2006.06.12 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY
June 12, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Crystal City Hall — Council Chambers
4141 Douglas Dr N
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• May 8, 2006 regular meeting*
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider Application 2006-07 for a Variance to allow a 2nd curb cut at 4425
Jersey Avenue North.*
2. Consider Application 2006-08 for a Variance to allow a 2nd curb cut at 4207
Georgia Avenue North.*
3. Consider Application 2006-09 for a Variance to reduce the north setback for a
parking lot at 4755 Welcome Avenue North.*
4. Consider Application 2006-10 for a Variance to reduce the east setback at 6019
38th Avenue North.*
5. Consider Application 2006-11 for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
for a building addition at 5170 West Broadway.*
6. Consider Application 2006-12 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change
the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential for part of 3420 Nevada Avenue North.*
D. OLD BUSINESS
E. NEW BUSINES S
F. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. City Council actions on recent Planning Commission items*
2. Staff preview of likely agenda items for July 10, 2006 meeting
G. OPEN FORUM
H. ADJOURNMENT
*Items for which supporting material will be included in the meeting packet
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION
May 8, 2006
A. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 pm with
the following members present: Sears, Davis, Whitenack, VonRueden, Hester, and
Strand. Also present for the city were Council Liaison Joselyn, and the following
staff. Matthews, Sutter and Zimmermann.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Strand and seconded by Commissioner Whitenack to
approve the minutes of the April 10, 2006 regular meeting and work session.
Motion carried.
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider Application 2006-05 for Site Plan Review to build a funeral home a
5125 West Broadway
Mr. Zimmermann summarized the staff report and outlined the conditions for
approval
Commissioner Whitenack questioned whether there would be a sale of urns or
interment. Bill McReavy stated that cremated remains may be placed there but each
space would be covered by a granite plate. Commissioner Whitenack asked what
would happen when the building would be demolished. Bill McReavy stated that the
buildings are designed to be long lived, and they have 3 others just like this. Bill
McReavy described the history of the business.
Public Hearing opened.
Public Hearing closed.
Moved by Commissioner Strand and seconded by Commissioner Hester to
recommend to City Council to approve . Application 2006-5 for Site Plan Review to
build a funeral home at 5125 West Broadway.
Findings of fact area as outlined in the staff report.
Motion carried
2. Consider Application 2006-06 for Preliminary Plat of Thora Thorson
Addition at 7323 58th Avenue North.
Mr. Zimmermann summarized the staff report and stated that the findings of facts are
as outlined in the staff report. `.
Public Hearing opened.
Richard LaReau of 5649 Nevada Avenue North spoke about his concern regarding
drainage from Lot 8, and he also asked what a dry pond was. Mr. Sutter clarified what
a dry pond was and explained how the drainage would work with this project. Mr.
LaReau state that he was concerned about the chain link fence and what would be
done with it. Mr. Sutter stated that at this point the EDA had not planned to do
anything about the fencing unless specific neighbors requested that it be removed.
Mr. Sutter also stated that now would be a good time for the neighbors to come
forward and address their concerns about the fencing.
Wayne Will of 5732 Pennsylvania Avenue North questioned whether the fence he put
up is on his property or would be on the newly platted properties. He also questioned
why the number of lots went from 14 lots to 17 lots. Mr. Sutter stated that according
to the survey his fence is on his property and that the number of lots changed because
the initial estimate of land needed for the dry pond changed, which allowed for more
land to be used for the lots. Mr. Rowe asked whether Xcel Energy would be putting
the utilities underground. Mr. Sutter stated that the EDA had let the utility companies
know that the City of Crystal prefers underground utilities. Mr. Rowe asked about lot
prices, new house prices, and style of new houses. Mr. Sutter answered that the lot
prices would be set by the market, probably $75,000+, new house prices would
probably be >$300,000 approaching $400,000 on some lots, and most of the homes
will probably be 2 stories. At Chair Davis suggestion Mr. Sutter announced the
EDA's June 6th meeting date so the public could learn more about the marketing of
the lots.
Deb Corby of 5716 Pennsylvania Avenue North asked if a fence was going to be put
on the border with PPL. Mr. Sutter stated that the old bituminous trail will be
removed as part of this project, and that the city is hoping that PPL will remove the
remainder of it on their property. Mr. Sutter stated that he will bring the issue of
constructing fencing along the south lot line to the June 6th EDA meeting for
discussion. Mr. Sutter stated that if the public is unable to attend the meetings, they
should know that they can email or call the city to express their concerns to be sure
they get conveyed at the meeting.
Greg Raetz of 5717 Nevada Avenue North expressed his concerns about the grading
and drainage towards his property. Mr. Sutter explained that there will be a few
different methods used for drainage in this project, and explained how they would be
used. Mr. Reatz asked if any of the existing trees would remain in this project, and if
Qwest was going to do anything about existing problems with the lines. Mr. Sutter
stated that that is unlikely any trees would be able to be saved and suggested that if
any residents are having trouble with the utilities, now would be a good time to call
before they start their work the for the project.
Kathy Will of 5732 Pennsylvania Avenue North asked what a Swale is and Mr. Sutter
clarified for her.
Richard LaReau of 5649 Nevada Avenue North stated he also has
problems with trash coming onto his property from PPL, and suggested a
fence might be a good selling point for the new properties.
Greg Reatz of 5717 Nevada Avenue North asked which side of the
property line is his fence on. Mr. Sutter replied that it is on his side of the
property line. Mr. Sutter offered to send an enlarged copy of the survey to
the neighbors that requested it. Six did so.
Public Hearing closed.
Mr. Zimmermann summarized an email that he received today from Pizza
Hut in New Hope. The email expressed their concern about having to
change their hours because of the new project. Mr. Zimmermann sated
that Crystal would not have jurisdiction over a New Hope business and the
hours that it is open.
Moved by Commissioner VonRueden and seconded by Commissioner
Hester to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2006-06
for Preliminary Plat of Thora Thorson Addition at 7323 58th Avenue
North.
Findings of fact are as outlined in the staff report.
Motion carried
D. OLD BUSINESS
11-1
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. GENERAL INFORMATION
Mr. Sutter stated that there will be two variances at the June meeting for a second
curb cut from the Phase 8 Street Project.
G. OPEN FORUM
H. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Strand seconded by Commissioner Whitenack to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
Chair Davis
Secretary Strand
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 7, 2006
TO: Planning Commission (June 12th meeting)
FROM: ohn Sutter, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application 2006-07 for a Variance to allow a 2nd curb cut
at 4425 Jersey Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
The house on the subject property has an east -facing one -car attached garage
accessed via an existing driveway from Jersey Avenue. There is also a detached
garage located in the rear yard accessed via an existing driveway from 45th Avenue.
The house including the attached garage was built in 1959. The detached garage was
built in 1971. Second curb cuts were prohibited beginning in 1976.
During its review of existing driveways for the Phase 8 street reconstruction project,
staff noted that the second curb cut is needed to continue providing access to both of
the existing garages. Because the city's policy is to construct the street project in
compliance with city code, staff advised the property owner that the street project could
not install both curb cuts unless a variance is granted by the City Council. The property
owner has requested a variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow a second curb cut to
be installed as part of the street project.
Notice of the June 12, 2006 public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350
feet of the subject property on May 30, 2006.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photo showing the location of the property.
B. 2004 map showing contours, existing buildings and driveways.
C. Photos of the site taken June 7, 2006.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
Since 1976, city code has not allowed more than one curb cut per single family house,
or, by extension, additional garages if they require an additional curb cut for access.
However, when the detached garage was built on the subject property there was no
such prohibition. If the street project does not install the second curb cut, access to a
lawful nonconforming structure would be denied. Staff believes this would constitute an
undue hardship, and therefore a variance would be appropriate.
VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT - 4425 JERSEY
PAGE 1 OF 2
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.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Approve the requested variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow installation of
a second curb cut.
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 continuing use of the
existing lawfully nonconforming detached garage and driveway in the rear yard. The
second curb cut and driveway across the boulevard are necessary for access to the
existing lawfully nonconforming detached garage and driveway in the rear yard.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property.
Specifically, the detached garage became lawfully nonconforming in 1976 when the
city amended its code to prohibit second curb cuts.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Each
curb cut would be on a different street, and would be located a sufficient distance
from other properties' curb cuts to provide a separation on each street basically
indistinguishable from what is typically found between curb cuts for two separate
single family houses in Crystal.
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 - 2ND CURB CUT - 4425 JERSEY
PAGE 2 OF 2
HCProperf--"Iap
Hennepin County Property Map
F1
Y1
911.
Give us your -feed back- or suggestions
Hennepin County_ Surveyor map products
w
Recenter
on click
'*'Yes
M
X
Z
C
Last update: 2/24/2006 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for detailed_ information_ on this parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Approximate Property
Perimeter Area
17-118-21-12-0045 440 ft. 11,341 sq.ft. = 0.26 acres
—fe I o€2
How to use Map
For quicker respc
information on su
'Recenter on clict
Show:
n Aerial Photos t
* 2004* Aerials I
City Names
Street Names
❑� Address Numt
❑ Lot Dimension
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
T
N
http://wwwl3.co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropei-tymap.aspx?PID=1711821120045 05/24/2006
X 0
x 909.4 I 911.2 0 x
�II 0
IW 910J 912.6 I 0 I f `)
LL,
909.6 I x
o II
Q x 909.7 O x Q
910.2
I
9/O I
g10 I
/ 9r.4j j 910.5
I� 0 x / i
x 910.3
911.2 x
x — — —t—
m x • sow• MAW 0110- 910.4 --- x
x x 910.4 �
\ x x x 911.1
911.5 x
_ 911.4 2
\ � x
910.6
911.6 — M
._
909.7
x 909.9
��� f- n 2 I �1 nen n
� �t •' �4 .. , � � � � �' .. � '•�} ,y° y�,�4 4 ��}i.T aL���i} r�`�us'a
r +.
� y f � •. � 4t � ""3 r T lg w
N1 • . w.
sa
+ r •.. ' M1. 1��Vf v. Ff;. .:. max} �� «,z
,Vol a
AJ
NNW
1
pe11 y 4
�_-Y r.Y t snb • j
+ r •.. ' M1. 1��Vf v. Ff;. .:. max} �� «,z
,Vol a
AJ
NNW
1
�_-Y r.Y t snb • j
+ r •.. ' M1. 1��Vf v. Ff;. .:. max} �� «,z
,Vol a
AJ
NNW
1
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 7, 2006
TO: Planning Commission (June 12th meeting)
FROM:Q John Sutter, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application 2006-08 for a Variance to allow a 2nd curb cut
at 4207 Georgia Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
The house on the subject property has an east -facing one -car attached garage
accessed via an existing driveway from Georgia Avenue. There is also a detached
garage located in the rear yard accessed via a separate existing driveway from Georgia
Avenue.
The house including the attached garage was built in 1950. The detached garage was
built in 1970. Second curb cuts were prohibited beginning in 1976.
During its review of existing driveways for the Phase 8 street reconstruction project,
staff noted that the second curb cut is necessary to continue providing access to both of
the existing garages. Because the city's policy is to construct the street project in
compliance with city code, staff advised the property owner that the street project could
not install both curb cuts unless a variance is granted by the City Council. The property
owner has requested a variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow a second curb cut to
be installed as part of the street project.
Notice of the June 12, 2006 public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350
feet of the subject property on May 30, 2006.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photo showing the location of the property.
B. 2004 map showing contours, existing buildings and driveways.
C. Photos of the site taken June 7, 2006.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
Since 1976, city code has not allowed more than one curb cut per single family house,
or, by extension, additional garages if they require an additional curb cut for access.
However, when the detached garage was built on the subject property there was no
such prohibition. If the street project does not install the second curb cut, access to a
VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT - 4207 GEORGIA
PAGE 1 OF 2
lawful nonconforming structure would be denied. Staff believes this would constitute an
undue hardship, and therefore a variance would be appropriate.
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.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Approve the requested variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow installation of
a second curb cut.
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 continuing use of the
existing lawfully nonconforming detached garage and driveway in the rear yard. The
second curb cut and driveway across the boulevard are necessary for access to the
existing lawfully nonconforming detached garage and driveway in the rear yard.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property.
Specifically, the detached garage became lawfully nonconforming in 1976 when the
city amended its code to prohibit second curb cuts.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Though
located on the same street, the two curb cuts would be located a sufficient distance
apart to provide a separation basically indistinguishable from what is typically found
between curb cuts for two separate single family houses in Crystal.
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 - 2ND CURB CUT - 4207 GEORGIA
PAGE 2 OF 2
HCPropertvN4ap
Hennepin County Property Map
11
Give us -your feedback or suggestions
Hennepin_County_Surveyor map products__
Ck
in
vit
Recenter
on click
*Yes
Mn
M
X
00
rJ
Last update: 2/24/2006 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for_ detailed _information_on this parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Approximate Property
Perimeter Area
17-118-21-11-0098 391 ft. 9,194 sq.ft. = 0.21 acres
Page 1
How to_use_Map
PROPERTY SEARC
For quicker respc
information on su
'Recenter on clicl
Show:
1 Aerial Photos(
�•) 2004* Aerials t
City Names
Street Names
DAddress Numt
❑ Lot Dimension
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
http://wwwl3.co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimagelhepropertymap.aspx?PID=1711821110098 05/03/2006
�\ x 889.4
> ---- x
x
895.4
cn I�P`g0
g 895.7 x C3 �-
Ul
x — — — _—
/C7777� -- _
x
894.6
x 897.8
x
x x x
903.2
x I x 901.41 -QOO
1902.2
x
x
x~
ti
891.8 8c-
x
893.5
889.4
x x� x
893.3
892.7 — —
_ x 889.2
— — — — — x x
896.4
ca
x �$ F
x
o L
894.6
x
x I I 904.5
893.6 m x
-- 900.5
b x 9010
/
x
i r ) N D 8099.5 x 899.3 x
( I YJ
l
I I
II
* � I
ass.s I I I
L I I I Id
T
N
rt L.r _t�� � 'r 'y� 'qac „":�*, ,ii���......-, ' ��►gf� ,.N .ty �-� :t e_: - ,,
.IR' `'f�T L.r. 1 w - �Y J!!� 4R 1•'i iy• �,�. L::` .F! —tF.
R�ZIT ft
1� t J '� T �`.,. 'K' 514: •..,�� y rte! v 1s ' �, •
�y
1M ". 1 �• J'� Y � S M ltd}� f A `�, 4 ^ . r!T
f - •� �• y "Y ..ter a: f?'
9
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 7, 2006
TO: Planning Commission (June 12th meeting)
FROM: John Sutter, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application 2006-09 for a Variance to reduce the north
setback for a parking lot at 4755 Welcome Avenue North.
The 6 -unit apartment building on the subject property has a parking lot accessed from
48th Avenue. This parking lot was gravel until approximately 2004, when it was paved.
No permit application was submitted, and the work did not comply with various city
codes including layout, setbacks, and concrete curb & gutter.
In fall 2005 city staff became aware of the unpermitted paving work, and notified the
property owner that a permit application must be submitted and the parking lot modified
to comply with city code.
The property owner submitted a parking lot application and site plan on May 10, 2006.
The site plan shows the proposed parking lot being set back 5 feet from the north side
lot line. City code requires that the parking lot be set back 30 feet. Therefore the
property owner also submitted a variance application to reduce this setback
requirement to 5 feet.
Notice of the June 12, 2006 public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350
feet of the subject property on May 30, 2006.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photo showing the location of the property.
B. 2004 map showing contours, existing buildings and driveways.
C. Photos of the site taken June 7, 2006.
D. Site plan showing the proposed corrected parking lot.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
Beginning in 1962, city code has required parking lots for apartment buildings to be set
back at least 10 feet from a side street lot line such as the north lot line of the subject
property. In 1996, that requirement was increased to 30 feet.
VARIANCE - PARKING LOT SETBACK - 4755 WELCOME
PAGE 1 OF 3
The gravel parking lot that existed until roughly 2004 appears to have been developed
informally over time, without the approval of the city. It relied on head -in access to the
parking spaces, whereby each space is accessed directly from the public street. The
2004 paving project essentially paved over the gravel.
It is important to note that in commercial districts a parking lot may be within 5 feet of
the lot line. Directly across 48th Avenue to the north is property zoned and used for
commercial purposes; its parking lot is located less than 5 feet from the lot line; and if a
new code compliant parking lot were built on that property, it would only need to be set
back 5 feet. This should be considered as a mitigating factor for the requested variance
because it suggests that the impact on adjacent properties would be minimal.
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.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Approve the requested variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 i) 4) to reduce the side street
setback for the parking lot from 30 feet to 5 feet.
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:
1. 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 continued use of the
lawfully nonconforming apartment building even though its parcel is far too small to
adequately accommodate the use. The variance is necessary to provide a minimal
amount of parking while simultaneously maximizing usable green space on the lot.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property.
Specifically, a 10 foot parking lot setback requirement came into effect in 1962 after
the apartment building had been built; and the setback requirements were
subsequently increased to 30 feet.
VARIANCE - PARKING LOT SETBACK - 4755 WELCOME
PAGE 2OF3
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The
new paved, curbed and guttered parking lot will be no closer to the street than the
longstanding nonconforming gravel lot; and its setback will match what is required
for the commercial property across 48th Avenue.
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 - PARKING LOT SETBACK - 4755 WELCOME
PAGE 3 OF 3
HCProperty" T ip
Hennepin County Property Map
Give us -your feedb_ac_k__or suggestions
Hennepin County Surveyor map products
L01
W9
Recenter
on click
*Yes
M
X
00
E;
Last update: 2/24/2006 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for_ detailed information on this.parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Approximate Property
Perimeter Area
09-118-21-31-0012 489 ft. 11,839 sq.ft. = 0.27 acres
Page 1 of 2
How-to use Map
11 PROPERTY SEA,RCI
For quicker respc
information on SL
'Recenter on clicl,
Show:
0 Aerial Photos
[) 2004` Aerials
Fv� City Names
0 Street Names
❑� Address Numt
❑ Lot Dimension
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
N
http://www13.co.hem-iepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hepropertymap.aspx?PID=1711821120045 05/24/2006
c o
ro CD
674.5 O
;875J I ��
0.
� 676.1 `I
`1J _
Do O ,°
0
PARKING O O ��8
AREA I 877.6 p c �
874.9 875.4 874.7 O
O
x I I+ s+ O O O
E:lQ
Y x�l s
LJ
O
1 0876. —
rx� .0
F 1 FOUND TION
0 6792 C —
8T/.6
O
O
E�]
xJ%
K o
\ O
o I (Do
x a
-C ❑
a n I a °�
- T. -44.
77
-75
vr,
I I�� I� I I I 1► 1 I I I I I I i� I '�
I Iti I i l l l l l I I I I r i 1 1
--- 1 1 1 1 1 ---r-
Lj
- -
Yin
I
- EV
- --
_ - I
TI
L.. --r- I I I L-1-1-
!_
Nr
----
I
- - --- --C-1-- ---! I !- i I ! - - --- --- ---
-L-7-1 -- �-
_ _..-- ---- - - -
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 7, 2006
TO: Planning Commission (June 12th meeting)
FROM:- John Sutter, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application 2006-10 for a Variance.to reduce the east
setback at 6019 38th Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
The home on the subject property was constructed in 1961 in accordance with the
required setbacks governing the property at that time:
• North (front) lot line: 30 feet
■ South (rear) lot line. 25% of lot depth; in this case, 23 feet
■ East (side) lot line: 5 feet
■ West (side street) lot line: 20 feet
Since that time, there have been several revisions to the zoning code, including a
complete revision in February 2004. The current setback requirements are as follows:
■ North (side street) lot line: 10 feet (20 feet for a garage facing the street)
■ South (side) lot line: 5 feet
■ East (rear) lot line: 30 feet
■ West (front) lot line: 30 feet
The house encroaches into the currently required east setback. 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 to add 6 feet north of the
attached garage, and convert the south 5 feet of the garage to living space.
Because the proposed addition would not only expand an existing nonconforming
structure but also increase the encroachment into the 30 foot east setback, the addition
cannot be built unless a variance is granted to reduce the east setback. The property
owner has applied for such a variance. Notice of the June 12, 2006 public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on May 30, 2006.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photo showing the location of the property.
B. 2004 map showing contours, existing buildings and driveways.
C. 1961 site plan.
D. Mark-up of 1961 site plan showing proposed garage addition.
E. Photos of the site taken June 7, 2006.
VARIANCE - EAST SETBACK - 6019 38TH
PAGE 1 OF 3
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 city's definitions of front and rear yards have
changed since the house was built in 1961. The house was built in accordance with the
setback requirements in place at that time. Changes to the lot line definitions used in
the city's zoning code have made the house legally non -conforming, thus prohibiting
any expansion of the structure.
However, the applicant is seeking a variance from the currently more restrictive setback
requirement from the east lot line, while taking advantage of the currently less restrictive
setback requirement from the north lot line. If the argument for the variance is based
on the reasonableness of applying the originally applicable setbacks, then all three of
the original setbacks should be applicable to the proposed addition, not just the one
that is advantageous to the property owner. If the original 30 foot north, 23 foot south
and 5 foot east setbacks are applied to the property, the applicant would not be able to
build the originally proposed addition on the north side of the garage. However, they
would have the option of expanding the house and attached garage to the east.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Approve the requested variance from 515.33 Subd. 8 b) to reduce the east
setback from 30 feet to 5 feet, provided that the setback from the north lot line
shall be increased to 30 feet, and provided that the setback from the south lot line
shall be increased to 23 feet.
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
existing setback encroachment created by changes to the lot line definitions used in
the zoning code over time.
VARIANCE - EAST SETBACK - 6019 38TH
PAGE 2OF3
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. It is
unusual for changes in lot line definitions over time to make a structure non-
conforming, although it is not as uncommon on corner lots like the subject property.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, provided
that the original 30 foot north and 23 foot south setback requirements are also
imposed as a condition of approval. The modified setback requirements would be
consistent with the setbacks in place when the house was built in 1961.
Again, please note that the condition of approval related to the north and south
setbacks, as described in finding #3 above, would not allow the applicant to expand the
garage to the north as originally proposed. However, it would allow significant
expansion of the house and/or garage to the east.
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 - EAST SETBACK - 6019 38TH
PAGE 3 OF 3
HCPropert-" 4ap
Hennepin County Property Map
out
rm
I"
q
in
w
Recenter
on click
o' Yes
C)No
M
X
00
t:J
Give usyour feedback or suggestions
Hennepin County_Surveyor map products
Last update: 2/24/2006 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for detailed-informationon this Parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Perimeter Approximate Property Area
16-118-21-33-0123 437 ft. 11,320 sq.ft. = 0.26 acres
Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2006)
page 1 of?,
How to use Map
2
0PERTY ISEARC
For quicker respc
information on su
'Recenter on clici
Show:
C) Aerial Photos
CO) 2004' Aerials
0 City Names
Street Names
DAddress Numt
❑ Lot Dimension
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot_Iine.s different i
http://wwwl 3.co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspx?PID=1711821120045 05/24/2006
X
�
898.7
i
900
905
-�
906
.2
9.
�- 896.2 x
x 900.2 0 - -
- - � -fix -
903.
X
x I I x
904.3 � � I � 1901.7 �-
5.4 904.4 TT I 8
- o X O O8�
0
905.5
x
906.4
0 x}
P
90 3
I x X
906.6
•X
05.4 906.2 x
t
' 903.7
x
t r'1
x
• 4J
05 5
•
903.3
- - -
x
k
x 905.7
x
<
30
.4
x
903.4
x
x
x
x
-- 905.8 x
- --
905.7
�a
i
FLOT FL, N
�n-
14
Ns. 6
i5f
-14
00
.52.
Ao
TIE
-14
1
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 7, 2006
TO: J'/John
anning Commission (June 12th meeting)
FROM: Sutter, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application 2006-11 for a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Plan Review for a building addition at 5170 West Broadway.
A. BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the east side of West Broadway, directly south of the
Canadian Pacific Railroad. It is 2.1 acres in size and is zoned 1-1 Light Industrial.
The east half of the site is used by North Suburban Towing as a vehicle impound and
storage yard. The most recent approval for this use occurred with a Conditional Use
Permit issued by the City Council in 1994. The property appears to be in compliance
with the terms of the 1994 CUP. Also approved in 1994 was outdoor storage related to
Duke's Body Shop, which uses the west half of the site. The application being
considered at this time deals only with the west (Duke's) part of the site.
Duke's is proposing to construct a 6,600 sq. ft. building addition in place of a recently
fire damaged 3,740 sq. ft. building. Because the addition building area would exceed
10% of the existing buildings, site & building plan review are required. A new
Conditional Use Permit is also required because this would be an expansion of motor
vehicle repair. Duke's has applied for an amended CUP to include site & building plan
review. Notice of the June 12, 2006 public hearing was mailed to all property owners
within 350 feet of the subject property on May 30, 2006, and published in the Sun Post
on June 1, 2006.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. Narrative submitted by Duke's.
B. 2004 aerial photo showing the location of the property.
C. Photos of the building and site taken June 7, 2006.
D. Site plan.
E. Building plan — removal of existing.
F. Building plans — proposed new.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
1. General CUP requirements. 515.05 Subd. 3 a) states that, in addition to
specific standards or criteria included in the applicable district regulations, the
following criteria shall be applied in determining whether to approve a conditional
use permit request:
■ The consistency of the proposed use with the comprehensive plan. The
Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use related to the West
Broadway and County Road 81 corridor. This designation contemplates
automotive -related uses continuing in accordance with the zoning code, and
evolving to more intensive uses over time. The proposed use is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
■ The characteristics of the subject property as they relate to the proposed use.
The site's location, dimensions and layout are well suited for automotive
uses.
■ The impact of the proposed use on the surrounding area. The impact on
adjacent uses would be minimal. Many uses within several hundred feet of
the site are also automotive, and the layout of this site places most of the
activity within buildings or within fenced enclosures previously approved by
the City Council.
2. CUP requirements for auto repair. 515.53 Subd. 4 j) establishes the following
criteria for motor vehicle repair:
■ The property must abut one of the specific street segments designated for
auto repair. The site is located on West Broadway between Corvallis Avenue
and 56 reg
Avenue North, one of the designated segments.
■ The business must meet certain hours of operation restrictions if located
within 250 feet of any residential zoning district. Because the auto repair
business is located at least 100 but less than 250 feet from the R-1 zoned
Glen Haven Memorial Gardens, the business may not be open before 6:00
a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
■ There is no outdoor parking or storage of vehicles that are to be worked on,
are being worked on, or have been worked on. The intent of this requirement
is to prevent business parking areas from becoming motor vehicle storage
yards. In the case of the subject property, a 1994 CUP was granted allowing
outdoor storage. However, because this is a new CUP application, the
current standards for outdoor storage must be met. These are addressed in
item 3 below.
■ The establishment is fully screened from any R-9, R-2 or R-3 district. Auto
repair activities are not visible from Glen Haven Memorial Gardens; this
would continue to be the case if this project is approved.
■ The city council finds that there will be adequate screening and buffering
between the establishment and adjacent uses. None of the adjacent uses
require screening or buffering beyond that which already exists.
3. CUP requirements for outdoor storage. 515.53 Subd. 4 d) establishes the
following criteria for outdoor storage:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DUKE'S AUTO BODY - 5170 WEST BROADWAY
2
■ The storage area is hard surfaced and clearly designated on the site as being
limited to the specific, approved area. Duke's parking lot is hard surfaced,
both inside and outside the fenced enclosure. Motor vehicle storage, as
distinct from customer and employee parking, shall only occur within the
enclosed area. Additional limitations on the portion of the enclosed area to
be used for motor vehicle storage are discussed below.
■ The storage area does not exceed 60% of the gross floor area of the principal
use, 40% of the area of the property, or 20,000 square feet. If this project is
built, the enclosed portion of Duke's parking lot will be approximately 17,000
sq. ft., which is just under 40% of the Duke's site. The gross floor area of the
Duke's buildings will be approximately 14,000 sq. ft., 60% of which is 8,400
sq. ft. This means that Duke's will need to designate approximately half of
the enclosed parking lot for motor vehicle storage, with the other half to be
kept clear for use by licensed and operable customer and employee vehicles.
Motor vehicle storage areas not exceeding 60% of the total building footprint
must be designated on the final submittal for the building permit. Such
designation would also be generally consistent with previously approved site
plans, which showed the row of parking spaces along the north side of the
enclosed parking lot being reserved for employee parking.
4. Site and building plan review (Section 520). Because site improvements were
installed under previous CUPs, most recently in 1994, staff's review of this
application is limited to the new building exterior. The proposed building exterior
is plain, painted concrete block. 520.23 Subd. 2 states that exterior materials
shall not include concrete block, except that the City Council has discretion to
allow architecturally enhanced block. It also states that the restriction does not
apply to industrial uses if there is adequate screening. Because the project
involves a building not readily visible except from a railroad track or adjacent
industrial uses, staff believes that this project qualifies for the exception and
therefore the plain, painted concrete block is acceptable.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit to expand a motor vehicle
repair use, including limited outdoor storage, for the Duke's part of the property located
at 5170 West Broadway, subject to the following conditions:
1. The business may not be open before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
2. Motor vehicle storage, as distinct from customer and employee parking of licensed
and operable motor vehicles, shall only occur within a designated portion of the
enclosed parking lot not exceeding 60% of the gross floor area of the buildings after
project completion. The building permit shall not be issued until a modified site plan
is submitted showing the designated area for motor vehicle storage.
Planning Commission action is requested. The City Council would consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation at its next meeting on June 20, 2006.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DUKE'S AUTO BODY - 5170 WEST BROADWAY
3
DUKES BODY SHOP BUILDING PURPOSAL:
Dukes Body Shop located at 5170 W.Broadway in Crystal has recently had a
fire damaging part of our building. We would like to rebuild the damaged portion
of the building and expand this portion from approximately 3740 sq.feet to
approximately 6600 sq.feet. This expanded size would be gained from adding on the
the front, or northside of the building. The depth of the building would go from
approximately 34 feet outwards, to 60 feet. The roof of the building would also be
raised and additional 5 feet to bring this building up to code in reguards to
snowload caused by the exsisting building not being level with the adjoining
buildings on both the east and west sides of it.
This remodeling project would include bringing the building up to all present
codes, that do to the age of the building it was not presently complying to. A
sprinkler system will be installed through -out the entire building and every present
code will be meet to best of our knowledge.
The building will have approximately 14 work stalls/stations that will be used
by approximately 3-5 tech's at any time. These tech's will continue to do autobody
repairs on vehicle during the same business hours they have been of Sam -spm
Monday through Friday.
EXHIBIT A
HCPropert- lap
Hennepin County Property Map
rL1
Give_ us your feedback or suggestions
Hennepin County_Surv_eyor map products
M
Ea
sir
Recenter
on click
J�) Yes
(-�No
Last update: 2/24/2006 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for detailed_ information_ on this parcel
Property ID Approximate Property Approximate Property
Perimeter Area
09-118-21-22-0008 1,513 ft. 89,659 sq.ft. = 2.06 acres
n,ye 1 of>2
How to use Map
Lot dimensions may be
169 because they are it
For quicker respc
information on su
'Recenter on clicl
Show:
Aerial Photos i
Cll!) 2004* Aerials i
� City Names
0 Street Names
RAddress Numt
❑ Lot Dimension
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
T
N
http://www 13. co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimagelhcpropertymap. aspx?PID=1711821120045 05/24/2006
DUKE'S BODY SHOP
BUILDING CODE DATA
Aoolicable Governing Codes:
The Internet anal Building Code (IBC) 2000
Minnesota State Building Code (HSBC) 2003
Minnesota State Fra Code (Msq ItC) 2003
Inte—ti—1 Fre Code (IFC) 2000
Life Safety Code NFPA 101 2000
National Fire Alarrn Code NFPA 72 1999
National Electrical Code (NEC) 2002
State of Minnesota Energy Code 1998,
Chapters 7676 R 7678
InternationalMechanical Code 2000
Intemational Plumbing Code 2000,
with State of Minnesota Amendments
CABG/ANSI A117.1 — 1992 (ANSI)
Minnesota Accessibility Code 1999, Chapter 1341
Project Description and 8 �td'ne �•�!'
One story auto bogy shop.
The building construction is reinforced
12' CMU blocks.
The south exterior wall is set back from
the property line 8.5 ft.
No sprinkler system is present.
2000 IBC Coda Malvs's
1. Building occupancy Type: F-1
2. Construction Type: IIB •0' hour rating
3. Floor Area: 6600 sq ft
Building height: 16 ft
Code allowed floor area per level is 50,000 sq ft
per table 503
Codeallowed building height is 55 ft per table 503
Code allowed m ximm unumber of stories is 2
Per table 503
4. Fre resistance rating of exterior walls based on fire
sePamtion distance and type of construction.
West & East wall - 2 hour (Less than 5ft: Table 602)
South & North wolf - 0 hour
Floor construction : 0 hour
ROOF construction 0 hour
Structural fro
me — 0 hour
5. Occupant load and exiting requirements.
Maximum number of occupants ; 66 (Table 1003.21.2)
Number of exits required >• 2 (Section 1004.2.1. Table 1004.2.1)
Number of exits provided - 2
Maximum exit access travel distance required — 200 ft
(Section 1004.2.4• Table 1004.2.4)
Maximum exit access travel distance provided - 50 ft
SHEET SCHEDULE
AT SITE PIAN.
A2 DEMOUTTON PLAN.
A3 FLOOR PLAN. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.
SO GENERAL NOTES. TYPICAL SECTIONS.
St FOUNDATION PLAN. ROOF FRAMING PIAN. DETAILS
S2 DETAILS.
r, ---,SITE PSLAN - EXISTING
N
NOTES:
BITUMINOUS: 3' MN/DOT TYPE 41
OVER 5' CLASS V
n S TE PLAN - PROPOSED 4N
N
EXHIBIT D
5/16/06: ISSUED FOR PRICING AND
CITY REVIEW. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
�,
I
tY-6•
27'-0"
I 33'-0"
k
32'-G"
*
I I
I
EXISTING VACUUM. TO BE
I
I
T
EXISTING 6" THICK - - JIT..—
SALVAGED AND RELOCATED.
- - - -
-I
CONC. SLAB, TO BE
REMOVED
8'-0• 11'-0"
I
- - - -
- -I
- - -
- - —
CO RD.OWNER
W/ OWNER
EXISTING CONC. APRON TO
REMNN
REMOVE PORTION OF
o
EXISTING METAL BUILDING
WALL k B" CMU BASE. TO
PROVIDE NEW O.H. DOOR
OPNG.
I I REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS
SURFACE AND EXCAVATE AS REO'D
TO PREPARE SUBGRADE FOR NEW
SLAB ON GRADE
•_
,.
`/�''/�!%. %/ •iI%. /��?;�! ::
AND FROST
FOOTINGS
1
f'
f
EXISTING 1 V TALL
I
I
DOOR OPNG. TO
REMAIN
f
EXISTING 12" CMU WALLS WITH
EXIST. WALL TO
a
l e
I
REMAIN
/ N
I
I I
REMOVED FOR PHASE I
f�
I
I
'
_ ��_ ice`%1.;'%fi,j___:/;'.
i 'EXISTING
!i:`11:_
�_11i/:'.•`;;:
EXISTING GARAGE DOOR DNG
GARAGE DOOR.' EXISTING GARAGE DOOR EXISTING GARAGE DOOR
EXISTING O.N.�D:00R 'II
EXISTING 72" CMU WALLS WffH
TO BE RELOCATO j ii
NORTHWALL DG ''1/,,
FROST FOOTINGS TO BE
I REMOVED FOR PHASE W
I
+
/
PHASE II
EXIST. WALL TO
REMAIN
CONSTRUCTION./
,t
I
/
EXISTING
DOOR EXISTING
DOOR
EXISTING GARAGE DOOR EXISTING GARAGE DOOR
44'-0• +/-
66'-0•
/�1Ls1i
=
EXISTING
EXHAUST
n
WORN
OPENING TO
i EXISTING MAKE-UP AIR UNIT TO F_n I
BE SAVED AND REUSED.
COORDINATE W/ MECHANICAL
aZ
W
+
7� FAN TO BE
/ DEMOLISHED
REMAIN I
CONTRACTOR. APPROXIMATE
o%
EXIST.ONF
METAL BLDG
1
+
o
WEIGHT _ 12001
I
RfNMGO EDI�FOR
•o
qZ ^
TO REMAIN 1
BEE
a a
m c
EXISTING MAKE-UP
AIR UNIT TO BE
I
EXISTING BUILDING TO
REMOVED FOR
PHE ASE I
a DEMOUSHm
m
f/
I
PHASE 11
_F=
PHASE
I
/
EXISTING 12' CMU
%
wAlls WITH FROST
FOOTINGS TO BE'f
EXISTING 12" CMU WALLS WITH
FROST
REMOVED FOR PHASE II
FOOTINGS TO BE
REMOVED
FOR PHASE I
EXISTING
DOOR
DEMOLITION P I
I
NDEMOLITION
NOTES:
I
A2
SCALE: 3/16" - 1'-0"
T7
1�I 1. FUTURE PHASE 11 PORTION OF EXISTING BUILDING WILL REMAIN IN OPERATION DURING DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING BUILDING FOR NEW PHASE I BUILDING.
2. CAREFULLY REMOVE EXISTING FOUNDATION WALLS AND FOOTING WITHIN FOOTPRINT OF NEW PHASE I BUILDING.
SAWCUTTING OF FOOTINGS, FOUNDATION WALLS AND SLABS MAY BE REOUIRED ADJACENT TO REMAINING
BUILDING AT FUTURE PHASE 11 LOCATION.
3. EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE REMOVED WERE CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:
ROOF: 2X12 O 16"x, SPANNING NORTH -SOUTH, WITH PLYWOOD ROOF SHTG. AND BUILT-UP ROOFING W/
GRAVEL BALLAST. ROOF JOISTS SUPPORTED BY CENTRAL STEEL BEAM W/ PIPE COLUMNS.
WALLS: 12" CMU REINFORCED BLOCK WALLS (VERIFY REINFORCING)
FOOTING: SPREAD FOOTINGS (ASSUMED -- FIELD VERIFY)
FLOOR: 4' CONCRETE SUB ON GRADE (ASSUMED -- FIELD VERIFY)
- - -cl
0
1
O
EXIST. ,6' o
CONC. BLOCK
BLDG TO 7
REMAIN
L EXIST. WALL TO
REMAIN
EXHIBIT E
5/16/06: ISSUED FOR PRICING AND
CITY REVIEW. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C
I
t
EXISTING GOP
BLC(
BUILDIP
BEYOP
TTP. PAINTED DOOR OPNG.
NORTH ELEVATION
A3 SCALE 1\8' a 1'-0'
n WEST ELEVATION
A3 SCALE 1\6' - 1•-O'
n SOUTH ELEVATION
A3 SCALE: 1\6' - V -O'
RELOCATED VACUUM SYSTEM I
ON HOUSEKEEPING PAD.
COORDINATE W/ MECH. -
CONTRACTOR
NEW O.H. DOOR OPNG. .4'-O,_ 10'-0' 10'-0' 6'-8' 10'-0' 4'-8' 10'-0' 4'T8' 10'-0' 4'-8' 10'-0' S'-4'
SEE STRUCT.
1.- ' _�__
COORD. t o I II 3'- 1'-4'
12 1 I
AJ + -0' W/ 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I
OWNER
;y,,,;,, 77711111
L____J
I
I I I
I
1T-6'
2T-0'
l_—__J
L__—_J
33•_0'
II
I
32.-6.
RELOCATED VACUUM SYSTEM I
ON HOUSEKEEPING PAD.
COORDINATE W/ MECH. -
CONTRACTOR
NEW O.H. DOOR OPNG. .4'-O,_ 10'-0' 10'-0' 6'-8' 10'-0' 4'-8' 10'-0' 4'T8' 10'-0' 4'-8' 10'-0' S'-4'
SEE STRUCT.
1.- ' _�__
COORD. t o I II 3'- 1'-4'
12 1 I
AJ + -0' W/ 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I
OWNER
T. ONE
RY BLDG
REMAIN
--
J 'Ic (/
BLDG. PAPER
ALONG ONE GROUT SPACE BETWEEN
SIDE FACE SHELLS
J
CMU WALL BACKER ROD k
SEE PLAN SEALANT. EA FACE
TYPICAL CONTROL / CONSTRUCTION rt
4 DETAIL_ EXHIBIT F
A3 SCALE: 3/4'=l' -O'
5/16/06: ISSUED FOR PRICING AND
CITY REVIEW. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C
D
;y,,,;,, 77711111
L____J
I
I I I
I
—_J
L—___J
l_—__J
L__—_J
L J
TEMPORARY 6'
NEW INSULATED
j;
EY I
NO 1T'
a
STEEL STUD
METAL O.H. DOORS,
c
I I
OP
C.DOOIR
N
I
SEE SSR WALL
SEE STRUCT.
I 7 LOC'S. THUS
r
L — — — — -I
I
PROVIDE CLOSURE I
PLATES AROUND
I
RE -INSTALL SALVAGED
j
ALL DOOR OPNGS
ALONG THIS WALL
TS 6%e
COL
I
TS 6%6
COL
TS 6%e
COL
TYP.
FLOOR TREPCH DRAIN
I SLAB CONSIRUCTiON
1
I
JOINT
3
I__ NEW 5'
(ICONCRETE
SZ
NEW FLOOR
II
STAB Ott
GRADE
'
TRENCH DRAI
PER
I
IXI
NG
MECHANICAL
6'I
V -O'
•�
�%
D00
DESIGN / BUILD
1
TEMPORARY 6'
EXIST. ONE
!
o
I
STEEL STUD
STORY BLDG
%
I
h
I
EXTERIOR WALL
TO REMAIN
'
I
SEE STRUCT.
r
+
+
,
I
•I
PHASE II
I
RASE I
Y%7'%1�' I
SUL METAL DOOR - PAINTED.
I
MET.
FRAME - PAINTED, (2) THUS
I
I
3'-4jr�
METAL CLOSURES O
CONSTRUCTION
o
NORTH do SOUTH END
OF WALL CAVITY
' 3
FLOOR PLAN
1
2
°°NG STDDP
(2) ,HUS
A3
SCALE: 1/8' _ ,'_0•
N
PROPOSED NEW BUILDING TO REPLACE FIRE DAMAGED ONE STORY BUILDING
T. ONE
RY BLDG
REMAIN
--
J 'Ic (/
BLDG. PAPER
ALONG ONE GROUT SPACE BETWEEN
SIDE FACE SHELLS
J
CMU WALL BACKER ROD k
SEE PLAN SEALANT. EA FACE
TYPICAL CONTROL / CONSTRUCTION rt
4 DETAIL_ EXHIBIT F
A3 SCALE: 3/4'=l' -O'
5/16/06: ISSUED FOR PRICING AND
CITY REVIEW. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C
D
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 7, 2006
TO: Planning Commission (June 12th meeting)
FROM: 4"fi-ohn Sutter, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application 2006-12 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to
High Density Residential for part of 3420 Nevada Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
Olivet Baptist Church currently owns property bounded by 35th Avenue on the north,
Valley Place on the south, Louisiana Avenue on the east, and Nevada Avenue on the
west. It is presently guided Low Density Residential, which allows up to 5 units per
acre, and zoned R-1. The buildings on the site include a house built in 1940 and an
elementary school built in 1965. The school has since been purchased and converted
into a church and related uses.
United Properties is proposing to purchase approximately 4 vacant acres northwest of
the church and build a senior apartment building. At this time they are requesting that
the Future Land Use Map be changed so that this 4 acre area is guided for High
Density Residential Uses. Their plan would be to submit detailed zoning, subdivision,
site and building plans for city review and another public hearing after, and if, the land
use designation change is approved. Notice of the June 12, 2006 public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 700 feet of the subject property on May 30, 2006,
and published in the Sun Post on June 1, 2006.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. 2004 aerial photo showing the location of the property.
B. 1995 map showing contours, existing buildings and driveways (metric).
C. Photos of the site taken June 7, 2006.
D. Narrative submitted by United Properties.
E. Generalized site plan (subsequent detailed submittal may be different).
F. Photos and artistic renderings of similar projects (subsequent detailed submittal may
be different).
G. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map showing subject property.
H. Aerial photo showing approximate site boundaries and adjacent land uses.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
The site is located in a transition area between a neighborhood of single family houses
to the south and east, and a variety of higher density residential or industrial uses to the
north and west. The existing church is a fairly large institutional use that separates the
site from the single family houses. It is questionable whether the site is a good place
for single family houses unless the church were to decide to relocate and redevelop
their entire property for low density residential. They have not expressed any plans to
do so. From a land use perspective, assuming that the church is going to remain for
the long term, it would make sense for the open land north and west of the church to be
developed for something other than low density residential.
High density residential would allow up to 22 units per acre, or approximately 80-90
units on the site. The adjacent street to the west, Nevada Avenue, is a wide state aid
street that can easily accommodate additional trips. As discussed above, because this
is a transition area anyway, it is mainly a question of where to draw the border between
the largely single family neighborhood to the south and east, and the more intense uses
to the north and west.
It is important to note that, upon approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, the United Properties proposal actually submitted could be different from
what is included in this staff report; or a different developer might end up purchasing the
site and submitting a different proposal. Staff does not believe that either scenario is
likely based on the applicant's efforts so far. However, it is important for the Planning
Commission and City Council to understand that the Comprehensive Plan amendment
does not bind a developer to specific site and building plans. The Comprehensive Plan
amendment must stand on its own merits, regardless of this particular developer's
tentative plans.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map be amended
so the site shown in Exhibit H is guided High Density Residential.
Planning Commission action is requested. The City Council would consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation at its next meeting on June 20, 2006.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - UNITED PROPERTIES - 3420 NEVADA
2
HCPropert.' `1p
Hennepin County Property Map
Give us your feedback or suggestions
Hennepin County Surveyor map products
q
in
Recenter
on click
00 Yes
O No
M
X
Z
00
Last update: 2/24/2006 at 3:30 PM -- READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW
Click for --detailed inform on this parcel
aProperty ID Approximate Property Approximate Property
Perimeter Area
20-118-21-21-0008 2,436 ft. 359,139 sq.ft. = 8.24 acres
Prn v.orfi. A!Ar— KA—L—+\/a6;a T -f.1 T— ronnW
http://www l 3.co.hennepin.mn.us/publicparcelimage/hcpropertymap.aspx?PID=2011821210008
�e 1 of 2
How to use Map
To zoom in farther, clic
the zoom bar. (Lot dim(
For quicker respc
information on st,
'Recenter on clict
Show:
O Aerial Photos t
2004* Aerials 1
City Names
Street Names
DAddress Numt
'Mpls. aerials south of F
from 2003
Lot lines different f
T
N
06/08/2006
EXHIBIT C
#6 Narrative
United Properties is requesting a comprehensive plan change from R-1 to R3 for a
portion of the site located at 3420 Nevada Avenue North in Crystal, Minnesota. The 12-
1/2 acre site is currently home to the Olivet Baptist Church and other uses. There is a
parsonage for the Church on the northern and eastern portion of the site, open space with
two recreational ball fields on the southern portion of the site, and an open space on the
western and northern portion of the site. We are requesting the Comprehensive Plan
Change to include only the approximately 4 acres on the northern and western portion of
the site.
The adjacent land uses would be as follows:
1. The Church would be to the immediate east.
2. Open space to the south.
3. Medium density residential to the south and west.
4. Industrial buildings to the west and northwest.
5. High density residential to the north.
We are proposing this Request to accommodate the construction of a proposed senior
cooperative housing project. This will be an owner -occupied age restricted housing
project for seniors 55 and older.
We believe a use such as this will fit well into this transitional neighborhood between a
mixture of surrounding uses. The size, scale and use of the proposed development will
be consistent with the adjacent uses.
The area to be guided will eliminate a portion of the parking just to the north and to the
east being replaced with green space. Replacement parking will be moved to the west
side of the Church.
This proposed area would also be changed from a tax exempt parcel of land to a taxable
parcel. United Properties is not requesting City assistance for this proposed project.
Enclosed you will find an aerial highlighting the surrounding land uses, a conceptual site
plan showing where the proposed use would be located on the property, and renderings of
similar projects completed by United Properties.
EXHIBIT D
� r i �a
Ca
xm,ItZ's. .e �� •"" -�R'X
/3r
r 412-A
4
.1 y
.i
w (`�
i,
„
7
v ,
z
„ J _
w
AWt-
t
r i
M
^� . a • � ' �� +ei r . i , f�'•jor � ''°•.fid- S#'•
+w
,
I . - -- -( - �c .", . -, * -
be
l�jrr
���'*� +J •' mak. `! �, r t' , ,., , ,r, lb
Jowl
jp
Ml
31
ui
�r .x°`��:f, � ,`� �. �+.•r's a � M, �qf` ti �t'} f �t�� ..+3'` � T '` ;.. A "/ k`�x►'
4. y,
x Yt,
w t #
,
1
a
a .,.:uiuwi moi.'-'.... :. � �. :.. dw t$ �%�•'. '�"���°.°' _
L♦
w
V. a 3�
x
1'.� #. � t _� � �- t ..fit. - -- , j •
�_ • } �v&
v� �,. ` �(��5c+,+.'a.•.�., .. - , � ,x- �- Mme• -
�.j a ,�',�,y'O�, -. v`+� x,• i�`/-. � ��T .r �,r �, ^,• �,v,1�i >, �,I �' _ � M:.+N �r.r
' �'1p�Ya`, •{ �� 4¢ � � K,�. r y t•j r :� l'� � i � �"� � �Rk s �"�ek^
r
�1
IMt
em
�-
„. • .i rte- y a y ,,� � -�:' v �i . �l°9 �s/� ' i :^ +�.fi�...
a:
•_:t. �., /r• -._'_ I __._..__...._�`-�� �.. III`
i
IT
.. •"t�b4e''""z�"��'° `c.���, ,k: � :�" w "'';T'ST•-+t•q.. X�` A�,�;unc� �a+�+..
•a.''.i .7+ 'k'u "':Y' '` -ems �' �� � ��''
uw
ol
iA
PIZ
.. .. ..• - ..
t �
all
WNW
Ilk -4 1
A'A I v,"
4 0
`�v g
lip
Ult
IIpfl
�f
Sim
rp
I r
I
I
d b fa= 4 �f
� n
- ap
en
.r. �
+ d
� � x r (�_ z ! it���, T ,� - ✓ ^--kt
'.."..-
�,-?�'Nt � -,, �i �. "'t i. r•A�re II ,,`` ��a - �� i _ t� lii'r � � '� Y..,. � r '�fSf-r•�t•'� . ��`a*"^+w .
r.A,_• R. -. e' .,�'� T A.•... r.Yn 1 71i 1WE
} ! r a �`*'1 c.'�..�• w. F :I'` "" a '3°' Jrp } { F az.. eau t, . ^9 "4 'f .r,
n6
.yam r �
J
-,T .vt-•. C, .,�' 6Y�y. n-' -. ., cr .a '}. "svi� .lig i u �',. .•.
Y�.}.. �� �t•r'r�11P�i�l
p '� >K� � • f r �a �• n b �!�
IV
�a.�'sf�4
-si�ti_ oru AA '
-fir - .� � �Ih�l' t � 111 • .,�,.'"' � � - _ _ � ': � ,��;,�s` �.�.
Fw
AL
�"- �rX'►��'s`y�' �♦� � �' 1q{] �I 1..1- ayf " h , � -,r x' 1 �`7 � ,�,,,�� ,.y.�=' ^�� � ���,. � �.i- � y�
- � _ ���ir_� � � ! ;:�) e " { `� 1 •� 'owl
i _ �.�� 'yam "� 9► -
i�'1�.ae' •,��._.'_� � � � � � I I �w.w,.r i ��j t � r � 3' Ij y � _x.w5'
�•_ 1�3••,• �� r. I �;'• '�i ....a,..,�...'`°"ee.9 r i ��' Ir�+'+j L '-,.1 � ° II$ �'r G►
J - S�
- e
GN
NOW
yoi
.�
T1 z
77q� --
,r ,
-�.�: ...�. ,_ •,f - - 1 �!il?'�! i� .p, s- z_ �••r� �ry.� 'r • `� - E t :L''� :s.'i •art' ,�, syr i fa'fI ��•i'f>r,! ^':. _��.. c
._�•,'� .-- � � N` „ =—'sem--
•
► � �= �' --Y "ate-- �"� �"�� ,���-
-
q2 'r11�!''-?yq a°�''� � .�` -,, �...s...-....�•
6 ^
♦ Y
. • . � .-;, .°�" ,tai
�N�'' c�'p
a .►. �,. a
"'.y
-� �\ `wry
�v^
•� �.i; ��
Y�.}.. �� �t•r'r�11P�i�l
p '� >K� � • f r �a �• n b �!�
IV
�a.�'sf�4
-si�ti_ oru AA '
-fir - .� � �Ih�l' t � 111 • .,�,.'"' � � - _ _ � ': � ,��;,�s` �.�.
Fw
AL
�"- �rX'►��'s`y�' �♦� � �' 1q{] �I 1..1- ayf " h , � -,r x' 1 �`7 � ,�,,,�� ,.y.�=' ^�� � ���,. � �.i- � y�
- � _ ���ir_� � � ! ;:�) e " { `� 1 •� 'owl
i _ �.�� 'yam "� 9► -
i�'1�.ae' •,��._.'_� � � � � � I I �w.w,.r i ��j t � r � 3' Ij y � _x.w5'
�•_ 1�3••,• �� r. I �;'• '�i ....a,..,�...'`°"ee.9 r i ��' Ir�+'+j L '-,.1 � ° II$ �'r G►
J - S�
- e
GN
NOW
yoi
.�
T1 z
77q� --
,r ,
-�.�: ...�. ,_ •,f - - 1 �!il?'�! i� .p, s- z_ �••r� �ry.� 'r • `� - E t :L''� :s.'i •art' ,�, syr i fa'fI ��•i'f>r,! ^':. _��.. c
._�•,'� .-- � � N` „ =—'sem--
•
► � �= �' --Y "ate-- �"� �"�� ,���-
-
q2 'r11�!''-?yq a°�''� � .�` -,, �...s...-....�•
6 ^
♦ Y
. • . � .-;, .°�" ,tai
M
x
Z
0
I
Land Use Classes: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Future Land Uc.
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
MIXED USE TOWN CENTER City of Crystal Comprehensive PI
MIXED USE W. BROADWAY/HWY81
INDUSTRIAL
CRYSTAL AIRPORT "' Figui
`' PARK & CONSERVATION s
W_. HIGHWAY 100 PROJECT 0 0.3 0.6 Miles
pt
RAIL RIGHT OF WAY bPnght19l �9Negn hyS�
mpYd9b� 1999 Cadogapby by daf
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
Mav 16, 2006.-
1.
006:
1. Approved site and building plans for Washburn McReavy to build a funeral home at 5125
West Broadway.
2. Approved the Preliminary Plat of Thora Thorson Addition (formerly the Thorson Elementary
School at 7323 58th) creating 17 lots on a new street (to be addressed as 57xx Oregon
Court).
The Council's actions on these items were consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendations.