2006
August 14, 2006
September 5, 2006
September 19, 2006
August 18, 2006
September 11, 2006
September 19, 2006
October 3, 2006
September 15, 2006
October 9, 2006
October 17, 2006
November 8, 2006*
October 20, 2006
November 13, 2006
November 21, 2006
December 5, 2006
November 17, 2006
December 11, 2006
December 19, 2006
January 2, 2007
December 15, 2006
January 8, 2007
January 16, 2007
February 6, 2007
January 19, 20072
February 12, 20072
February 20, 20072
March 6, 20072
1 Council meeting #2 is only required for ordinance changes such as rezonings and text amendments. Also, please note that adopted ordinance changes do not go
into effect until 30 days after the ordinance is published, this means they typically are not effective until approximately six weeks after Council meeting #2.
2The 2007 application schedule will not be set until the January 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. These dates are therefore tentative.
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION
November 14, 2005
A. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 pm
with the following present: Sears, Davis, Nystrom, Whitenack, VonRueden,
Krueger, Hester, Brennan, and Strand. Also present were the following: City
Council Liaison Bowman, Community Development Director Peters, City Planner
Sutter and Recording Secretary Matthews.
Chair Davis thanked Commissioner Kruger for all of his service to the city.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kruger to
approve the minutes of the October 10, 2005 regular meeting.
Motion carried.
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider Application 2005-13 for a Lot Division at 4047 Douglas
Drive North to detach the west 88 feet of the property and incorporate it into
the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park.
Planner Sutter summarized the staff report. Staff recommends approval as
outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Nystrom asked if there have been any objections from residents
that live in the area. Planner Sutter stated that there hasn't been any objections,
but he had answered a few questions regarding the process.
Commissioner Kruger asked where the lot lines where in relation to any
playgrounds or equipment. Planner Sutter described where some of the trails and
other features of the park are located relative to the park boundaries.
Commissioner Nystrom asked if there are any other properties that the city has
interest in to add additional land to the park. Planner Sutter replied that this is a
property owner driven series of acquisitions. The city hopes that in the future as
houses sell, agreements can be made to add additional land to the park.
Public Hearing opened.
Public Hearing closed.
Moved by Commissioner Sears, seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to
recommend to City Council at the December 5, 2005 meeting to approve
Application 2005-13 for a Lot Division at 4047 Douglas Drive North to detach
the west 88 feet of the property and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister
Pond Park.
Findings of fact are as outlined in the staff report.
Motion carried.
D. OLD BUSINESS
F. NEW BUSINESS
Mayor Bowman stated that as part of being the new Mayor she has spoken with
each commission. As part of this process a Citizen's Input Hour has been put in
place, and Open Forum is continuing at the City Council meetings. There is also a
Youth Initiative which will work with the Mosaic Youth Center, which is located
in Brooklyn Park and will help the city help its youth and some of the problems
that they are facing in today's world. There will be more information regarding
this initiative as it develops.
Mayor Bowman continued about the other initiatives that she would like to
implement. One is to work more closely with the business community in Crystal,
and there is the hopes of meeting with them at least once a year.
Working through the budget session was challenging but she is encouraged about
how financially strong the city is.
Mayor Bowman stated that she grew up in the area and went through the
Robbinsdale school district as did her two daughters.
Discussion continued amongst Mayor Bowman, the Planning Commissioners,
Planner Sutter and Community Development Director Patrick Peters about many .
various city issues and potential projects.
F. GENERAL INFORMATION
Planner Sutter stated that no items have come in yet for the December meeting.
The deadline is Friday the 18th of November.
Planner Sutter stated the he and Community Development Director Peters thought
it would be a good idea to hold an annual meeting in March to inform new
commission members about what is expected of them and to do a sort of question
and answer format, and possibly bringing in the city attorney to address the
commission members.
Commissioner Hester stated he would welcome any opportunities to learn more.
Mayor Bowman stated that she had taken a couple of classes from GTS
(Government Training Services).
Planner Sutter replied that information could be put together for the March
meeting for classes that would be available during the rest of the year.
G. OPEN FORUM
H. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kruger to
adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Chair Davis
Secretary Strand
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 29, 2005
TO: Planning Commission (January 9th meeting)
FROM: Jason Zimmermann, Code Enforcement and Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Application 2005-14 requesting Rezoning from
R-1 Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential at 3249
Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 20-118-21-14-0046), as submitted by Living Works
Ventures (applicant) and Debra Herder (property owner):
A. BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 3249 Douglas Drive North. Its dimensions are 110'
north -south and 134' east -west, for a total area of 14,053 sq. ft. or 0.32 acres. The
property is presently guided Medium Density Residential (MDR) but zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential. The property currently has a single family home.
Living Works Ventures would like to build a two family dwelling on the site. It would be
a supportive housing facility for 12 low income disabled adults. Six people would be
housed in each of the two dwelling units. It would be similar in size and use to the two
family dwelling that the applicant constructed at 3200 and 3240 Douglas Drive in 2003.
Under the MDR land use designation, the R-1 zoning should be changed to R-2
Medium Density Residential.
The City has mailed legal notice of the January 9, 2006 public hearing to all property
owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
The following exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photos showing the general area.
B. 2004 aerial photos showing the subject property.
C. Map showing current zoning districts.
D. Map showing future land use as guided in the Comprehensive Plan.
E. Douglas Drive Corridor Plan
F. Narrative submitted by the applicant.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
1. Rezoning.
The proposed building is a two family dwelling. Two family dwellings are a
permitted use in the R-2 district but are not permitted under the current R-1
zoning. If the rezoning to R-2 is approved the proposed use would be permitted.
It is important to note that, under our Zoning Ordinance's definition of "family", no
more than three unrelated people can occupy a dwelling unit. However, M.S.
462.357 Subd. 8 states that "a state licensed residential facility serving from 7
through 16 persons... shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use
for the purposes of zoning". The City Attorney has advised staff that, although
the proposed facility will not be state licensed, case law suggests that facilities
similar to state licensed facilities are also covered under this statute. For these
reasons, staff believes that in this case the ordinance's limitation on the number
of unrelated people occupying a dwelling unit is 'trumped' by the state statute.
2. Douglas Drive Special Area Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan includes some specific guiding principles for
development along Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. (The Comprehensive
Plan text is in italics; staff comments follow each item.)
• 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.
The proposed building would be at the bottom end of the range for Medium
Density Residential.
• Development shall not reduce the development potential of other parcels by
impeding access or leaving undeveloped any adjacent small, isolated,
difficult -to -develop parcels.
The proposed development does not reduce the development potential of
other parcels.
• Development shall include additional right-of-way for Douglas Drive or other
public streets as necessary to preserve and enhance the transportation
system.
REZONING- 3249 DOUGLAS
2
A sidewalk and trail easement is required over the east 7 feet (along Douglas
Drive). The City Council should not act on the second reading of the
ordinance until the executed easement is received.
• 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.
Not applicable to the subject property.
• 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 proposed building and site improvements would be compatible. Traffic,
parking and noise impacts will be minimal. The building will be designed to
look like a large twin home (which, in fact, is what it is) with separate
entrances for each dwelling unit.
• Certain office -type commercial uses may be compatible in areas guided
Medium Density Residential or High Density Residential adjacent to Douglas
Drive. The Zoning Ordinance should be revised to provide for these on a
limited basis as Conditional Uses in the corresponding zoning districts. In the
interim, such uses may be considered in accordance with the provisions of
515.27 Subd. 4 [e] & (t]. In no event shall a commercial use be permitted that
is found to be incompatible with adjacent land uses.
Not applicable to the subject property.
C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Rezoning.
To approve: R-2 zoning would be consistent with the property's Medium Density
Residential future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, provided the
property provides an executed sidewalk and trail easement over the east 7 feet
of the property.
To deny: Staff has no suggested findings of fact to deny because the requested
rezoning is consistent with the future land use designation in the comprehensive
plan.
REZONING- 3249 DOUGLAS
3
2. Site Plan.
A site plan of the proposed dwelling was not submitted with the rezoning
application as the purchase of the property is contingent upon the property being
rezoned to R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Per Section 520.05 of the City Code, construction of any use permitted within the
R-2 District does not require site plan approval. However, at the time of a
rezoning approval, the Planning Commission or City Council may require site
plan review prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff recommends that this
provision be included in any Planning Commission motion recommending
approval. Staff would also insert a reference to this provision in the rezoning
ordinance to be considered by the City Council.
D. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Application 2005-14 requesting Rezoning from R-1 Low
Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential, at 3249 Douglas Dr N (P.I.D.
20-118-21-14-0046). Suggested findings of fact and conditions of approval are as
stated in Section C of the staff report.
The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City
Council consideration.
The City Council will consider the request at its meeting on January 17th. Second
reading of the Rezoning ordinance would occur on February 7th. Publication of the
Rezoning ordinance would likely occur on February 16th . Rezoning ordinance is
effective 30 days after publication.
REZONING- 3249 DOUGLAS
4
HCPropertyMap
riennepin County Property Map
rQ�
Give_usyouur feedback or suggestions
Hennepin. County Surveyor_ map products
1
L�Qsi
Recenter
on click
Yes
C) No
Last update: 9/11/2005 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for. detailed_ information on this_parcel
Property ID Approximate Property
Approximate Property
Perimeter
Area
20-118-21-14-0046 476 ft.
14,053 sq.ft. = 0.32 acres
D --f,, Ar4,1- — hA—L—f %/oh—
T,+�l T— r,)nnr�
Page 1 of 2
How _to_use Map
To zoom in farther, clic
the zoom bar. (Lot dim(
PROPERTY SEARCI
-,,.—
For quicker respc
information on SL
'Recenter on clici
Show:
0 Aerial Photos i
(12004" Aerials I
City Names
❑� Street Names
DAddress Numt
*Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different 1
http://www 13.co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspx?PID=2011821140046 12/15/2005
HC;PropertyMap
l
flt�nnepin
f
61
mA
rQ�
Ea
sin
Recenter
on click
Yes
No
Hennepin County Property Map
Give_ us vo_ur feedback_ or_suaaestion_s
Hennepin Coin Surveyor -map _products
Last update: 9/11/2005 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for detailed_ information_ on_thisparcel
Approximate Property
Approximate Property
Property ID
Perimeter
Area
20-118-21-14-0046 476 ft.
14,053 sq.ft. = 0.32 acres
Prnnortv ArM,.— �A.,L—f Wino
Tn+o] T— i)nnr,�
Pagel of 2
Howto Map
For quicker respc
information on sL
'Recenter on clic♦
Show:
C= � Aerial Photos I
* 2004' Aerials I
0 City Names
FV -1 Street Names
RAddress Numt
❑ Lot Dimension
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
http://www(-,o.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspxI )=2011821140046 ( 15/2005
I
I 6.46
/31.2J 2 I -'Si 26 6.46
2L6.41+ ! In.•u: � 3 ..
G�
1 e 3 4V m+ I -
266.Cj I I cl c\j
Lal G .7 fL.0 I i I°° So
R.L S. o. 54
�AC s D _E I
f GLifJprj� rt t.! 2 33 �C -
JJ 4 IJt•4S W
�
a c3.o!!r0 re3
f. r4 cs. r . rp 7tlj
V r�
i S9 Z 2 Q 0 3 0 c Cle Nil a
Z
uz 3. s
7 <, a S i�YciR ,
T7 CT ) 1.G7 r. 9
r 6 j v 5
V e c
r(2a
`4DCN
13 1a ° 7 'V 6tirtl fz /N i
i3FR
(33.83 �_ ® x•-173•°2' _ -3e : -
pt A4
B7
FIRS z �, e > l
137,92 4 n ^ D '
i c •8 b. _ � u p E
�
' :,•95 � r 7s 4 ,
133.97. (33.9 , 5 I /�� c p /34 `' C +�EI�
�„` l2
jC2'j4:ON,
r3{.e l a
ACRES
119.OL {i�o d • t° �.• C43 7 `
P 17 1
lTfJ l74./ a4al 29Lf
..f m O 13G.,4y ,.'yp /�i.41 /3/.41
W
4 w �
/J6 x.
14 �: 7 I y6 f p ERA I
r3f.tl' rSf.i4 134.1 7 w
3D
13 r31.
•� g 2 Z� e .
' !
Z
* 1l14 M P� 3 v i = co a
" rs4.Zv 7Sf.79 G° 13 ]D13
/ .37 /31.37
w
LOSS 4e 'Q i
1l 33 }•A I,
ZONING DISTRICTS d
ACCORDING TO THE
CURRENT ZONING MAP:
(1) L07 x 23
R-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL D
rn
R-2, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(alp) E X. 1� 1 T C
R-3, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
l A._ _
Ui
:4;
i 1 II 14
137v•12).'16 b
�
,
• 15 .rr
f I
..
.TI
C .9
CC.11
i t TVA So
6 *
�✓
�.L
SB �c 54
1 1
=
. �
-
EI
�p0
v
vj ,
_
C.il
CLIP CLI
v
-
IL r4 cs
r % ii19
f•
471.4 Ub4f G+ L
10 I
..
C
�
D_
9 N Z Q o 3
=
�(r.Zp� E
SG Z C
v
l Zit.
•
J I
r
Zcz 14 v y 13a
I i C1 } �.
�
),
.
4 -
41
SUNNYBR
7 H
IT1 C1 U 1 1.41 (f)"-
`' 9
e
s -� s _ I
; �
�. CGS
�...• ..
(44 V)
�:
FIR
t
131 t - iia :-
1 c
-
/3
IILIL, 131.A�tia
.83
;13s 7 4d f' r
isy't
o
` A
,y( r.
RS T° ,.
2T2.
o�
E
v . Zo�-
I }].4t.
aq. 17 IS
(32.97 v kJ•
F 5
/3144
�4� C ~
t
n
T I
_.
19
r, �`PC�P 7 )3a J �
3'
t� A
is ' 1
Z9Zl
17f a/
s\)134..43 L I y1. od
34:.43'
RES
18
0 o T.¢ x
. ���
@"
ND L l
I' 17 .
Q. �13 33
Pp4
13fJ
J74.I 34:11 p
Q' -.
I3uy
Io ni41
ul
•
�G4 r3 21
;
.iii �
i
Ji z
14 �-
L - i
134 • .,.1 . RN
z
1��
— x
S'
. I -
RAI
r3f•u•
,13 ,�. 7
ay
13 f..4 u4s
- y Z
Cj
_ C
� e 3 ➢ �
r3L2
I -
9 Z�
g
JT4.L4
1 Z13L31
JS�r9 144:z9� -
w
[
IIV
p•
ii jLJ3,r+►
1
g
-
1. I(
s o I
1.37 131.37
33
FUTURE LAND USE
AS GUIDED IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
m
C1� LOT
LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
r
"
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MDR
ate:.
/Se
�•
HDR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
'yw
�<
Corridor Plan — Douglas Drive south of 30 Avenue.
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 Drive south of 36`h Avenue. The specific area included in this
Norridor plan is the area between Brunswick and Florida Avenue from 36`h 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. Due to the presence of single family neighborhoods adjacent to the Douglas Drive 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 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
`�ea. 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 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 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.
• Certain office -type commercial uses may be compatible in areas guided Medium Density Residential or High Density Residential
adjacent to Douglas Drive. The Zoning Ordinance should be revised to provide for these on a limited basis as Conditional Uses
IN in the corresponding zoning districts. In the interim, such uses may be considered in accordance with the provisions of 515.27
Subd. 4 [e] & [f]. In no event shall a commercial use be permitted that is found to be incompatible with adjacent land uses.
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.
GAPLANNING\Applications\2002102(DouglasDriveCorridor)Vextchanges-2002-05-09.doc 11/23/05
Livin,gWorks Ventures _
EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
P OBox 308
Lomttq AIN 55357
763 479 3555
December 15, 2005
Mr. John Sutter, Planner
City of Crystal
4141 Douglas Drive North
Crystal, MN 55411-1696
Dear John,
LivingWorks Ventures is applying for a rezoning of 3249 Douglas Drive from a R 1 designation to
an R-2 designation. This request is consistent with the City of Crystal Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. The application and associated fee are enclosed.
The proposal is to erect a twin home side-by-side residence on this site. This twin home will be
similar in size and use to the Crystal Lodge at 3200 North Douglas Drive with a somewhat different
layout as dictated by the shape of the lot. This LivingWorks lodge will be home for up to six adults
in each of the two units.
LivingWorks Ventures is a nonprofit organization, established as a "sister" organization of Vinland
National Center in 1998 to own and/or manage community-based properties providing low-income,
accessible housing and employment for disabled adults. The fust LivingWorks Lodge opened in
New Hope in December 1998 and the second opened in Crystal in May 2004. Both lodges are
successful and provide much needed services in our community. Of the 12 residents of the Crystal
Lodge 11 are working or in school. The model works.
We look forward to working with you as we move forward in this process. Should you have any
questions or require further detail, please contact me at your convenience at 763 479 4516 or
cjacksonaa vinlandcenter org.
Thank you.
Sin ere- l , 114
Caro Jackso
Executive Director
EXHIBIT F
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 29, 2005
TO: Planning Commission (January 9, 2006 meeting)
FROM: Jason Zimmermann, Code Enforcement and Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2005-15 for a variance at 5330 Perry
Ave North to modify the setbacks so they will match the setbacks in place
when the house was built in 1965.
A. BACKGROUND
The home on the subject property was constructed in 1965 in accordance with the
required setbacks governing the property at that time:
North (side street) lot line: 10 feet
South (side street) lot line: 10 feet
East (rear) lot line: 25% of lot depth, ranging from 25.6 feet along the north lot line to
20.1 feet along the south lot line.
West (front) lot line: 30 feet
Since that time, there have been several revisions to the zoning code, including a
complete revision in February 2004. These revisions have defined front and side lot
lines. The current code's setback requirements are as follows:
North (front) lot line: 30 feet
South (front) lot line: 30 feet
East (side) lot line: 5 feet
West (side street) lot line 10 feet
The principal structure (the house) encroaches into the currently required north and
south setbacks. Because of this, it is legally non -conforming, meaning it can continue
as originally built, but cannot be expanded. The applicant is seeking a building permit
for an attached deck, and because the deck is attached, it is an expansion of the
principal structure and not allowed at this time.
A variance reducing the setbacks for the north and south lot lines would be necessary
for the proposed deck. The property owner has applied for such a variance. The city
has mailed legal notice of the January 9, 2006 public hearing to all property owners
within 350 feet of the subject property.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photos showing the general area.
B. 2004 aerial photos showing the subject property.
C. Site plan.
D. Background letter from the Building Official.
E. Narrative submitted by the property owner.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
In order for a variance to be granted, state law and city code require that all three of the
following criteria be met:
■ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by
the code.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner.
■ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
In addition, state law and city code specifically state that economic considerations alone
do not constitute an undue hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under
the code.
The situation is unusual in that the property's unique configuration (streets on three
sides) is the main cause of the setback nonconformities. In addition, the house was
built in accordance with the setback requirements in place at that time, but changes to
the City's zoning code have increased the required setbacks for the north and south lot
lines and made the structure legally non -conforming, thus prohibiting any expansion to _
the structure, including an attached deck.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Approve the requested variance from 515.33 Subd. 8 a) to reduce the front
setbacks from 30 feet to 10 feet, provided that the setback from the east lot line
shall be increased to 20 feet and the setback from the west lot line shall be
increased to 30 feet, so that all setbacks match the setbacks in place when the
house was built in 1965.
Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would
constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because all of the three required
criteria are met. Specifically:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by
this Zoning Code. Reasonable use of the property includes continuation of the
building footprint present on the property. However, reasonable expansion of the
single-family home is not permitted because of the setback non -conformities created
by the unique characteristics of the property combined with changes to the zoning
code over time.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Relative
to the vast majority of houses in Crystal, it is highly unusual for a property to have
VARIANCE -FRONT SETBACKS - 5330 PERRY AVE N
2
streets on three sides of it. In addition, it is unusual for a zoning amendment to
have such an impact on a property by making a structure non -conforming.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The
reduced setback requirements would be consistent with the setbacks in place when
the house was built in 1965.
Planning Commission action is requested. Findings of fact addressing whether or not
the three variance criteria are met should be included in the motion. The Planning
Commission may choose to use staff's recommended findings of fact by reference in
the motion.
VARIANCE -FRONT SETBACKS - 5330 PERRY AVE N
3
HCPropertyMap
Hennepin
D
Hennepin Count Property Ma _ _ suggestions
p y p %� p Give y _our feedback or_
Hennepin _Coun� Surveyor map products
Recenter
on click
0 Yes
O No
X
Last update: 9/11/2005 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click_fo...r_detailed_ information on this parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Approximate Property
Perimeter Area
09-118-21-11-0017 393 ft. 9,357 sq.ft. = 0.21 acres
Pagel of 2
How to use Map
To zoom in farther, clic
the zoom bar. (Lot dime
PROPERTY SF -ARC
For quicker respc
information on su
'Recenter on clicl,
Show:
0 Aerial Photos t
�+ 2004* Aerials i
City Names
❑� Street Names
DAddress Numt
*Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
http://www( 'o.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspx.1 `=0911821110017 16/2005
HCPropertvMap
riennepin County Property Map
ri
Give usyour_feedback _or suggestions
Hennepin Couny_Survevor map products
Recenter
on click
PO
Yes
0 No
M
X
00
Last update: 9/11/2005 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for detailed _i_nformation_on_this _parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Approximate Property
Perimeter Area
09-118-21-11-0017 393 ft. 9,357 sq.ft. = 0.21 acres
Page 1 of
Howto_use Map
PROPERTY SEARC
For quicker respc
information on su
'Recenter on clicl
Show:
0 Aerial Photos t
*� 2004'' Aerials t
❑� City Names
❑� Street Names
Address Numt
❑ Lot Dimension
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
http://www l 3.co.hemlepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspx?PID=0911821110017 12/16/2005
h P- ,n a
� I
i
L DT -3 gLc&K 1, '
C46
T R S
C8X q,L,
c
,
f
drO,� T H'
r
c404,
i
i
�i
od
Imo;
H o Li r=:
/D
8' T C`Ro w�
EXHIBIT C
h P- ,n a
Cj
July 25, 2005
4L 4141 Douglas Drive -North • Crystal, MN 55422-1696
Telephone: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188
MARK & KARLA MCALPIN
5330 PERRY AVE N
CRYSTAL MN 55429
Re: 5330 PERRY AVE N
Dear MARK & KARLA MCALPIN:
Website: www.ci.crystal.mn.us
A cursory review has been made of the July 13, 2005 building permit application and
submittal documents for the proposed deck at 5330 PERRY AVE N. The permit application
has been placed on hold because the existing house does not conform to the minimum
setbacks from lot lines required by city code.
The house at 5330 Perry was built in 1965. It was built in conformance with the minimum
setbacks from lot lines required by city code at that time:
North (side street) lot line: 10 feet.
South (side street) lot line: 10 feet.
East (rear) lot line: 25% of lot depth, ranging from 25.6 feet along north lot line to 20.1 feet
along south lot line.
West (front): 30 feet.
The current code's setback requirements are as follows:
North (front) lot line: 30 feet.
South (front) lot line: 30 feet.
East (side) lot line: 5 feet.
West (side street): 10 feet.
The principal structure (the house) encroaches into the currently required north and south
setbacks. It is therefore lawfully nonconforming, meaning that it can continue as originally
built but cannot be expanded. Because the deck is attached to the principal structure, it
represents an expansion of the principal structure. Therefore the property owner must seek
a variance to modify the setback requirements, for example, to permanently apply the
setbacks as they existed when the house was built in 1965. In addition to allowing staff to
issue the building permit for the deck, it would also allow the property owner, and any
subsequent owners, to expand the house in the future in ways that comply with the 1965
setback requirements.
City staff believes that such a variance would be appropriate in this case, and would
recommend approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. Before the building
permit application can be considered further, a request for a variance is required to be
submitted to the planning commission for review. Enclosed are a variance application, an
application schedule for 2005 and an outline of the criteria which must be met when applying
for a variance.
EXHIBIT D
July 25, 2005
MARK & KARLA MCALPIN
5330 PERRY AVE N
Page 2
Following approval by the planning commission and the city council the building permit
application will be reviewed.
The building permit application and submitted documents will be held pending variance
approval for 180 days at which time the permit application will become void if there has been
no action taken.
If you need assistance with the variance application process, contact John Sutter by phone
at 763-531-1142, or by Email at iohn.sutter(c)ci.crystal. mn.us.
I can be contacted by phone at 763-531-1141, or by Email at iack.molin(@ci.crystal.mn.us.
Sincerely,
City of Crystal
Building Safety Pivision
VIW
Jack Molin
Building Official
Enc.
CC: Patrick Peters
John Sutter
Jason Zimmerman
BUILDING SAFETY — Serving to help keep Crystal a safe place to live and work
i
ON ave -
k
!�v"'�, Y� -� �.e. cD,tiQ +;e ✓,�., .cam 1��?
EXHIBIT E
- M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 4, 2006
TO: Planning Commission (January 9, 2006 meeting)
FROM: Z -John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2005-16 for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to create a Special Area Plan for unaddressed Canadian
Pacific Railroad property north of the tracks and west of Douglas Drive,
together with 5153 Idaho Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
This Comprehensive Plan amendment would create a special area plan for the
nonconforming uses located on the north side of the Canadian Pacific Railroad tracks
west of Douglas Drive, together with 5153 Idaho Avenue North; and guide those areas
Industrial on the Future Land Use map (Figure 7 in the Comprehensive Plan).
The purpose of the amendment would be to facilitate possible improvement and limited
expansion of those existing business and industrial uses. This would be a change from
the city's policy for the area since the early 1990s, which has been to wait for forces of
nature to damage or destroy those uses to the point where they may not be re-
established. The reason we need to consider a new approach is because in 2004 the
Legislature changed the law to make it much less likely that those industrial uses will go
away unless they are purchased and demolished by the city.
A public hearing is required prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Post on December 29th and
mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photo showing the subject property and surrounding area
B. Staff's first draft of a resolution for Council consideration
B. STAFF COMMENTS
The draft resolution lays out the rationale, intent, and specific policy in the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Instead of merely repeating that information here,
staff asks that you review the draft resolution then consider the following items of
special concern that we feel should be part of the Planning Commission discussion:
COMP PLAN AMENDMENT - CPRR LAND WEST OF DOUGLAS
PAGE 1 OF 2
Should the city do this at all? Current regulations allow existing lawful non-
conforming uses to continue in their present form and extent, meaning that the poor
appearance and function of the site continue as well. The reason to adopt the
amendment is to provide an alternative that gives the property owner a way to
expand the existing uses or redevelop the site for new uses, provided the site
problems are corrected as part of their project. If the status quo is not seen as a
problem, the amendment may not be necessary.
■ Should 5153 Idaho be deleted from the Special Area Plan? This separately -platted
property is home to a cleaning company whose employees park their personal cars
there in the morning, drive company vans elsewhere for the workday, then return in
late afternoon. Outdoor storage is limited to the company vans; all equipment is
stored inside the building. The property already has a hard surfaced parking lot and
adequate access via Idaho Avenue. As a lawful non -conforming use, this can be
expected to comfortably continue in its present form and extent. Perhaps a better
approach would be to guide 5153 Idaho for Low Density Residential to match its
zoning classification. This would acknowledge that the present lawfully
nonconforming use already has the necessary site improvements to function well, is
a benign presence in the community, and can function indefinitely as it currently
exists. This is in marked contrast to the CPRR property, with its odd configuration,
multiple leaseholders, poor site conditions.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the enclosed draft resolution and special area plan, except that we
also seek the Planning Commission's concurrence to delete 5153 from the Special
Area Plan and instead change its future land use designation to Low Density
Residential. This would reinforce the idea that 5153 Idaho is a typical lawfully
nonconforming use in a residential area and therefore does not need to be included in
the Special Area Plan for the CPRR property.
If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation at this meeting, the City Council
will consider the resolution at its January 17, 2006 meeting.
COMP PLAN AMENDMENT - CPRR LAND WEST OF DOUGLAS
PAGE 2OF2
,perty Map
Give us your feedback or suggestions
Hennepin County Surveyor map products
yivlal-y
) Hennepin County Property Map
Gil
He
m
X
;elimage/hcpropertymap.aspx?PID=0811821130014 13.co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspx?PID=0811821:
PAGE 1 OF 5
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF CRYSTAL
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO ADD A SPECIAL AREA PLAN FOR NONCONFORMING USES
LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD
AND WEST OF DOUGLAS DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Crystal, as follows:
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2005, the City Council initiated an application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, said application would add a Special Area Plan for unaddressed Canadian
Pacific Railroad property (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0001), including the leased portions
thereof and improvements thereon, generally north of the Canadian Pacific Railroad
tracks and west of Douglas Drive; together with 5153 Idaho Avenue North (P.I.D. 08-
118-21-13-0014); and
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2005, the required Notice of Public Hearing was
published; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2006, the Planning Commission held the required public
hearing on the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2006, the Planning Commission forwarded the amendment
to the City Council with a unanimous recommendation for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CRYSTAL CITY COUNCIL:
That the Special Area Plan for Nonconforming Uses Located Directly North of the
Canadian Pacific Railroad and West of Douglas Drive, as approved by the
Planning Commission on January 9, 2006 and attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A, be adopted by reference and incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan as item (2) in section F(3)(e), Special Area Plans; and
2. That the land use classes shown in the Future Land Use Map be changed from
Parks and Conservation to Industrial, for the unaddressed Canadian Pacific
Railroad property (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0001), including the leased portions
thereof and improvements thereon, generally north of the Canadian Pacific
Railroad tracks and west of Douglas Drive, together with 5153 Idaho Avenue
North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0014).
G:IPLANNING1Applications12005116(CPRR west of Douglas -comp plan)12006.01.17-resolution.EX.
8
PAGE 2 OF 5
3. It is the stated intent and policy of the City of Crystal that no rezoning, conditional
use permit, site plan approval, or other similar city approval shall be granted by
the City Council for any structure, use or subdivision of land on the subject
property unless it is fully consistent with the Special Area Plan attached as
Exhibit A.
4. Absent such approval by the City Council, existing lawful nonconforming uses
may continue in their present form and extent subject to the provisions of City
Code Section 515.01 Subd. 8 ("Nonconforming Uses").
Adopted by the Crystal City Council this day of , 2006.
ReNae J. Bowman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janet Lewis, City Clerk
G:IPLANNINGIApplications12005116(CPRR west of Douglas -comp plan) 12006.01.17-resolution.doc
PAGE 3 OF 5
EXHIBIT A
2. Plan for Nonconforming Uses Located Directly North of the Canadian Pacific
Railroad and West of Douglas Drive.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Canadian Pacific Railroad property (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0001), including the leased
portions thereof and improvements thereon, generally north of the Canadian Pacific
Railroad tracks and west of Douglas Drive; together with 5153 Idaho Avenue North
(P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0014).
The subject property can generally be described as being approximately 100 feet wide
(north to south) and 1,800 feet long (east to west).
The property is currently guided for Parks and Conservation in the Comprehensive Plan.
It is currently zoned R-1 Low Density Residential.
BACKGROUND
Long before Crystal developed into a suburban community, parts of the subject property
were leased to various railroad -related facilities and businesses. In the years generally
following World War II and especially during the 1950s, the adjacent land north of the
subject property was developed for residential purposes. The business and industrial uses
have remained, although the non -railroad -related businesses have replaced the original
uses, and one business site (formerly Mel -O Honey) was significantly expanded during
the latter half of the 20th century.
Beginning with the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, the city's land use policy goal has been
the eventual elimination of business uses from the subject property and creation of a
buffer strip between the railroad tracks and the houses along the south side of 52nd
Avenue. The existing uses on the subject properties became lawfully non -conforming
uses upon adoption of the 1993 plan. From that point on, the existing uses could continue
in their existing form and extent, but could not expand, intensify, or make site
improvements; and upon being destroyed (i.e. by fire or wind) could not be rebuilt.
A 2004 act of the Legislature made this scenario much less likely, because lawfully non-
conforming uses may now be re-established as they currently exist even after being
destroyed. This means the city can no longer expect the existing uses to eventually be
eliminated by forces of nature or the passage of time. Furthermore the normal process by
which site improvements occur, i.e. being triggered by new construction, is prohibited
due to the non -conforming status of the current uses.
G:IPLANNINGOpplications12005116(CPRR west of Douglas -comp plan) 12006.01.17-resolution.doc
PAGE 4 OF 5
PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY OF SPECIAL AREA PLAN
The City Council adopted this Special Area Plan to establish an alternative approach that
would allow for limited expansion of business uses on the subject property while
ensuring that necessary site improvements are installed and maintained and impacts on
the adjacent residential area are minimized. Compliance with this Special Area Plan is
necessary if the property owner wishes to expand, intensify or change existing uses.
Compliance with this Special Area Plan is also necessary if the property owner wishes to
make site improvements that trigger a special land use application such as rezoning,
conditional use permit, or variance under Section 515 of city code, or site plan review
application under Section 520 of city code.
The alternative approach does not preclude continuation of the status quo. As before,
existing lawfully nonconforming uses may continue in their present form and extent
subject to the nonconforming use provisions of city code.
GUIDELINES FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES OR REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
1. The portion of the existing CPRR-owned parcel to be used for non -railroad
purposes shall be platted as a separate parcel from the railroad right-of-way. Of
this parcel, which currently extends to the centerline of Douglas Drive, at least the
east 40 feet shall be dedicated as public right-of-way for Douglas Drive.
If parts of the new parcel are to be used by separate businesses as quasi -private
properties in a manner similar to the status quo, then the new parcel must be
platted and rezoned as an industrial (I-1) planned development (PD) with each
quasi -private property clearly defined as a parcel on the plat, plus common
property containing access drives, landscape areas, drainage facilities, utilities,
and similar improvements. The planned development must also include
provisions for an association of the private owners to collectively own and
maintain the common property.
If a single use is proposed for then entire property, then rezoning to either C-2
General Commercial or I-1 Light Industrial would generally be appropriate and
consistent with this Special Area Plan. If a combination of uses is proposed, then
the proposed mixture of C-2 and I-1 uses must be specifically defined as part of a
Planned Development (PD) rezoning.
4. Any expansion of existing uses or redevelopment of the subject property shall be
compatible with adjacent land uses, including but not limited to issues of traffic,
parking, noise, hours of operation, buffering, screening, impervious coverage,
building size, form and materials. The City Council may deny such expansion or
redevelopment if it determines that the expansion or redevelopment is
incompatible with adjacent land uses.
G:IPLANNINGIApplications12005116(CPRR west of Douglas -comp plan)12006.01.17-resolution.doc
PAGE 5 OF 5
Due to access limitations and the embedded nature of the site, customer -intensive
commercial uses such as retail or medical office may not be appropriate unless
they are located on the eastern end of the site with direct visibility and clear
access to Douglas Drive.
The Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan limit automobile -related
businesses and similar uses to certain designated corridors within the city. The
subject property is not within one of these corridors. Therefore the following uses
are not permitted on the subject property: car washes and detailing shops; fueling
stations; motor/recreational vehicle repair; motor/recreational vehicle sales,
leasing or rental.
7. All of the normally applicable standards, requirements and regulations shall
apply, including but not limited to city code sections 505 (subdivision
regulations), 515.13 (performance standards), 515.17 (parking), 515.49 (C-2
district regulations), 515.53 (I-1 district regulations), 515.57 (PD district
regulations), 520 (site and building plan review), and 530 (stormwater
management).
8. Variances from normally applicable dimensional requirements, such as setbacks,
may be appropriate due to the narrow width of the site, its odd configuration, and
its odd history, provided the three-part undue hardship test found in city code
515.05 Subd. 2 a) can be met.
9. No building's height shall exceed any of the following: 3 stories, 40 feet, or the
building's setback from the east, west or north boundaries of the property.
10. Vehicular access shall only occur directly to and from Douglas Drive, except for
the existing 5153 Idaho parcel which may continue to use Idaho Avenue for
access because it has no frontage on Douglas.
11. Due to the long, narrow, isolated and embedded character of the site, adequate
lighting of access drives and similar areas must be provided to protect public
safety.
12. Due to the long, narrow, isolated and embedded character of the site, adequate fire
protection is essential to protect public safety.
13. The City reserves the right to deny any application for expansion of existing uses
or redevelopment of the subject property that it determines to be incompatible
with these guidelines or any other part of the Comprehensive Plan. The City
Council also reserves the right to impose conditions of approval for any such
application that it determines to be necessary to ensure compatibility with these
guidelines or any other part of the Comprehensive Plan.
G:IPLANNING14pplications12005116(CPRR west of Douglas -comp plan)12006.01.17-resolution.doc
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
December 5, 2005:
1. Approved Application 2005-13 for Lot Division at 4047 Douglas Drive North to detach the
west 88 feet of the property and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park.
The Council's action on this item was consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
CITY OF CRYSTAL
Development Status Report
December 30, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL - STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SPECIAL LAND USE APPLICATIONS:
Brunswick Villas (3148 Douglas). On December 6, 2004, the City Council approved
Brunswick Villas, a privately -initiated, 18 -unit townhouse project being built by SML
Land Development on the south side of 32 d between Douglas and Brunswick. During
summer 2005, the developer installed geo-piers (to deal with the poor soils on the site)
and the site improvements including water, sewer and private drives. Construction is
underway on the first six dwelling units; they will probably be completed by spring 2006.
Each unit will have three bedrooms, two bathrooms and 1,928 sq. ft. of finished space;
a front door and small porch facing north; and an attached two -car garage facing south.
The developer has indicated that each unit will probably sell for around $250,000. For
more information call Mike Thomas of SML Land Development at (763) 238-3282.
2. Crystal Aquatic Center (4800 Douglas). On June 21, 2005, the City Council approved a
site plan and conditional use permit for a full renovation of the city's municipal pool and
related structures. Construction is underway. The goal is for the facility to be
completed and re -opened in summer 2006.
3. Prescription Landscape (3231 Nevada & 7331 33rd). On August 16, 2005, the City
Council approved a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage as part of a
proposed landscaping business, subject to submittal of a site improvement plan that
must be reviewed and approved by city staff prior to commencement of outdoor storage.
4. Former Cavanagh Elementary School (5400 Corvallis). On August 16, 2005, the City
Council approved a one year extension of a previously issued interim, temporary
conditional use permit for the Highview Alternative Program, which moved into the
former Cavanagh Elementary School in late 2004. The extended CUP will expire on
September 30, 2006. Robbinsdale Area Schools has indicated they expect to submit a
permanent CUP request and site improvement plan by summer 2006.
5. 4532 Douglas - rear setback variance. On October 17, 2005 the City Council approved
a variance to reduce the rear setback allowing construction of a garage with a room
addition and deck above. Construction is underway.
6. 4047 Douglas - lot division for park expansion. On December 5, 2006, the City Council
approved a lot division to split off the west 88 feet of 4047 Douglas so it can be acquired
and added to the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Preserve. The lot division has been
recorded and the city's acquisition of the west 88 feet is expected to close in early 2006.
H:IDevelopmentStatusReportsl2005-4th quartendoc Page 1 of 3
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
7. Brunswick Fields. In the second half of 2003, the EDA purchased 4120, 4130 and 4140
Brunswick, each of which had a 100' wide lot. In the spring and summer of 2004, the
EDA demolished the existing structures and then replatted the site into four lots for new
house construction. Two of the new lots are 78' wide and two are 72' wide. In fall 2004,
the EDA sold the property to Al Stobbe Homes for $340,000, or $85,000 per lot.
1. 4142 Brunswick: Lot is 78' x 135'; house is a 2 -story with 3,877 sq. ft. (2,303
finished), 4 bedrooms, 2'/2 baths, and an attached 2 -car garage. The house is
nearly complete and a sale is pending for $430,000.
2. 4134 Brunswick: Lot is 72' x 135'; house is a 2 -story with 3,335 sq. ft. (2,164
finished), 3 bedrooms, 2'/2 baths, and an attached 2 -car garage. The house sold for
$379,900 in June 2005.
3. 4126 Brunswick: Lot is 78' x 135'; house is a 1'/2 -story with 4,482 sq. ft. (2,682
finished), 3 bedrooms, 2'/2 baths, and an attached 3 -car garage. The house sold for
$440,000 in May 2005.
4. 4118 Brunswick: Lot is 72' x 135'; house is a.2 -story with 3,880 sq. ft. (2,538
finished), 3 bedrooms, 2'/2 baths, and an attached 3 -car garage. The house sold for
$434,500 in September 2005.
8. 4700 Hampshire. In August 2005, the EDA purchased this property for $100,000. The
existing house, breezeway and garage were demolished in October 2005. The EDA sold
the lot to Feyereisen Construction in November 2005. They are building a 2 -story house
with 4,084 sq. ft. (2,349 finished), 3 bedrooms, 2'/2 baths, and an attached 3 -car garage.
Construction of the new house is expected to begin in early 2006 and must be completed
by August 2006.
9. 4424 Adair. In September 2005, the EDA purchased this property for $104,160. The
existing house and garage were demolished in November 2005. The EDA sold the lot to Al
Stobbe Homes in December 2005. They are building a 2 -story house with 3,051 sq. ft.
(2,597 finished), 4 bedrooms, 3'/2 baths, and a detached 2 -car garage. Construction of the
new house is expected to begin in early 2006 and must be completed by September 2006.
10.4300 Xenia. In December 2005, the EDA purchased this property for $115,000. The
existing house and garage will be demolished by spring 2006. The EDA expects to seek
proposals from builders in April 2006; select a builder in May 2006; and close on the sale of
the lot to the builder in June 2006. Construction of the new house is expected to begin in
summer 2006 and must be completed by spring 2007.
11.5817 36th. The EDA has entered into a purchase agreement for this house located on an
oversized lot that can be divided into two lots. Closing is expected in January 2006,
followed by demolition and lot division by spring 2006. The EDA would seek proposals
from builders in April 2006; select a builder in May 2006; and close on the sale of the lots to
H:lDevelopmentStatusReportsl2005-4th quarter.doc Page 2 of 3
the builder in June 2006. Construction of the new house is expected to begin in summer
2006 and must be completed by spring 2007.
12.43xx Zane. Over the last several years, the EDA has acquired and demolished four houses
in this area: 4306, 4310, 4326 and 4330 Zane. All are being land banked for possible
future redevelopment. In early 2006, the City Engineer will be studying the feasibility of an
alley paving project on this block. Depending on the outcome of that study, the EDA may
decide to move forward with the sale of these lots for new single family houses.
13. Highway 100 land use (excess right-of-way) In October 2004, the City Council amended
the Comprehensive Plan to designate appropriate land uses on parcels of excess right-of-
way adjacent to the new Hwy 100 freeway. In January 2005, the city's Economic
Development Authority made a formal redevelopment request to MnDOT to get the parcels
surveyed and appraised for possible purchase by the EDA. MnDOT says it is still
processing the request.
14. Thorson Redevelopment. In October 2005, the EDA purchased the former Thorson
Elementary School at 7323 58th Avenue North from Robbinsdale Area Schools. Abatement
of asbestos and other hazardous materials began in December 2005. General demolition
is expected to begin in February 2006. The EDA will have a consulting engineer prepare
the plat and infrastructure plans for presentation at a Planning Commission public hearing
in April 2006. During summer 2006, the infrastructure (street, water, sewer, etc.) would be
installed and the lot sale process would begin. Construction of the new houses would
begin by fall 2006. The EDA intends to redevelop the site for market -rate single family
houses on 10,000 sq. ft. lots. Lots would be sold using something similar to the EDA's
standard process for selling scattered site lots.
H:lDevelopmentStatusReportsl2005-4th quarter.doc Page 3 of3
SNOONLTN 1a11M 9ROo.i,,N CENTER '••�f'
.NEV No pi
p.r•w, p, �,�1
—'� 311
102D
li LIL,
N I i � r � i� � �..T „T •lo ' �...
) L � ' .mac �\� ����' '1 •
1 OUEl
Y
0
CITY _ �C'�
0 F
cc,.Y •n t.a
CRYSTAL CC�C� ,..... r,
AY�C 9ClCCC ,�HM
C
a U.mod o SCALE 000• rood n`��CC\\—
f1n�II'—�1I' f�''''�7] _I 0 0 noMe so.® .
aFl 0
;��?- •C
1I =
m
L¢
c�L
.�
®' --- _ ' S ' IC
...... CRISTA), -
,a I
-- DID
y -I! ---.o'L- C. L
ea.Nsoa�E
o
0J. 3 i
�'_
33
G040EN VALLET
i ;; •j` a!
1 I
-- --ylr�l
(on,
---- ---ji I ''' Ai
NEw Hop(
GoIOEN V.LEET
CONTAINS PRIVATE DATA - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Planning Commission for 2006
r
Title
First Name
:-Last Nri�es,;
Address
.City
State
Zip Code
Date Appointed
Phone:
Term
Expires
e-mail address
*Council
Liaison
E. Gary
Joselyn
4068 Hampshire Ave N
Crystal
MN
55427
01/03/2006
h- (763) 533-9659
n/a
gyioselvn hotmail.com
At -Large
Michelle
Strand
3430 Douglas Dr N
Crystal
MN
55422
07/02/2002
h- (763) 533-4675
2006
mstrand(@nationalmap.com
Ward 1
Joseph
Sears
3301 Yates Ave N
Crystal
MN
55422
07/02/2002
h- (763) 535-0485
2008
Ward 1
Tom
Davis
3342 Edgewood Ave N
Crystal
MN
55427
04/15/2003
h- (763) 533-1361
or w- (612) 879-3012
2006
Tom. Davis(abco.hennepin.mn.us
Ward 2
Paul
Whitenack
6424 - 40th Ave N
Crystal
MN
55427
08/02/2004
h - (763) 504-2888 or
w - (612) 677-7395
2008
paul.whitenackersparch.com
Ward 2
Rita
Nystrom
3618 Adair Ave N
Crystal
MN
55422
02/17/1987
h - (763) 533-0727
2007
Ward 3
Richard
VonRueden
5130 Vera Cruz Ave N
Crystal
MN
55429
06/01/1993
h - (763) 533-7280 or
w - (651) 770-2356
2008
Open-
Ward 3
2008
Ward 4
Angela
Brennan
6820 - 60th Ave N
Crystal
MN
55428
10/17/2005
h - (763) 533-4612 or
w - (612) 626-9594
2006
Ward 4
Jeff
Hester
5854 West Broadway
Crystal
MN
55428
02/17/2004
h- (763) 531-0669 or
w-(952)943-8359
2006
*The Council Liaison is not a voting member of the Planning Commission.
Staff: Patrick Peters Community Development Director
763) 531-1130atrick.
eters ci.c stal.mn.us
John Sutter Planner & Redevelopment Coordinator
(763) 531-1142
'ohn.sutter ci.c stal.mn.us
Jason Zimmermann Code Enforcement & Zoning Administrator
763) 531-1143
'ason.zimmermann ci.c stal.mn.us
Valerie Matthews Community Development Assistant
(763) 531-1072
valerie.matthews ci.c stal.mn.us
9 -member commission meets 2nd Monday of each month at 7 .m.. 2 Members from each Ward. 1 Member from City at Large.
I:\Com pns\Commissions.xls CONTAINS PRIVATE DATA �T FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 9/2005