2006.04.10 PC Work Session PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY
* WORK SESSION
April 10, 2006
(immediately following the regularly scheduled meeting)
Crystal City Hall - Conference Room A
4141 Douglas Dr N
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Planning Commission member introductions
2. Presentation regarding zoning law and the Planning Commission's role*
- Michael T. Norton, Kennedy & Graven
3. Recent, Current and Possible Future Development*
- City staff
4. Other
C. ADJOURNMENT
*Items for which supporting material will be included in the meeting packet
ZONING AND PLANNING
INTRODUCTION TO BASIC PRINCIPLES
Prepared for the Crystal Planning Commission
Stephen Bubul, City Attorney and Michael T. Norton, Assistant City Attorney
I. Authority of Cities to Zone Property: Where Does It Come From?
A. Constitutional Basis — Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
The United States Supreme Court held in Euclid that government could lawfully
adopt zoning regulations that restrict the use of property. The validity of such
regulations is based upon the police power of the government, if it is used for the
public welfare.
B. Statutory Basis.
Minnesota cities are authorized to plan and adopt zoning regulations and charge
fees pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act, which is contained in Chapter 462 of
the Minnesota Statutes. Three principal planning tools that the statute gives to
cities are:
The authority to adopt comprehensive plans.
Section 462.355 of Minnesota Statutes requires cities to adopt a
comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan "represents the planning
agency's recommendation for the future development of the community. "
2. The authority to zone property.
Section 462.357 grants the city the authority to adopt zoning ordinances.
The statute specifies the subjects that can be regulated to promote the
public health, safety and welfare, which include:
" ... the location, height, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size
of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be
occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and
distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade,
industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and
the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture,
forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of
shorelands, ... access to direct sunlight for solar systems ..., flood control
or other purposes... "
SJB-241327v1
CR205-30
3. The authority to adopt subdivision regulations.
Section 462.358 grants cities the authority to enact subdivision
regulations.
C. Ordinances: Implementation of the Authority to Zone
Through the adoption of ordinances, the city implements its authority to plan and
zone, consistent with the constitutional and statutory requirements. Crystal City
Code (CCC), §§ 515.01 — 515.69.
II. Planning Commission
A. Organization and form.
Section 305.29 of the City Code establishes the planning commission, to consist
of nine members appointed by the city council, as an advisory body to the city
council. Section 305.31 provides that the planning commission also serves as the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
B. Duties.
The planning commission has all the powers provided in state law and the city
code. Those duties include:
To prepare the comprehensive plan for council consideration; to
periodically review the plan and recommend amendments when necessary.
(Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 1)
To conduct at least one public hearing on the comprehensive plan or any
amendment thereof. (Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 2)
To study and recommend to the council reasonable and practicable means
for implementing the comprehensive plan, such as the adoption of zoning
ordinances, subdivision ordinances, capital improvement programs, etc.
(Minn. Stat. § 462.356, subd. 1)
- To conduct public hearings on proposed zoning ordinances or
amendments thereto. (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 3)
- To make recommendations to the city council regarding proposed zoning
ordinances. (Minn. Stat. § 462.357)
- To serve as the board of zoning appeals, including deciding appeals from
decisions made by the zoning administrator. (City Code § 305.3 1, Minn.
Stat. § 462.375, subd. 6).
- To hear requests for variances and make recommendations to the city
council. (Minn. Stat. § 462.357)
- To conduct hearings on conditional use permit applications and make
recommendations to the city council. (Minn. Stat. § 462.3595)
SJB-241327v2
CR205-30
To review site plans and building permit applications for uses other than
single family homes and duplexes. (City Code Section 520)
To hold public hearings on proposed plats and make recommendations to
the city council. (Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3b)
III. The Comprehensive Plan
A. What it is and how the city adopts it.
The comprehensive plan is a "compilation of policy statements, goals, standards,
and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development, both
private and public, of the municipality ...... (Minn. Stat. §462.352, subd. 5) It
includes several elements, including a land use plan, transportation plan, and
community facilities plan. In the metropolitan area, the comprehensive plan must
provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls
to ensure "p lanned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment
consistent with the comprehensive plan. " (Minn. Stat. §473.858, subd. 1)
B. Process for adopting and amending the comprehensive plan
1. Plan preparation. Typically, the planning commission, with the assistance
of staff, prepares the comprehensive plan. The city council, however, may
propose a comprehensive plan or amendments to the planning commission
by resolution. (Minn. Stat. §462.355).
2. Public hearing(s). The planning commission must hold at least one public
hearing on the plan or any amendment to the plan before adopting the plan
or any section or amendment of the plan. The notice of the public hearing
must be published once in the official newspaper at least 10 days prior to
the hearing. (Id, subd. 2).
3. Metropolitan Council Review. In the metropolitan area, cities must
submit their proposed plans to the metropolitan council following
approval of the planning commission and after consideration but before
final adoption of the plan by the city council. The Metropolitan Council
reviews the plan for consistency with metropolitan system statements.
Metropolitan cities' comprehensive plans must be consistent with the
metropolitan system statements. (Minn. Stat. §473.858).
4. Adoption. To adopt the comprehensive plan or amendments to the plan,
the city council must approve the plan or amendment by a two-thirds
majority vote. The council cannot adopt the plan or amendments until it
has received the planning commission's recommendation or until at least
60 days have passed from the date that the city council proposed an
amendment to the commission. (Minn. Stat. §462.355, subd. 3).
SJB-241327v2
CR205-30
C. Effect of the plan.
The plan is the policy statement for the future development of the city. In the
metropolitan area, however, cities are required to take steps to ensure that their
official controls (subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, capital improvement
programs, etc.) do not conflict with the comprehensive plan. If inconsistencies
exist, cities must either amend the plan or amend their official controls to remove
the inconsistencies. Metropolitan cities may not adopt any fiscal device or
official control that is in conflict with their comprehensive plans or that permit
activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans. (Minn. Stat. §473.858, subd.
1).
IV. Judicial Review of Zoning Decisions
A. General: Courts review zoning decisions to determine whether they are
reasonable under the facts and circumstances. A zoning decision will not be
overturned if there is a reasonable basis for the decision. Courts will overturn
decisions that are arbitrary or capricious -based on "whim or caprice." The City
normally acts in a "legislative" capacity when it conducts zoning activities, with
the result a court will review these decisions under a reasonableness standard.
See, Sun Oil v. Village of New Hope, 220 NW 2d, 256 (1974).
B. Zoning and Rezoning (CCC; §515.05, subd. 4).
1. Zoning and rezoning is normally a legislative act.
The City is formulating public policy..
Courts give cities greater latitude in this area --is the decision
reasonable.
2. Zoning decisions must be upheld unless it can be shown that the
classification is not supported by any rational basis relating to promoting
public health, safety, or welfare, or that it amounts to a taking of the
property without just compensation.
3. It is insufficient for an owner to show only that the property has been
devalued through a zoning change, or that the property would be more
valuable in another classification.
V. Conditional Use Permits or Special Use Permits and Variances.
A. Quasi -Judicial Zoning Act — City applies the ordinance standards to a particular
use.
SJB-241327v2
CR205-30 .
B. Conditional Use Permits — Standard is governed by the ordinance criteria, as
public policy is established by it. (CCC §515.05, subd. 3).
Follow ordinance criteria — public health safety and welfare are assumed
to be incorporated in the ordinance.
2. Examine the facts to determine compliance with the ordinance standards.
If the ordinance is satisfied, or can be complied with by the imposition of
conditions, the permit should be issued.
3. When a zoning ordinance expressly authorizes proposed use by
conditional use permit, denial must be for reasons relating to public health,
safety and general welfare, using the ordinance criteria as a guide, since a
conditional use is a permitted use, subject to the conditions stated in the
ordinance. Westling v. City of St Louis Park, 170 NW2d 218 (Minn.
1969).
C. Variances. The standard for granting or denying the variance is governed by the
criteria set forth in state statute and the ordinance. (Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 6
and CCC §515.05, subd. 2).
1. Variances, by definition, are the exception to the rule. Require finding of
"undue hardship," which exists where:
• Property owner wants to use the property in a reasonable way
otherwise prohibited by the ordinance.
• Circumstances not created by property owner
• Variance will not alter essential character of locality
• Economic considerations alone are not a hardship if a reasonable
use exists under the ordinance.
2. For all appeals and variances, commission must make written findings to
support the action consistent with the developed facts and legal standards.
3. Courts appear to give cities significant leeway in determining whether an
"undue hardship" exists. Where the hardship is solely economic, however, state
law prohibits the granting of a variance, as long as a reasonable use for the
property exists under the ordinance. If you find that the general rule under the
zoning code causes undue hardship to most properties, you should consider
amending the code rather than granting multiple variances. See, Sagstetter v. City
of St. Paul, 529 NW 2d, 488, 490 (Minn. App. 1995); Rowell v. Board of
Adjustment, 446 NW 2d, 917, 919 (Minn. App. 1989).
SJB-241327v2
CR205-30
VI. Procedure Before Planning Commission and Council
A. Proceedings before the commission and council, including reports, exhibits,
discussions, and testimony, are the evidence relied upon by the court.
B. While new evidence can be submitted at trial, additional evidence can be offered
only where there is good cause why the evidence was not submitted to the city.
C. Cases require both the city and landowner or developer to "lay their cards on the
table" so the city can make a decision with all information available. See,
Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 NW2d 307 (Minn. 1988).
If additional time is needed to respond to issues raised, table the matter to
allow for the presentation of all of the evidence, whether this is from the
city, the landowner, the developer, or opponents of an application. Caveat:
remember that you must comply with the 60 -day law.
D. The procedure requires that the planning commission and the city council be
thoroughly prepared for the hearing.
1. Allow all parties to fully present information.
2. Thoroughly study and review the planning reports.
3. Know the reasons for granting or denial of the request.
4. Clearly state the reasons for a decision when making a motion. Planning
staff typically prepares a written report and recommended findings in each
matter coming before the commission. If you believe the staff report
contains sufficient information to support your decision, you should
reference the staff report in the motion, for example, "...including the
findings of fact and conditions of approval contained in the staff report."
If the commission disagrees with the staff findings and recommendation,
the motion should include specific findings of fact and, if applicable,
conditions of approval. The commission may postpone the matter if
necessary to draft its findings.
E. What not to do at the hearing.
1. Do not make "off the cuff' comments unrelated to land use issues that
could damage the city's position.
2. Do not shoot from hip in stating reasons for denial.
3. Do not make a quick decision if new evidence comes out at the hearing.
The matter can be tabled to prepare a thorough response to new matters --
SJB-241327v2
CR205-30
raised by the applicant or the parties opposing the application, subject to
compliance with the 60 -day law, of course.
VII. Commonly Heard Arguments.
A. The decision being made will reduce the value of my property and result in a
taking.
Thumbnail sketch of takings law. A regulation adopted by a state or political
subdivision constitutes a "regulatory taking" in two situations:
A categorical taking occurs if the regulation destroys the entire value of
the property. In such a case, a governmental entity must compensate the
property owner.
2. In those instances where a regulation diminishes, but does not destroy, the
value of property, a, taking can still occur based on the facts and
circumstances of each case. In making this type of determination, courts
look at such things as: (a) the nature of the regulation; (b) the extent to
which the regulation impacts the value of the property; and (c) the
legitimate investment -backed expectations of the property owner. Judicial
review of each takings claim is a highly fact intensive exercise.
B. Your decision may later be determined by a court to be a "precedent," particularly
where you make a decision affecting a number of properties. It is important to
treat similarly situated properties similarly. In most instances, differences exist
between zoning applications that may justify different treatment. Courts also
recognize that circumstances change with the passage of time, and time alone may
be a sufficient basis (from a legal perspective) to distinguish two different
applications. As a practical matter, it is important to articulate reasons and the
factual basis for making zoning decisions, so that distinguishing facts are
identified in the planning commission and city council records.
VIII. The 60 -Day Law
A. Decisions subject to the 60-daylaw. The 60 -day law applies to written requests
for a permit, license or other government approval related to zoning, septic
systems, or the expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. This means it
applies to requests for rezoning, conditional use permits, variances, and probably
comprehensive plan amendments. It does not apply to subdivision approvals,
which have their own specific time limits.
B. Starting the Clock. The 60 days do not begin to run until a completed application
is received. However, the law deems any application to be complete (at least for
purposes of starting the clock) unless the city within 15 business days after receipt
SJB-241327v2
CR205-30
notifies the applicant that the application is not complete and specifies what
information is missing.
C. Extensions of the 60 -day Period.
1. The 60 days is automatically extended if a state or federal law or a court
order requires a process to occur before the city acts on the request.
(Example: EAW or EIS is required.) In that case, the deadline is
extended until 60 days after the process is completed. (E.g., 60 days after
a determination that an EIS is adequate.)
2. The city can extend the deadline for an additional 60 days by giving
written notice to the applicant before the initial 60 -day period expires.
The written notice must give a reason for the extension and the length of
the extension.
3. The city can extend the deadline for more than an additional 60 days, if
the applicant agrees. It is preferable, but not required to get the
applicant's consent to such an extension in writing.
D. Denial. If the application is denied, the city must state the reasons for denial in
writing at the time the request is denied, and provide the applicant with the
statement of reasons for the denial. The reasons in the written statement must be
consistent with the reasons stated on the record for denial. Resolutions with
written findings are therefore preferred on most applications subject to the 60 -day
law. When a vote on a resolution or motion to approve a request fails, the failure
constitutes a denial, provided that those voting against the motion state on the
record the reasons why they oppose the request. A denial because of failure to
approve a resolution or motions doesn't preclude an immediate submission of the
same or similar request.
E. Effect of Missing the Deadline. An application that is subject to the 60 -day law is
deemed automatically approved unless the city approves or denies the application
within the 60 -day period or extended period.
SJB-241327v2
CR205-30
U)
-f-j
0
J
U
M
U
m
Sale Locations:
• 2005
0 1999-2004
0.25 0.5 Miles N
L M
A
T—
Ci
City of Crystal
4141 Douglas Dr N
Crystal MN 55422
voice: 763-531-1000
facsimile: 763-531-1188
internet: www.ci.crystal. mn us
To: EGA / City Council
cc: Planning Commission
From: '$John Sutter
Date: April 4, 2006
Subject: Redevelopment of the former Thorson Elementary School (7323 58th) - status
update and progress report
Hazardous materials abatement is now complete, except for the underground storage tank
which will be removed as part of the general building demolition. Landwehr will begin general
demolition work on April 5th and they must have it completed by June 19th, although they may
get it done sooner. Infrastructure installation would begin after demolition is complete.
The engineering firm of Schoell & Madsen is preparing the preliminary plat materials for
submittal to the Planning Commission on May 0 and the City Council on May 16th. At this
point only a grading concept and address map have been completed. Due to the anticipated
drainage areas requiring less land than previously thought, it now appears that the site can be
replatted into 16 lots while maintaining a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. This would be
consistent with the minimum lot size contemplated by the EDA at its October 17, 2005 and
January 3, 2006 meetings, although those scenarios only yielded 14 lots because a larger
ponding area was assumed.
Staff intends to ask the EDA to approve a marketing plan for the lots at its June 6th meeting.
At this time, we think the lots could be marketed using a variation of the EDA's scattered site
lot sale process. It would probably make sense to split up the 16 Thorson lots into two
batches: Lots 1-8 on the east side of the street would be offered beginning in late June; and
Lots 9-16 on the west side of the street would be offered beginning in early August. To
accommodate builders of different sizes, we would probably offer the lots in one group of four,
one group of three, one group of two, and seven singles.
Please keep in mind that all of this information (including the attachments) is preliminary,
tentative and subject to change.
HCPropee jap1 "age 1 of 2
Hennepin County Property Map Jj Give us your feedback or suggestions
Hennepin Count Surveyor map products
�► How to use Map
-1� 721s
C ut ■ . r► r ^ ` -722:1
.. r v
To zoom in farther, clic
t
the zoom bar. (Lot dime
L
t�
---��,.
Its
�► ti
r, For quicker respc
-
� information on st,
f,.; , a 'Recenter on clicl
T
f
Show:
F
r-, s�.32 +57a1 3 �Aerial Photos I
printi° w _. 04* Aerials I
5T 3
z7A.., City Names
,.
Vv
w
R Street Names
RAddress Numt
ac a s lot r a i J
Recenter 40
on click --�1 t J *Mpls. aerials south of F
®' Yes from 2003
"�
a' �.
No
_ Lot lines different f
4 ,
r t.. V
Last update: 2/24/2006 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for detailed information on_t_h_is parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Perimeter Approximate Property Area
05-118-21-31-0004 2,184 ft. 250,233 sq.ft. = 5.74 acres
Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2006)
http://wwwl 3.co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspx?PID=0511821310004 04/04/2006
40* � 20o_57 .5.evey
' .
- ----•.aa,. w,rs.rtn a; Ansa •aa iio Zm-'-----------------
... . .
N 00"03'12" E 797.76
................... ..,,,; -..-.:r
.- .........-.......
-
...................� - aro., u.. ".. -
6T.�
- . ... ....
NEVADA AVE f
,� ,�
,z,>
q
..._.
�.
Is
.�
– ...... • e • n
a
� ,_.e.r- e7s- ,P` -w,.. t
: P AFEA r
y'.ar o e.�
P •
r�
l
.•�` � � B . S.•
•a� y
�.
S
• ^ - � i°z°r,"`
_ _ _ - _ .ni•{ r,.,
�
-•.. .L
e
a,,
u
'a
E
Nf
--. — m_% 1�.
r. �= m . —
•`
d
s .
w .. 9
s• 8--
Wx ; ,e•T...�
{I
L
sl
.�
"i mg's •
E•
—
Z' --'-s �.. - -� .....• Y.�'66 A—
.,e-..,
nures o
p
CID
= f col
z f1J
ri rwr
.in•rw• � ' - �'�'��.: ee"..,.� � �
€ ,r
e
• .�- e,s.^ Fun tNR^' �
' � V6 1
emv� _
CO
c. r•
r !a l_J-l_f t� t
5:
- -
_ _ -
a VIII
• ,, T� „ •i
`
L 1 ISI I i I .I .I. l J .I I I I I I
z',•. ........................----`-•
OREGON AVE
a �"–•..... .: . ,� 00'00°
�
-^ _-�•• A-
....:'..~ .4r
I
4 ea -
•..
\\—tMrta.atl. WlRattl 9; A,s8�smAsim Nn }/a
�a�
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
q,e�f
-
�
I ...._.-e.:
.
..........................:..
Te Eml,e„k Oe+ekm".t APbllya Oe QIYa<oY>sel mtl ON Beetle Neeaml Ta!
hsuence Cmpe,y,
LegalNogh Desodpo0n:
Tl:e isbmaNR®(pyx „ap ePa am m-suv imeMrl, Obaumxee naaeN
�rdn.srM •4aN,nm9my,d Odea 6aC,dteriebfe Lam T-ne bL•*Y4•
fJoM 6 acres of the West 12 Of Lot 32, ywdilors
Subdl ion No. 726. F1em,ephi (bumY. 0.Gnnesota.
109.P
Io91sI eet+Ofid,m and adopted &tyAlT0. MSM em N6P6 M 1999. R M- ro me Amrary
Heme,ec o adopted MALTA, MPS. em ACfiA1 era b Mb m ms de of Ods mll6®tim,
SCALE PI FEET
Legal desMptNat and Easemerds s per Tub Carnmmnmt Gem
,aaeYPad tuda eatif mel Pae'W Ppumeae, YrsmsreNe- era-o--zvwy
pesmrm A. er,gpyedmndeto aRegogre fo,& M mme oJlreaNaf
•lu6dmmAn•e, Hs4rta,end[uonee RaO,dnneb la HrveyMueeernr6 WNca ceaa tem
Co
Old PepuNk t�tional Title lr,surenee Company. AppRcetion No. OR
- Spvaa,ksb ALTAIACAA1am TAe snaya'
0
20 40 BD
120 1032610-C, dabd May 30, 2005.
Wdd tlustWdoy rJW.7 -' '-'-
'-
Area of Panxl = 6.000A— Including Road
o
Denotes Iron MOm meld
LU4 Infom,adon from as bufft do—ings prWded by the Gly of Crystal
M1Se,eeom llmee N,rtaar 2174
Property ldmdl5c.boo Numher 05-116-21-31 -0004 ,a Aa,e re,
1pm
PREPARED BY= ALTA/ACSM LAND LAND TITLE SURVEY
TI.K
Pn C— f
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC_
CITY OF CRYSTAL
W any—a.atm ekoallG phwStye
One for uOOty locations, Phone 651 - 454 -60D2-
LAND SURVEYORS
) )3RD AVE NO 7323 58TH AVENUE
R YN MN 55126
PARK
PKVI
o
V" %rlaow CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA
�1
F.
F Ld��
QaAae )1%6
�N '�1eP28UMINA�Y712
I i,, C if me Wti2 of lot 32, AW lt— SWbdivlsion Na. YLB -�' �"" \ •,,,. •' o
00'0 2" E 797.76
NEVADA AVE o'� i
_ ...,.. I -an- I I n^+w I Tto.----ye•, "��u
+ T
l �f �,nMn 2 1 3 :rid
I I ttF'1 n.z I I . 0�e----I `\
If
3795 I� \\�a \ \
t� s
> I I FBS I I I FB I I FB I Lo ,�o � 9�..�,F FB �1 I� BB ��\ \\ �� 0 3e
$ , t o00 •gyma ee .s I aei2 s ,l Irk* \� � I 'i » o
Ni z a>
ch a i
� alno 1 �- I sLo
semo
IPI 7323—
eFa2Bs,rae+. eazBs I II eeI I b �5i• \\ \ \A1 • !
02
FB FI II
Iii I I I f dl s,.o I II aa�t^ ^I T +•. P II. o\ V \ I/ (! II I n
� I II
41 , za°e ;aro Lu i I I a \\ III
11
OREGON AVE° t
.sfll-ot.h,W+!2 e+Lo122. Autlltors Sul _I i�vo� 4a. .^2G —1y�r
MAP
�— N �Ic P2$U wt i uh2Y�lc
-- - --- --
I F-
I
9752.. 5.74% a�7qO I 5'73`f .726 57,2
- --- - N° 9
57,ft7 57 5735 5'7Ml 572-3
POND 15 15 13 12
10
11
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Land Use C18SS@S: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Future
Land
Use
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
MIXED USE TOWN CENTER
City of Crystal Comprehensive Plan
MIXED USE W. BROADWAY/HWY81
INDUSTRIAL
CRYSTAL AIRPORT
Figure 7
PARK& CONSERVATION
HIGHWAY 100 PROJECT
0
0.3 0.6
Miles
RAIL RIGHT OF WAY
m„.',� °�; °,;,�`
!'IN
egend:
County Road 81 Potential Redevelopment & Rehab. Areas
West Broadway
Parking Lot S. of Crystal Shoping Center N City of Crystal Comprehensive Plan
Welcome Park / 42nd Ave.
Douglas Dr. S. of 36th Figure 8
Nafstad/Gale Area
Hwy. 100 Reconsruction 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
ragM/.1M.. C.MMIMY
X81
CRYSTAL AIRPORT POSITION PAPER
Prepared by the City of Crystal
Revised 0 1 -27-06
City of Crystal
CITY CRYSTAL 4141 Douglas Dr N
Crystal MN 55422
Phone: 763-531-1000 Fax: 763-531-1188
Web Site: www.ci.crystal.mn.us
1. Background
A unique opportunity is at hand for the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the
region. The facts suggest that closure of the Crystal Airport (MIC) is the alternative that
best responds to the true needs of the region, particularly in light of:
■ Dramatically diminishing number of flight operations;
■ Reduction in the number of tenants and the possibility of even fewer tenants due to
the 2005 increase in tenant rates and charges;
■ Ongoing operation and maintenance deficits;
■ Continued risks to the safety and well-being of neighborhood residents;
■ Impediments to airport expansion;
■ Excess general aviation capacity within the metropolitan airport system;
■ Available alternatives for plane storage and operations; and
■ Questionable benefits afforded the region by a recreational and training airport.
ll. Crystal Airport - Facility Overview
• The airport property, owned by the MAC, consists of over 430 total acres, with
approximately 330 acres in Crystal, 80 in Brooklyn Park and 20 in Brooklyn Center
■ Its classification as a minor airport defines its function as a secondary reliever for the
greater metropolitan airport system.
■ The MAC identifies MIC as a recreational and training airport ("...primarily a facility for
propeller aircraft, designed to meet the needs of private and recreational pilots.')
■ Runway lengths are 3266', 3263', 2499' and 2122'. These lengths preclude
operations by larger aircraft.
■ In the early years, the airports commission did not acquire sufficient land on the
airport's perimeter to provide for safety zones that would have precluded the
development of conflicting land uses. As a result, MIC is surrounded on all sides by
single-family neighborhoods. Safety Zones A and B, where residential development
is normally precluded or restricted to protect life and property in case of accident, are
filled with homes (approximately 90 single family homes and seven 4-plexes lie
within Safety Zone A and approximately 225 single family homes within Zone B).
■ Runway expansion appears to be financially impractical and highly unlikely due to
local land use constraints and the high cost of acquisition and clearance of
properties within the safety zones.
1
III. Crystal Airport — Operations & Economics (sources: MAC, FAA, MnDOT)
■ Annual flight operations at the airport declined by 58% between 1995 and 2005
(from 171,478 to 71,704).
■ 2005 operations were down another 5% when compared to 2004.
■ 2005 operations of 71,704 are at 42% of the total operations in 1964 (124,064).
• There was a 20% decrease in the number of aircraft based at MIC between 1995
and 2006 (327 to 260).
■ There was a nearly 800% increase in the number of non-use aircraft from 2000-2005
(4 in 2000, to 31 in 2006).
■ Avg. annual revenue, 1995-2004: $157,000
■ Avg. annual operating expenses, before depreciation, 1995-2004: $597,238
■ Avg. annual net operating deficit, 1995-2004: ($290,542)
■ Avg. annual deficit, with depreciation, 1995-2004: ($496,658)
IV. Crystal City Policy
At over 430 acres, MIC represents the largest expanse of underutilized land area within
Hennepin County's inner ring communities, and it is surrounded by residential
development. Single-family homes occupy much of Safety Zones A and B, where
residential development is normally precluded or restricted to protect life and property in
the case of accident. The city's official position is that this represents a significant risk to
life, property and aviation safety. The Crystal Comprehensive Plan maintains that airport
operations and residential neighborhoods in such close proximity create problems for
both the airport and area residents. The city asserts that airport operations should
cease to ensure public safety and to provide land for mixed-use residential, commercial
and light industrial redevelopment.
The transportation chapter of the city's plan for 2000-2020 concludes that while
operations at the airport might continue for the timeframe of the document, the city
would support its closure and redevelopment if MAC decides to do so. The plan also
affirms city opposition to any expansion of the airport and acknowledges the city's intent
that the airport property ultimately be redeveloped for uses other than aviation.
The city's plan contends that redevelopment of MIC would be consistent with the 2030
Regional Framework goals of the Metropolitan Council for enhanced population and
employment growth within the existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
6
V. Metropolitan Council's 2030 Regional Development Framework
The Metropollitan Council's 2030 Regional Development Framework includes key goals
and strategies that are applicable to the redevelopment of underutilized properties
within the developed portion of the metropolitan area:
■ Maximize the effectiveness and value of regional services and infrastructure
investments. Developed communities are expected to accommodate about 30
percent of new households and about half of jobs created through 2030. It makes
economic sense for the region to make investments in and offer incentives for
reinvestment and infill to these communities. We must take full advantage of the
enormous investment that has been made in the regional highway system and
sanitary sewer infrastructure.
■ Encourage reinvestment in older areas to create transit -oriented centers along
transportation corridors. For the metropolitan transit and transportation system,
putting growth where the infrastructure to support it already exists and where there
already is convenient access to transportation options means that roads will not
have to be built. Providing transportation options that include fast, convenient transit
services means freeway lanes will not have to be added. By reinvesting in
underused land and maintaining existing infrastructure, the region can accommodate
growth while at the same time slow the rate of increase in traffic congestion, ease
development pressures on rural land, save billions of dollars in sewer, water and
road construction costs, and strengthen the vitality of developed communities.
A SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
MAC staff has stated that there is more than sufficient airside capacity within the system
to support relocation of airside capacity from Crystal but have identified aircraft storage
needs as a key factor for keeping MIC operational. Continuing to operate a 430+ acre
public airport for aircraft storage does not appear to be in the best interests of the
region, particularly when there are reasonable options available for the operation and
storage of recreational aircraft. Aircraft storage alternatives include:
■ Additional hangar space within the MAC system is planned for the north and east
sides of the Anoka County/Blaine Airport in the near future.
■ Plans for Flying Cloud include developing a new aircraft hangar area on the south
side of the airport.
■ Plans at Airlake include new hangars in the southwest corner of the airfield.
■ Corporate hangar development is planned for St. Paul Downtown Airport.
■ Outside of MAC's system, there are 18 public airports with hard -surfaced runways
within 60 miles of MIC. A 2005 telephone survey of the managers at those airports
indicate over 700 acres of land are available for construction of private hangars.
3
Vll. Expectations
The city expects that the deliberations by the Commission on the future configuration of
its reliever system:
■ Will include a discussion of whether MAC's stated mission of promoting general
aviation (GA) should remain a public responsibility; and if so, whether that
responsibility is necessarily synonymous with an obligation to provide, maintain and
fund its existing minor airports within the region for use by the GA community,
without regard to the actual need for such facilities.
■ Will include a thoughtful consideration of all facts and alternatives when assessing
MIC's future, and not just a consideration of information that promotes continuing
operations at MIC as the sole option.
■ Will include consideration of the broader public benefits presented by the
replacement of aviation activities at MIC with higher and better uses.
■ Will ultimately conclude in a decision that will reflect sound public policy and an
understanding of MAC's responsibility to the greater good. Consideration of the
broader interests of the entire region should resonate in that decision.
Vlll. Prospects
Closure and redevelopment of Crystal Airport:
■ Demonstrates responsible management of a regional asset if that asset no longer
serves the region's best interests, operates perennially at a deficit and functions
primarily as a recreational and training facility for a relatively limited number of
general aviation hobbyists. In the interest of the region, the MAC has an obligation to
either A) justify the airport's continued operation and subsidization as a regional,
public facility, or B) acknowledge that its closure and redevelopment better serves
the greater public good.
■ Eliminates safety risks and security concerns and protects surrounding
neighborhoods.
■ Epitomizes the regional goal of reinvesting in underutilized land and maximizes the
effectiveness and value of regional infrastructure, with regional highway and sewer
improvements and transit investments as principal catalysts for such activity.
■ Offers the region its greatest opportunity for meaningful and long-lasting change --
change that would redefine the character of northwest Hennepin County and
dramatically enhance opportunities for significant employment, housing and
population growth.
0