2004.12.13 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY
December 13, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Crystal City Hall — Council Chambers
4141 Douglas Dr N
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
- November 8, 2004 regular meeting*
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider Application 2004-14 for a Conditional Use Permit for automobile repair -
major at Asia Auto Center, 5264 West Broadway.*
2. Consider Application 2004-15 for Variances to reduce the front and side setbacks
at 4628 Hampshire Avenue North.*
3. Consider Application 2004-16 for a Variance to increase the maximum fence
height at 5331 Corvallis Avenue North.*
D. OLD BUSINESS
1. Consider Application 2004-13 for Lot Division at 6401 41St Avenue North to detach
approximately the south 317 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister
Pond Park.* (Item continued from November 8, 2004 meeting.)
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Nominate two Planning Commission members to serve on the Motor Vehicle &
Equipment Code Citizen Review Committee.*
F. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Memo from City Attorney regarding enforcement of 4 -car limit for off-street
parking.*
2. City Council actions on recent Planning Commission items.*
3. Staff preview of likely agenda items for January 10, 2005 meeting.
G. OPEN FORUM
H. ADJOURNMENT
*Items for which supporting material will be included in the meeting packet.
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2004
A. CALL TO ORDER
Page I of 3
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
following present: Sears, Davis, Nystrom, Whitenack, VonRueden, Kruger, Hester, and Strand.
Also present were the following staff: Planner Sutter and Recording Secretary Matthews.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the
minutes of the October 11, 2004 regular meeting.
Motion carried
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider Application 2004-13 for Lot Division at 6401 41st Avenue North to detach
approximately the south 317 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond
Park.
Planner Sutter summarized the staff report, and stated that the survey has not been completed in
time for this meeting. Staff requests that the public hearing be opened and the item be continued
to the next meeting.
Public Hearing opened.
No one spoke.
Public Hearing closed.
Moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Nystrom to continue until the December 13t",
2004 meeting, Application 2004-13 for Lot Division at 6401 41St Avenue North to detach
approximately the south 317 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Atkinson arrived at 7:05 p.m.
D. OLD BUSINESS
1. Consider Application 2004-10 for Rezoning to PD Planned Development and a
Preliminary Plat for an 18 unit townhouse development at 3148 Douglas Drive North.
Page 2 of 3
Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and the changes that the builder and staff came up
with since the October 11th meeting. Staff recommends approval with the requirements that are
outlined in the report.
Public Hearing opened.
No one spoke.
Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Kruger asked about the buffer between the site and the next door residential
property. Builder came forward and stated that they have communicated with the owner of the
house and have agreed upon putting up a six foot high wood or vinyl fence, which is what the
owner wanted.
Commissioner Sears asked if a fence would be adequate to block out headlights, and maybe trees
or bushes would be a better choice. The builder indicated they would put up whatever would
make the home owner and the city happy. Planner Sutter stated that the grade of the property is
essentially flat so the six foot high fence would provide adequate screening.
Commissioner Nystrom questioned what type of garbage service the units would have. Builder
stated that the units would have individual garbage service that is contracted through the
townhouse association.
Commissioner Kruger questioned the fire sprinkler systems and would they include the garages.
Builder stated that yes the sprinkler system would include the garages.
Commissioner Strand complimented the builder on the changes that were made. Builder stated
that they were very happy with the changes and that they had a lot of input from staff and
appreciated their help.
Moved by Atkinson and seconded by Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve
Application 2004-10 for Rezoning to PD planned Development and a Preliminary Plat for an 18
unit townhouse development at 3418 Douglas Drive North.
Motion carried.
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. GENERAL INFORMATION
Planner Sutter stated that no applications for the December 13'1' meeting have come in yet. The
deadline is still a week and half away.
Commissioner Davis requested that if nothing else comes in for the December meeting could the
Planning Commission postpone the continuation of Application 2004-13 until the January
meeting. Planner Sutter stated that staff would note that suggestion. Staff does not know if there
Page 3 of 3
.-� is a deadline that the homeowner of 640141" Avenue North is trying to make. Staff would
determine if a meeting is necessary and communicate this to the commissioners.
''\
Planner Sutter introduced Jason Zimmerman as Crystal's new Code Enforcement/Zoning
Administrator.
G. OPEN FORUM
H. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Whitenack and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
Chair VonRueden
Secretary Strand
Motion carried.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 7, 2004
TO: Planning Commission (December 13th meeting)
FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2004-14 for a Conditional Use Permit
for automobile repair -major at Asia Auto Center, 5264 West Broadway.
A. BACKGROUND
The property at 5264 West Broadway is 75 feet wide and 250 feet deep, less an alley
easement across the rear 10 feet of the property. It has an area of 18,750 sq. ft. (0.43
acres). The property is zoned 1-1 Light Industrial.
In 1995, the City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit for automobile repair —
minor, which is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as follows: A use that is customarily
associated with a service station, and that includes minor repairs, incidental body and
y` fender work, upholstering, replacement of parts and motor services to passenger
automobiles and trucks not exceeding % ton capacity, but not including any operation
specified under automobile repair -major.
Tran & Vo Properties LLC, operating as Asia Auto Center, purchased the property in
August 2004 and has now wishes to expand its services to include automobile repair -
major, which is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as follows: General repair, rebuilding
or reconditioning engines, motor vehicles or trailers; collision service, including body,
frame or fender straightening or repair, overall painting or paint job; vehicle steam
cleaning. A conditional use permit is required for this change in use.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. Narrative submitted by the applicant.
B. Aerial photo showing the location of the property.
C. Site photos taken Dec. 6, 2004.
D. Site plan approved by the City Council in 1995.
E. Plans for parking lot expansion approved by staff in 2002 and constructed in 2003.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
Automobile repair, whether major or minor, is allowed in the 1-1 district as a conditional
use. The specific requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are in italics below; staff
comments follow each item:
1. The property abuts at least one of the following street segments:
■ Lakeland Avenue between the Canadian Pacific Railroad and 58th Avenue
North.
■ West Broadway between Corvallis Avenue and 56th Avenue North.
■ Winnetka Avenue between 36th Avenue North and a point 660 feet north of
36th Avenue North.
STAFF COMMENTS: The property has frontage on West Broadway between
Corvallis Avenue and 56th Avenue North.
2. The facility meets the following separation distances and hours of operation
requirements. For the purposes of this section, `facility" means any building or
any part of the lot where the city council determines that it is likely that vehicles
will be driven, stopped, or parked as part of the operations of the motor vehicle
repair business.
■ No such facility shall be located less than 50 feet from any property zoned R-
1, R-2 or R-3.
■ If the facility is located at least 50 but less than 100 feet from property zoned
R-1, R-2 or R-3, then it may not be open before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m.
■ If the facility is located at least 100 but less than 250 feet from property zoned
R-1, R-2 or R-3, then it may not be open before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
■ If the facility is located at least 250 feet from property zoned R-1, R-2 or R-3,
then no hours of operations restriction is specified by this Code.
STAFF COMMENTS: The property is located 170 feet from the apartment
buildings at 5324, 5332 and 5340 Hanson Court. Therefore, the use may not
operate before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
3. There is no outdoor parking or storage of vehicles that are to be worked on, are
being worked on, or have been worked on.
STAFF COMMENTS: All vehicles parked on the property must be fully licensed
and operable at all times. We understand that short term parking and storage of
vehicles may occur because a customer may drop off vehicle after hours and the
vehicle may need to sit outside for a day or two while the work is scheduled.
Longer term parking and storage of unlicensed or inoperable vehicles must occur
either in the building or off the site. Longer term parking and storage of any
vehicles, even if licensed and operable, is technically prohibited but as a
practical matter will likely be enforced only on a complaint basis.
4. The establishment is fully screened from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 district.
STAFF COMMENTS: Not applicable. The property does not abut any such
district. Visibility from the apartments at 5324, 5332 and 5340 Hanson Court is
limited due to the presence of another auto -oriented use in between.
5. The city council finds that there will be adequate screening and buffering
between the establishment and adjacent uses.
STAFF COMMENTS: All abutting uses are also auto -oriented in character.
6. The city council determines that all applicable requirements of subsection
515.05, subdivision 3 a) and Section 520 are considered and satisfactorily met.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - AUTO REPAIR -MAJOR - 5264 WEST BROADWAY
2
515.05 Subd. 3 a): 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.
STAFF COMMENTS: The comprehensive plan includes the property in the
area designated for Mixed Use West Broadway/Highway 81 on the future
land use map. Among other things, this area is intended to accommodate
compatible automobile service establishments as conditional uses. The
proposed use is consistent with objectives, plan and policies for commercial
and mixed use areas (pages 43-46 of the comprehensive plan).
■ The characteristics of the subject property as they relate to the proposed use.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed use differs from the current use in
character but not necessarily in scale. There is no evidence that the
proposed use cannot be accommodated on the site. If the use grows beyond
the ability of the site to accommodate it, due to the wider range of repair
services offered, then the business will need to find a larger facility.
■ The impact of the proposed use on the surrounding area.
STAFF COMMENTS: There are no foreseeable negative impacts on adjacent
properties or the surrounding area. The adjacent roadway has sufficient
capacity to accommodate the proposed use. The site is one of the better
looking properties in that area.
520: Site Plan Review.
STAFF COMMENTS: Not applicable. Site plan approved in 1995 by City
Council. Expansion of parking lot approved by staff in 2002 and constructed in
2003, in accordance with city code. No site plan changes proposed at this time.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Application 2004-14 for a conditional use permit for
automobile repair -major at Asia Auto Center, 5264 West Broadway. Staff suggests that
the following finding of fact and condition of approval be included in the motion:
■ The proposed use would be consistent with the requirements of city code, provided
it does not operate before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
Planning Commission action is requested.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - AUTO REPAIR -MAJOR - 5264 WEST BROADWAY
3
ASIA AUTO CENTER, INC.
5264 West Broadway
Crystal, MN 55429
Crystal, October 28, 2004
To the Planning Commission of
The City of Crystal
Pursuant to our application for a Conditional Use Permit, we have submitted below a
written narrative describing our project.
The purpose of our application is to allow us to expand our service offerings to "major"
auto repair such as engine and transmission work, e.g. replacing new and used engines
and transmissions, or disassembling and rebuilding the said parts. Many customers have
requested such service. Currently our repair shop provides only "minor" types of repair,
We respectfully request that The Planning Commission approve our request. Please
contact Dan Tran if any question should arise.
Sincerely,
Dan Tran
Vice -President, Treasurer
Asia Auto Center, Inc
763-537-9642
E*xA
E*kc
Ra
| |
� Em3nmG
|
WATER SERNCE
K|��NC____l_
��r ��- ------
�h
B
m
1—Story—Block
�. Ydif6S
Fir
�a
OWN Hyi
� lS�YL 5
74.60 /
Pf2�PC-rTY
871.30
V33F"'L`l uT-
TL
� 873.49
' J
873.32
873.26
873.15
�ll
872.67
t7Ti dc,,
EXIST
J
l�C1, LO
Poorer
Poke
11
N�, _
G� �t 1 fL/�C1.9
\�l :> [ ti n� � t YL F
�.2C5<c,(E Fort✓ iZr.-
QutR-`tf7 A��SS �Qt2
FiRtr' "�fD►'2byT' Ld
�y(�tC-b p� d�-�EY FbsEc-iL�,--
I
Tl gY S T�'trf _
�` uQ pr.G GoT' GNtxSGE 5.
Su m PA ce Fdm- T% -( PE Qct o
Gots srm0c:eg0cj.
1-Story-I»rame
4slvm
E
ILI
mw
��aYrer
'mole
In uE\-V PKG AnGA► Slat. gc-opEa
TO p rLA-►v 1 TJ Tcl, S a Me D rua * v
4'5 (ZE5T OG pArtkrUC-, Lerr,
t5j; ?0 6. m 1e ; % C! Cs 5Th �-C.. $ 'To
F;C� v l C r`�c ,�• L L •
BACK V'ILL F -aa ExPau DE C
PAR K t W U
F-14 tST, u& TMEE5
FL Ab &j'r P e%,\,! T Cti;,iES QS st vu
Solt- Gott r&c:[-c as -va S �%
maqut mco vupBt "EVV pKCz
, V-1EA, . 1? -E P L AC E It Rtr Pat t2
,► L L 5 c� ?. rz e tit o v G At_(_
Tv-&5u/EyCm& M,&.TstZ caL_
&W 0 14&UL. Tb LEC &L D(SR 54;kL
d C7 O C-� o p 6 mac= CC: o d QDO an
874.11
�4-, T o
�.:
AL.. STALLS -�-
L'
54 7,41 rf CLEANOUT jLkVWEEL(::WA,(,
Y Y
iTr 872.50 �.. 872.20
.25
� n Q, ..a s Cori c s aGrors� A,)49d
1 EXISTING SANITARY
NO l SERVICE (9.5' DEEP)
f2 vEt
V1 Cr
T
' Lo a
�- EXISTING
WATER SERVICE
ni
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20 40
(NFT)
t1ChG- I-,,/ 20 RQ - E ST I --u S
T6
GF W a v � N -t r3 G tZ
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 7, 2004
TO: Planning Commission (December 13th meeting)
FROM: C _ John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2004-15 for Variances to reduce the
front and side setbacks at 4628 Hampshire Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
The property at 4628 Hampshire is 65 feet wide and 122.51 feet deep, with an area of
7,963 sq. ft. (0.18 acres). The house on the property is a 24' x 24' (576 sq. ft.) rambler
with a basement. It also has a 20' x 20' one -car garage connected to the house by a 7'
x 12' breezeway. It is located at the southeast corner of Hampshire Avenue and 46 1h
Place. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential.
The 1949 building permit for the house showed it being set back 34 feet from the front
lot line along Hampshire. City code at the time required a minimum front setback of 30
feet. In fact, the house was built 20 feet from the front lot line. Therefore the house is
an unlawful structure. It was not in compliance with the setback at the time it was built.
The 1952 building permit for the garage and breezeway showed the garage being set
back 32 feet from the front lot line along Hampshire, but did not indicate a setback from
the south side lot line. City code at the time required a minimum front setback of 30
feet from the front lot line but no setback from the side lot line. In fact, the garage is set
back 24 feet from the front lot line and 2 feet from the side lot line. Therefore the
garage is an unlawful structure because it was not in compliance with the front setback
at the time it was built. It is lawfully non -conforming with the side setback, however. It
is also important to note that, because the garage is attached to the house, it is part of
the principal structure.
In fall 2004, the applicant, David Raley, entered into a purchase agreement for the
property with the intent of building an addition onto the rear of the house and converting
the breezeway to living space. He had an initial meeting with the Building Official to
discuss the proposed project. As is typical in these situations, the information provided
by Mr. Raley at this time fell short of a full building permit submittal. As a result, the
Building Official was not aware that the existing house encroached 10 feet into the
required setback. On Oct. 27, 2004, the city received a building permit application from
Mr. Raley, including a site plan showing that the house did not meet the setback
requirements. The building permit application was rejected because it would result in
the expansion of a nonconforming structure. On Nov. 5, 2004, staff discussed the
matter with Mr. Raley and explained the reasoning behind the no -expansion rule and
the various options available if he were to go ahead with the purchase of the property.
On Nov. 9, 2004, staff followed this up with a detailed explanation of the situation that
was emailed to the realtor representing both parties in the property transaction. Mr.
Raley then decided to proceed with the purchase of the property; the closing occurred
on Nov. 18, 2004.
Mr. Raley has applied for two variances, one to reduce the front setback from 30 feet to
20 feet, and the other to reduce the side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet. Notice of the
Dec. 13, 2004 public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the
subject property on Nov. 29, 2004.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. Narrative submitted by the applicant.
B. Comments received from the public.
C. Email from city staff to realtor representing the buyer and seller.
D. Aerial photo showing the location of the property.
E. Site photos taken Dec. 6, 2004.
F. Building plans submitted for house addition.
G. Site plan submitted for house addition.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
As discussed above, the house was built unlawfully because it was inconsistent with the
issued permit and encroached 10 feet into the front setback required at the time. The
house is therefore not lawfully non -conforming ("grandfathered in"). However, because
it has been 55 years since the house was built, it is unlikely the city would at this time
take the necessary legal action to require demolition of the house or correction of the
setback violation. Instead, the city's policy would be to allow the house to continue to
be used but not expanded, with the idea that eventually it would be demolished and
replaced by a new, code compliant structure..
Specifically, the Zoning Ordinance states that the repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance and improvement of non -conforming structures is generally allowed, but
expansion is expressly prohibited. The intent is to preserve the property rights of
owners who are impacted by changes in regulations over time, while at the same time
placing limits on non -conforming uses so that they are less likely to remain for the long
term. In the case of the subject property, the ordinance would allow the existing house
to be repaired and remodeled. But it cannot be expanded.
Regarding the minimum front setback, this requirement is especially important in
maintaining neighborhood character. It is readily viewed from the public street. The
city has consistently required a 30' or greater minimum setback from the front lot line
since 1940. There is nothing unusual about the size, shape or topography of the lot
that would justify a setback variance. It is simply a case of a house being built in
violation of the code and inconsistent with the issued building permit. Even if the house
had been lawful at the time it was built, the city's goal is for non -conforming structures
to eventually be eliminated or brought into compliance with city code. Allowing the
VARIANCE - FRONT & SIDE SETBACKS - 4628 HAMPSHIRE
2
proposed expansion of the house to proceed would probably preclude the eventual
replacement of the house with a code compliant structure. It would likely make the 10
foot front setback encroachment a permanent feature of the neighborhood.
Regarding the minimum side setback, this issue could be neutralized by removing the
breezeway and making the existing attached garage into a detached garage, or by
demolishing the existing attached garage and building a new detached garage in the
rear yard. Either way, the garage would no longer be part of the principal structure (the
house), and would no longer have any bearing on whether the house can be expanded.
Therefore, staff believes that if a front setback variance were to be granted to allow the
house to be expanded, then no side setback variance should be granted because it is
easier to correct than the house setback issue, and such correction is likely given
general trends towards a need for more garage space
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
1. Denial of the requested variance to reduce the minimum front setback from
30 feet to 20 feet.
Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would
not constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because none of the
three required criteria are met. Specifically:
The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required
by this Zoning Code. If treated as a lawful non -conforming use, the existing
house may remain in place, and it may be repaired and improved but not
expanded.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the
landowner, or his predecessors in ownership. The setback problem was
initially created by previous owners, who built both the house and the garage
in violation of city code and in a manner inconsistent with the permits issued
by the city. Upon becoming aware of this problem, the current owner chose
to continue with the purchase of the property.
VARIANCE - FRONT & SIDE SETBACKS - 4628 HAMPSHIRE
3
■ The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. A 30
foot minimum setback requirement has long been the standard in Crystal.
The variance will allow for the enlargement of the existing house to a degree
that it is unlikely that it would ever be demolished. This would likely make the
setback encroachment a permanent feature of the neighborhood.
2. Denial of the requested variance to reduce the minimum side setback from
5 feet to 2 feet.
Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would
not constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because none of the
three required criteria are met. Specifically:
■ The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required
by this Zoning Code. If treated as a lawful non -conforming use, the attached
garage may remain, and it may be repaired and improved but not expanded.
Reasonable alternatives are available, including removing the breezeway to
make the garage into a detached structure so it does not impact expansion of
the house, or removing the garage and building a new, code compliant
garage in the rear yard.
■ The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the
landowner. Upon becoming aware of garage having a nonconforming side
setback, the current owner chose to continue with the purchase of the
property.
■ The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The
5 foot minimum side setback requirement is minimal enough, and the
requested reduction to 2 feet could create real long-term issues due to the
proximity of the adjacent property.
Planning Commission action is requested. A separate motion on each requested
variance (front setback and side setback) is suggested. Findings of fact addressing
whether or not the three variance criteria are met should be included in each motion.
VARIANCE - FRONT & SIDE SETBACKS - 4628 HAMPSHIRE
4
a' .��/✓`�/ -CUA _Ov-�'� -a0� � r
P-a,4�,�
i
a r•
':<�
._
�,.• .. -. �.
_ ..,..,-..
•.. >-... "�._ —.
..•.-� .�-.ti
_. .. .cam, _
w �
�r
i
L�(YI flury i p
r-- 7f-------
_X - -OP E KY T
--c>
rv(r-.-----
-�---—�!---
.�
0 _t /V
-4AULA.�� S2
a
John Sutter
From: John Sutter
went: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:41 PM
o: 'PhilRustad@edinarealty.com'
Cc: Jack Molin
Subject: RE: Questions re 4628 Hampshire
Dear Mr. Rustad,
Jack Molin has forwarded your question to me. Both Jack and I met with Dave Raley Friday afternoon Nov. 5th and discussed the
situation.
Upon reviewing the building permit, we became aware that the existing house is nonconforming with the front setback (approx. 20'
instead of the required 30') and the south side setback (approx. 2' instead of the required 5'). Both state law and city code prohibit
the expansion of nonconforming structures. They can continue in place, and they can be maintained, but they cannot be
enlarged. In the case of the subject property, this means that the various necessary improvements to the existing structure are
allowed. However, we cannot issue a building permit for an addition to the existing structure.
In our discussion with Mr. Raley, we explained that the side setback issue could be neutralized by removing the breezeway so as
to make the existing attached garage into a detached garage. Because the garage would no longer be part of the principal
structure (the house), the fact that the garage does not meet the required 5' side yard setback would no longer have any bearing
on whether the house can be expanded. To avoid having to remove the breezeway, a variance to reduce the side yard setback
from 5' to 2' would be required. In this case, city staff would almost certainly recommend denial of such a request due to the fact
that the 2' setback would be extremely minimal, and because there is an alternative that would neutralize the issue as it relates to
the proposed expansion of the house.
This leaves the front setback issue, which unfortunately is much more significant. The building permit for the original house
showed a front setback of 35' but in fact it appears to have been built with a setback of approximately 20'. Technically, the house
't even a lawful non -conforming use (commonly called "grandfathered in") because it was built out of compliance with the
..ding permit. However, setting that issue aside, if a variance were requested it would be seeking a reduction of the front
setback from 30' to 20', which would be a significant reduction. Furthermore, the minimum front setback is especially important in
maintaining neighborhood character, i.e. it is readily viewed from the public street, and the city has consistently required a 30' or
greater minimum setback from the front lot line for several decades. Finally, there is nothing unusual about the size, shape or
topography of the lot that would justify a setback variance.
The main argument I see for a front yard setback variance is basically what you've already said, that the house has been there,
out of compliance, for a long time... so why not let it be improved and expanded? I told Mr. Raley that he might have a strong
argument for a variance based on the fact that the house had been there for a long time, and the fact that the building permit
indicated a front setback in compliance with the code. However, I also gave him a copy of the 'three part test' for variances, which
is found in both state statute and city code, and explained that it is difficult to meet all three criteria for a finding of undue hardship
which is what the law requires for granting a variance. I explained that the Planning Commission and then the City Council would
make the decision whether a variance would be granted, and that city staff cannot predict how either body might vote on the
matter. I also made it clear to him I was unsure whether city staff could even recommend granting a variance in this case,
especially since there is nothing unusual about the lot, and because of the fact that the house was originally built out of
compliance with the issued building permit.
On Friday we provided Mr. Raley with the variance application materials. The soonest possible timeline for considering such an
application would be as follows:
Nov. 19, 2004: Application due, including statement of undue hardship, site plan, and nonrefundable $200 fee.
Dec. 13, 2004: Planning Commission holds the public hearing and considers the requested variance. Makes recommendation to
the City Council
Dec. 21, 2004: City Council takes action to approve or deny the requested variance.
Regards,
---'-in Sutter
.nner & Redevelopment Coordinator
-----Original Message -----
From: Rustad, Phil [mailto:PhilRustad@edinarealty.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:33 AM
12/08/2004
eX
C
To: Jack Molin
Subject: Questions re 4628 Hampshire
Jack,
I am the Realtor assisting both the Buyers and Seller on 4628 Hampshire. I am writing to find out what your opinion is
regarding the addition the Buyers (Dave and Sandy Raley) would like to put on the home. I've spoken with Dave and he's
told me about the set back issues. I'd like to know if you think their plan to convert the home into a 4 level split is a
realistic one. Obviously, it's in the City of Crystal's best interest to transform this home into one that better fits the
neighborhood by enlarging it and bringing it up to code with regard to the electrical service, bathroom and other issues
raised in the city inspection. I'm sure that you can also understand that the Seller is a little befuddled by the set back
problems. After all, the home has been there for 53 years.
Can you let me know what the process is for the Buyers to get the required variance approval from the city. We have
postponed the closing in order to allow time for this process. Please give me a call on my cell phone so we can discuss
this.
Thanks in advance,
Phil Rustad
Edina Realty, Plymouth
Cell: 612-309-8245
Office: 763-557-4528
12/08/2004
T
N
4F
atO
a.
4 im
- plp:-4e
4elf,-
,d
k
fJY �a ,j
i M�f
yd,d! t.e#9't 1<T Iy ,r :.rrA't;% .I•.� I1, It W
Sir
•!Ys '
�.�.'$� se rz���3 Ji�s., cam.. `,'t '- �;. .�; wd• a,k�,-� � � ,
..meq,
'ems _ .._ +eT`-�•�'s #` .-�_ena. S.', � �.2?'= x. °". . _ ...r,.� •''`.. _ .. � .. .... -"., .. .., _. ...�.�". , .T .. _ ..�... , e 'p•°,t ` ' .. � y .. , _ . ,�_
He
22' I- -I,
i
Ll
P" rme:D "DI�Tr ow
�/ i e c✓
- -- -- ----------------
y
i. 1 - � i.• 1�
ss T
h Yui 9}
I +"d{j�� k�'.�' ft! �}�� Vii' Ht � � �a �;•.. i a �, ya
Ex.
F
ADID
1917/
z
c�oSET
I4
oil
1
it �15"i'i ri G }-CCS S
r
i
i
zz'
z
c�oSET
I4
oil
1
it �15"i'i ri G }-CCS S
r
p� L
V � x+sj ,✓c N��� -- P zy
co
E d
U8 / -
�eF^
ago
m
i
i
F a& Mh i
*s�
ti
'w ,_ I r
SEE F'd%,rc.�EO S,�
I
a /c•S -s 3
n'
L✓
,l/✓
p� L
V � x+sj ,✓c N��� -- P zy
co
E d
U8 / -
�eF^
ago
m
3�;
U
EARA '�
-x/JT�✓f
0
4
W
FAM l t y /{aorr,
R-9
0
L
EGR� W"'�bW
l3
3'4'
f i•
�u' Tr ss IQFFTtr
H_1a P.YcAz Pk'as
T
11 pdS �—
��;�6 • S-rv6
jW
OF
ftDDI ( raN
FAM l t y /{aorr,
R-9
0
L
EGR� W"'�bW
l3
3'4'
f i•
�u' Tr ss IQFFTtr
H_1a P.YcAz Pk'as
T
11 pdS �—
��;�6 • S-rv6
✓Nf+�
At H Bo .
WNnr Prdo f�
Scl ` A/e-
1
pour /Co✓L
�Od Ti - s CO i✓�✓GGT d'�
—1 EA
zz'
gc Alc
y -%z P%rte
y .d
1•r L'S7"J
/G ro G /
XisT,�G
NovJL
✓gyp
'2N if
Eel'
li
"
s1` C'A
I-- ---
7-
c
),4/-,", 91 , A42
7
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 8, 2004
TO: Planning Commission (December 13th meeting)
FROM:John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2004-16 for a Variance to increase the
maximum fence height at 5331 Corvallis Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
The property at 5331 Corvallis is 87.5 feet wide (from north to south) and an average of
143.5 feet deep (from east to west), with an area of 12,556 sq. ft. (0.29 acres). It is
located at the southeast corner of Corvallis Avenue and Lakeland Avenue. The
property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential.
Notwithstanding the orientation of the house, which faces north towards Corvallis
Avenue, the front yard is the area along the west side of the property adjacent to
Lakeland Avenue (the frontage road for County Road 81). The area along Corvallis
Avenue is the side street yard. The area south of the house is the side yard. The area
east of the house is the rear yard.
Beginning in 2001, former owner Dan Johnson began installing an 8 foot high fence on
the property. Some sections of the fence were in the front yard along the west side of
the property. At the time, fences in the front yard were not allowed to exceed 4 feet in
height. Fences on the rest of the property were allowed to be up to 6 feet high, or up to
8 feet high with a building permit. Staff wrote a letter to Mr. Johnson on Sep. 4, 2001
explaining these regulations. Mr. Johnson continued to build the fence in violation of
the code. Approximately one year later, on Sep. 20, 2002, Mr. Johnson submitted a
building permit application for the now -completed fence. The permit was approved with
a requirement that the portion of the fence in the front yard be lowered to 4 feet in
height. However, Mr. Johnson never picked up or paid for the permit, and he never
made the necessary corrections to bring the fence into compliance.
On Dec. 3, 2003, staff became aware that Mr. Johnson was now trying to sell the
property. Due to a number of code compliance issues, including not only the fence but
also various un-finaled permits and unfinished building -related correction items, staff
sent a letter to Mr. Johnson reminding him of the city's requirement for a code
compliance inspection prior to closing. On Jan. 2, 2004, Mr. Johnson applied for the
required inspection. On Jan. 6, 2004, the city's housing Inspector conducted the
inspection in the presence of the current owner, Mr. Richmond. The housing inspector
included bringing the fence into compliance on the list of required correction orders.
The inspector also specifically told Mr. Richmond that the entire fence would need to be
lowered to 6 feet in height for it to be in compliance with city code. Staff followed up
with a letter on Jan. 8, 2004 to Mr. Johnson stating that the entire fence would need to _
be lowered to 6 feet in height, and that if the buyer was planning to take responsibility
for correcting the fence, then the seller should provide a copy of the letter to the buyer.
On Feb. 2, 2004, Mr. Richmond signed an agreement to comply with the orders issued
by the housing inspector.
On Apr. 6, 2004, the housing inspector sent Mr. Richmond an Administrative Notice for
failure to comply with the compliance orders. Because no corrections were made to the
fence, four Administrative Citations were subsequently issued and fines imposed. Mr.
Richmond did not seek an administrative hearing to challenge the citations or fines.
Because the fence had still not been corrected, in June 2004 criminal charges were
brought against Mr. Richmond for failure to comply with the housing inspector's order.
On Nov. 3, 2004, the judge dismissed the criminal case but stated that her expectation
was that Mr. Richmond would bring the fence into compliance.
The city was preparing to seek a court order for correction of the fence when Mr.
Richmond filed an application for a variance to increase the maximum fence height
from 6 feet to 8 feet. Notice of the Dec. 13, 2004 public hearing was mailed to all
property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on Nov. 29, 2004.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. Narrative submitted by the applicant.
B. Aerial photo showing the location of the property.
C. Site photos taken by staff on Dec. 6, 2004.
D. Site sketch of the property prepared by staff.
E. Letter from staff to former owner dated Jan. 8, 2004.
F. Staff notes showing how compliance could have been achieved under the old
ordinance.
G. Staff notes showing how compliance can be achieved under the new ordinance.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
The existing fence was unlawful at the time it was built, not only because it did not have
a building permit, but also because it exceeded 4 feet in height in the front yard. It is
not `grandfathered in' and therefore must be brought into compliance with current
codes.
The current code allows the entire fence to remain in its present location, but it cannot
exceed 6 feet in height because the current code prohibits all fences taller than 6 feet
on residential property. While the current code does have a 4 foot maximum height for
fences in the front yard, it also provides an exception for corner lots adjacent to arterial
roads such as County Road 81. This exception allows the property owner to choose
which street frontage is the front yard for the purpose of determining the maximum
fence height. That is why, under the current code, the existing fence on the subject
VARIANCE - FENCE HEIGHT - 5331 CORVALLIS
2
property may have a height of up to 6 feet even though part of it is located in the front
yard.
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 justifications submitted by Mr. Richmond have to do with conditions that existed at
the time he bought the property, mainly the proximity to County Road 81. This is the
essence of a self-created hardship for which variances should not be granted.
C. RECOMMENDATION
1. Denial of the requested variance to increase the maximum fence height
from 6 feet to 8 feet.
Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would
not constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because none of the
three required criteria are met. Specifically:
The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required
by this Zoning Code. The citywide standard for fences in residential areas is
a maximum height of 6 feet, and the impacts of County Road 81 are not
unique to this particular property. There are 21 other corner lots similarly
impacted by County Road 81 in the immediate neighborhood, and they too
cannot have fences higher than 6 feet. In fact, nearly all of those properties
have no fences at all along County Road 81. There are other ways the
property owner could achieve the desired screening and buffering, including
plantings such as evergreen trees which would not have a height restriction.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the landowner
and his predecessors in ownership. The fence was built unlawfully by the
previous owner. It was unlawful not only because he failed to secure a
building permit, but also because the fence exceeded the 4 foot maximum
height in the front yard that was in effect at the time. Information about the
unlawful nature of the fence was available in the property file at Crystal City
Hall. Prior to the property transfer occurring, city staff informed both the
seller and the buyer what was needed to bring the fence into compliance.
Therefore Mr. Richmond knew, or should have known, that the fence was an
VARIANCE - FENCE HEIGHT - 5331 CORVALLIS
3
unlawful structure and would need to be lowered to 6 feet in height. Any
hardship related to County Road 81 was readily apparent at the time of
purchase. A_
The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. In its
ordinances, the City Council has determined that fences in excess of 6 feet
high are out of character in residential neighborhoods.
Planning Commission action is requested. Findings of fact addressing whether or not
the three variance criteria are met should be included in the motion.
VARIANCE - FENCE HEIGHT - 5331 CORVALLIS
4
11-- I
i hnr/NtYnb�r4f� t -
_ _ d
IuAC Pry D_ T >r
1�D[151= _fit
S33_LDR1(Ptll't_PtS'VE'_IY' __TH AT H_S_.-1, P1Vi�GY_ Fic r
i
-`- B'w_tT'B_y T}fE PRfV_tOus, 6ln/1 E_I lel DUNEa
.' ,! P_Ec1��N._�AS_co�t►�P�_Er�p� -�-- r
I i
FER .THF__.RuLS _�ftE--CFtY-6 C-R
t N TFt AT oCDnQf
DFD .tl_ B
_r.
pt_t_F FN_-
ratt _
NTO t 0Mf�l_ WE
-UN E1,0 _AC#IF_-.cQPl1'�rNc.
'I
Uhf__.EX_PLJ 10
b
('T��_-�i�1�H�J
IS MY r96 -t __TH1.5_ 1
e A5 y -f-Aar LED
--- S0 o N=- AVTF-A
'to REDUC E ' T
1 _u T_13._i_c c ! J_rj ...! I c
t
�1LW RfAT--
-
CU fir'. F -NSE
Kf
Z --U RY T"--RTA_L Lim
ALih-0a �fl-1
CAUSE
_- 1t161aL�_ NOE_
SQU���r 4Y TRE pR06L
"_j
�0? A—COPS y'S_._JCIT
TRE C I t Y.ICAN J
d-Ty.YARD_1N 50ME s Irtu�rioNs.
1: ,_Rt)6rHt 0r
tri YARD AND 16
COM FLY
-DAH
--I
-
.Iib- AI
vFENCE f
:'r /N THEE
TT14—b R D I
i _7TMT' tI E
LIED ALL
6-
r
CYl F, to
Tit
t L _c-hMe
:
ki_I�UQS -
1�'_
�"CD tYlltttl� Rf�fii!` � e
------ ------
SPITAL
miles
STORE
I
— --Arothin w- tCVt:r---- -- -
i
! '
�s
��� � ti b
(F+��� �, �� �;:
fF: iv ,i 3�i. £` =3e' max( ¢. � �'.x
{'
���jjj 9
�F
�
<{. t� 's
„ �
_.
���: F
�����.
,�
--'s�i (k � ...
_t
.�.�.-b ...r�''� _
s
CO&VALWS 510arm ice7cotm4
PL
c
(bo, IPivcir)
Cl
January 8, 2004
Daniel P. Johnson
5331 Corvallis Ave N
Crystal MN 55429
City of Crystal
4141 Douglas Dr N
Crystal MN 55422
voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188
internet: www.ci.crystal.mn.us
Subject: 5331 Corvallis Ave N
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I am writing this letter as a follow-up to the voice mails I exchanged with Jana Johnson
yesterday regarding the unlawful fence at 5331 Corvallis Avenue North.
As you should be aware, the fence is in violation of city code in two ways: (1) It is more than 6'
high yet was built without a building permit; and (2) it is more than 4' high in the front yard,
which for the purposes of zoning is the area between the house and Lakeland Avenue.
Ms. Johnson had discussed the timetable for applying for a variance to allow the fence to
remain as -is. In my response, I explained that the soonest available application cycle would
be for the February 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting and February 17, 2004 City Council
meeting. For a variance application to be considered at these meetings, we would need to
receive a complete application, including the nonrefundable $200 fee, no later than Friday,
January 16, 2004 at 4:30 p.m. The application form including instructions is available at the
Administration counter at Crystal City Hall, 763-531-1000. 1 further explained that, while a
property owner has the right to apply for a variance, in this case staff would probably
recommend denial because, among other things, any hardship was self-created due to failure
to secure the required permit prior to constructing the fence.
In my'voice message I suggested an alternate course of action based on the city's new Zoning
Ordinance which will be effective on February 14, 2004, The new ordinance prohibits any
fence more than 6' high, regardless of location. Like the current ordinance, it also prohibits
fences more than 4' high in the front yard. However, for corner lots along an arterial roadway
(such as Lakeland Avenue), the new ordinance allows the property owner to choose which
yard is the front yard for the purposes of determining maximum fence height. In the case of
the subject property.. this means that compliance with the new Zoning Ordinance could be
achieved if the entire fence were lowered so that no part of it is more than 6' high If that were
done, then no building permit or variance would be required.
EX
5
January 8, 2004
5331 Corvallis Ave N
- page 2 -
It is my understanding from discussions with Housing Inspector Frank Samples that the buyer
may accept responsibility for some or all of the compliance orders issued on January 6, 2004.
If it is your intent for the buyer to accept responsibility for correcting the unlawful fence, then
you should provide them with a copy of this letter so they are aware of what they will need to
do to bring the fence into compliance.
We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in bringing the fence into compliance with city
code. Feel free to contact me at 763-531-1142 if you have any questions.
Regards,
Jo Sutter, Planner & Redevelopment Coordinator
cc: Patrick Peters, Community Development Director
Jack Molin, Building Official
Frank Samples, Housing Inspector
Dan Johnson 2231 Hamlin Ave SE Buffalo MN 55313
Jana Purcell 1760 Alameda St Roseville MN 55113
is
RA&F—1
lf�ISTA NC
FENC
ro AKELAI
�i 4 M-rhwc
#W'A W_,Nl y Ad
AVE
IS 40 fgff
GO
RNL��PT-
-i7
#W'A W_,Nl y Ad
AVE
o —4—
S. kf C.4-
AFf
bf4k f'MT/b is
Net,--------- - -
Patio'
,f r
we
ELEVATED �3
'A gDVE- Ah pc -
p. T10
+0
"rr" RA�
Ai F.1,
HDWSE 116 R, 16 3! 7
r
Agpm Abq/
AL
F-
L
VISTAN
'IF
Toothi PEA
TO LAKE Lf
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 6, 2004
TO: Planning Commission (December 13th meeting)
FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2004-13 for Lot Division at 6401 41St
Avenue North to detach approximately the south 317 feet and incorporate it
into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park.
A. BACKGROUND
The City of Crystal is gradually acquiring property for Hagemeister Pond Park. The
property at 6401 41 St Avenue North is 65.57 feet wide and 634.11 feet deep, with an
area of 41,579 sq. ft. (0.95 acres). The city has determined that it would be desirable
for the south half, hereinafter called the "subject property", to be added to the park.
The subject property is 65.57 feet wide and 317.11 feet deep, with an area of 20,793
sq. ft. (0.48 acres). The current owners, Wayne & Kristine Erickson, have agreed to
sell the subject property to the city. They have also agreed to sell a landlocked parcel
immediately west of the subject property; at 65.57 x 316.92 deep = 20,780 sq. ft. (0.48
acres), this other parcel is approximately the same size as the subject property.
The following Exhibits are attached:
A. Plat map showing the proposed acquisition, both the subject property and the
adjacent parcel.
B. Map from the Hagemeister Pond park planning process.
C. Aerial photo showing the proposed acquisition.
D. Detailed contour map showing the proposed acquisition.
E. Survey showing the proposed acquisition.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
The parcel remaining with the house at 6401 41 St would be 65.57 feet wide and 317.00
feet deep, or 20,786 sq. ft. in area (0.48 acre). It would easily comply with the setback
and other requirements of Crystal City Code. The new park parcel would be combined
with the existing park property. The proposed lot division would be in full compliance
with city code. Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from lot division.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Application 2004-13 for Lot Division at 6401 41St Avenue
North. Planning Commission action is requested.
4026
O
(D
d'
�
Cfl
00
o�
CD
o
d-
'
00
l d -
4027
41ST PL N
3948 394 3.' 394
401
N
oo
4141
3940 3941
3940 3941
-u
�-
tet- IV- CO
M N r- O
N
O
00
CD
(0
CO
CD
Cfl
CD
r- co C0 Q0
d- CO co co
LO
CO
O
0
00
392 392
LN
co
�
Co
NN
co
N
00
40 (
O
Ir -641
N
r-
O
N
p
N
c
41 STAVE N
6629 6601
4087
=
�=
632
652
4079
n
4076
CD
D
1.
LD
co
•i
4071
n
40
z
40
59
4052
4051
4047
4 044
4036
1 4041
4026
O
(D
d'
�
Cfl
00
o�
CD
o
d-
'
00
l d -
4027
3948 394 3.' 394
401
N
oo
n
3940 3941
3940 3941
-u
�-
�
394 3' koposm
O
O
CD
(0
CO
CD
Cfl
CD
co
CL C0
z
C)
co
392 392
r—
`-
`O
40 (
Q0
40TH
AVE N
3948 394
3948 650
3948 394 3.' 394
3940 3941
3940 3941
-u
394 3' koposm
H
3 9 32 3 AcammmtiN
3934 393
3 9 3e. 393
,z
z
W
392 392 > �!
392 392
392 392
OTHER RECENT Aceummows
@—CRR CHAMBER
GATEWAY FEATURE
DEMONSTRATION'
GARDENS
PICNIC AREA
SHADE GRASSES -
S' PAVED
TRAIT
WOOD -CHIP \�
TRAIL - 'A
BOUNDARY- Combined fence a
simple wood posts @ periphery
where boundary is unclear
SIGNAGE
Way -Finding- Gateway feature
Interpretive- Cultural H natural
history
TRAILS- Combination paved a wood•
chip that links picnic area, overlook,
dock, decks a boardwalk
PLANTING
Ems- Demonstration gardens,
formal native beds, mow strip
@ trail edge
Natural Areas- Manage Invasive
species
SEATING- Located at picnic
area, overlook and decks
LIGHTING- Entry a overlook
PARKING- One dedicated
HC parking on 41st Ave
WATER QUALITY- Micropool
N ff grit chamber
WILDLIFE HABITAT- Vegetation a
structural improvements
�?���j�'� �
� z ��
W
pkv
'
.�. ��.�� �<t�
.'�,
� .�E,�*�"4sr� �
w*' ,gyp � �. �...
"��, ° � `�..
Y� t
a4
r�.S
Y� F
x:. -t' . 3
y
e- ..
� �' .'fi.eSF i sx a �;tS
'+` #a} 1 ',�. '5 5$.
S+F, ,y. '�77 ����
'ass � A
'
6�,' �
+:
..
.-�
.ice
�. ��:4:W ,�..� «_. ..
szkkF� .
�ix .. cid`x....»..i
4`.w ..
SCs a.:
�9
t .7
924
® I I I
of i
x 897.6 897.7 x
x
94.3 898.5
x
897.8 898.2 I xi 898.7
x
x
��x x
I
x 898.6
X 882.6
x
885.5
------x 898_8---
\
x
899. ��--- –
895-
884.7
—x
x
885.2 /\
893.3
—
S
x 3.6
– – – � 890.
892.8 r-1
893.5 x
v � C3
890
X 889.7
1 � i
i
x x—
_
i I
x x 893.5
x
x
895.7
Established in 1962
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
I
a Denotes Iron Monument
Boundary Survey for:
CITY OF CRYSTAL
INVOICE NO. 70233
P.B.NO_ 922-09
SCALE: 1 " = 50'
41ST AVENUE NORTH
NORTH L INE OF LOT 66, AUD. SUB. No. 324
I
-0—
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY L INE
The South 317.11 feet of that part of the East 65.57 feet of Lot 66, lying South
of the North 30 feet thereof in Auditors Subdivision No. 324, Hennepin County,
Minnesota. Subject to easements and restrictions of record if any.
AND
The South 1/2 of that part of the West 65.57 feet of the East 131.14
feet of Lot 66, lying south of the street right—of—way for 41st Avenue in
Auditors Subdivision No. 324, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Subject to easements and restrictions of record if any.
NORTH L /NE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF L O T 6 6,
L YI NG SOUTH OF THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY
65.57
,\ 65.57 it
DE'TA IL
not to scale
The only easements shown are from plats of record or information
provided by client.
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of
a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the
location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, or on any
said land.
Surveyed by us this 2nd day of November 20_04.
Signed
Charl Anderson, Minn. Reg. No.21733 or
Gregory R. Prasch, Minn Reg No. 24992
�v
--65.57 ...__...-
131.14
SOUTH L /NE OF LOT 66, AUD. SUB. No. 324
mW
Crystal recruiting committee members for motor vehicle code update
The Crystal City Council has directed that a citizen committee be convened by spring 2005 to
review city code provisions governing the parking and storage of motor vehicles and equipment
in residential areas and to recommend changes to the Council. This review would include
revisiting the city's recreational vehicle code. Thirty years have passed since Crystal city leaders
developed the ordinance that outlines how residents can park and store recreational vehicles
and equipment on their properties.
Much has changed in those 30 years. Not only do more families own more than two cars, there
are more families that own at least one type of recreational vehicle today than when the
ordinance was first adopted, largely due to lifestyle changes, an increase in leisure time and a
greater variety of activities to fill up that leisure time. Vehicles and recreational equipment have
also increased in size. Instead of owning a slip -in camper or camper trailer, many people have
opted for a self-contained motor home or a fifth -wheeler. Off-highway vehicles, such as all -
terrain vehicles, or ATVs, are an even larger part of the landscape, as are the various types of
watercraft — boats and jet skis — and snowmobiles.
"The challenge isn't that people own these vehicles or keep them on their property," said Patrick
Peters, community development director for the City of Crystal. "It's that the residential lots that
were platted and developed for single family homes in Crystal and other inner -ring suburbs
some 40 or 50 years ago can't be made larger to accommodate the number and size of today's
motor vehicles." Peters said the City Council has acknowledged the increased potential for
detrimental impacts to the health and well-being of residential neighborhoods caused by the
over -storage or improper storage of motor vehicles, including recreational vehicles and
equipment.
The Crystal City Council has determined that this is the right time to revisit the city's motor
vehicle codes and make the necessary changes to find a balance between reflecting
contemporary lifestyles and preserving the city's neighborhoods.
Crystal residents are being recruited to fill eight seats on the Motor Vehicle and Equipment
Code Citizen Review Committee. The citizen's committee, which will include recreational vehicle
owners and non -owners, city council members, planning _commissioners, park and recreation
commissioners and city staff, will begin looking into the wide range of issues associated with
motor vehicle parking and storage next spring. They then will forward their recommendations to
the city council for consideration and action later in the year.
Crystal residents interested in serving on the committee may pick up an application for
appointment to the committee at Crystal City Hall, or they may request that an application be
mailed to them by calling 763-531-1072. The deadline for submitting applications is Friday,
December 17. As the process gets underway next spring, meeting information will be posted on
the city's Web site at www.ci.crystal.mn.us.
►
Proposed 2005 Update to City Code Sections Governing
Parking and Storage of Motor Vehicles and Equipment
Desired Outcomes
Review language in the city code governing the parking and storing of motor vehicles
and equipment on residential properties and modify the code as determined to be
necessary to accomplish the following goals:
13 The city's ordinances need to reflect contemporary lifestyles and community
standards and expectations.
Council would like to enhance neighborhood and community aesthetics.
There is a need to eliminate conflicts within the various vehicle parking and
storage ordinances in the city code.
Clearer code language would aid enforcement efforts.
13 Council's goal is to achieve a reasonable consensus on how to regulate the
parking and storage of motor vehicles and equipment.
Drivers
Code sections governing the parking and storage of motor vehicles and equipment,
including recreational vehicles, are out of date.
The city's recreational vehicle ordinance was adopted in May 1975 and amended
only slightly in 1987, and the type and character of recreational vehicles have
changed since 1975.
Enforcement of the current code is challenging due to outdated language and
changes over the past 30 years in the recreational vehicle industry and family
lifestyles.
13 Presumably there are more owners of recreational vehicles now than in 1975;
and therefore, there presumably would be more and different types of
recreational vehicles and equipment than in there were in 1975.
El The updated zoning ordinance limits the number of motor vehicles that may be
parked outside to four, but the zoning ordinance may not be the most effective
tool for enforcement of parking and storage limits.
13 The new zoning code also limits the size of commercial vehicles that may be
stored on residential property, and the City Council would like to visit these
provisions, as well, as part of this comprehensive effort to review the city's
standards on motor vehicle parking and storage.
Proposed 2005 Update to City Code Sections Governing
Parking and Storage of Motor Vehicles and Equipment
Attitudes and Opinions
Strong and stronger.
13 Strong objections to properties used only as burial grounds for out -dated,
unlicensed or nonfunctional vehicles and equipment.
11 Vehicles and equipment often represent significant investments.
El The issue of property rights is often raised in discussions about what people can
and cannot do on their property.
El Some believe that the storage of recreational vehicles and equipment, as well as
an excessive number of motor vehicles of any type, can be unsightly and acts as
a blighting influence in residential neighborhoods.
13 Some residents feel that recreational vehicles should be stored in proper storage
facilities and not on residential properties, but some recreational vehicle owners
want to have ready access to vehicles and equipment and prefer to not pay for
the storage of vehicles and equipment.
Some perceive that the limits established in 1975 for recreational vehicles are too
permissive to adequately limit adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods.
Key Messages
City Council acknowledges need for updating the city's motor vehicle parking and
storage codes.
Land use controls are intended to protect the integrity of residential properties by
limiting and establishing standards for the use of property.
13 Generally, the city has an obligation to provide for residents' health, safety and
general welfare and to respond accordingly when the quality of life may be at
risk.
13 Striving to enhance the quality of our neighborhoods is fundamental to staving off
deterioration. And there is a perception that inadequate controls on the parking
and storage of motor vehicles contribute to deterioration of our neighborhoods.
Any modifications need to be sensitive to the needs, desires and lifestyles of
vehicle owners as well as expectations of the Council and broader community.
The code needs to recognize a resident's reasonable use and enjoyment of their
property.
Citizen input is essential to determine a solution that is equitable and that
contributes to the well-being of the community and its residents.
Proposed 2005 Update to City Code Sections Governing
Parking and Storage of Motor Vehicles and Equipment
Next Steps
Gear up for the effort.
13 Communicate to residents the need for changes to the city's motor vehicle
parking and storage codes (Sun -Post, City Newsletter, Channel 12)
Develop and distribute application to solicit membership on task force.
Determine resident membership on task force by end of December.
Select a facilitator/mediator and meet to outline the process.
Since much of the discussion will involve the parking and storage of recreational
vehicles, to =_e will not.conyene gntil_April/May_2005, in order to not
exclude recreational vehicle owners who may leave for the winter.
S%l
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Sutter
FROM: Mary D. Tietj en
DATE: December 6, 2004
RE: Limitation on number of parked vehicles
Background
This is in response to your request for a memorandum addressing the effect of the provision in the
City's new Zoning Ordinance (effective February 14, 2004) that limits the number of vehicles
parked or stored to four per single family dwelling lot. Your specific question was whether this new
limitation could be applied to property owners who had more than four parked cars on their property
prior to February 14, 2004.
Section 515.33 of the current Zoning Ordinance sets forth the permitted principal and accessory
uses in an R-1 Low Density Residential district. The permitted principal uses are: one -family
detached dwellings, two-family dwellings (with certain conditions), state licensed residential
facilities, licensed day care facilities, group family day care facilities, public parks and playground
and essential services. Off-street parking is listed as a "permitted accessory use" under section
515.33, subd. 3. Also, the current Ordinance provides separate definitions for non -conforming
structure ("any structure permitted by existing city ordinance upon the effective date of this Code,
which would not conform to the applicable regulations if the structure were to be erected under the
provisions of this Code") and non -conforming use ("a lawful use of land that does not comply with
the use regulations for its zoning district but which complied with applicable regulations at the time
the use was established").
The previous zoning code contained a separate section entitled "off-street parking requirements"
that applied to all off-street parking facilities in all of the zoning districts of the city. (see former
section 515.09), but it did not include a limitation on the number of parked vehicles. Also, the
M 205-6 372v1
AC;:ewDN:ACR205fiF1,
previous zoning ordinance defined a "non-conforniing building, structure, or use" as "[a] building,
structure or use which does not conform with the district regulations in which it is situation." Nftwl
Legal Analvsis
Minnesota law protects property owners' vested rights by requiring that when a governmental unit
enacts a zoning ordinance, existing nonconforming uses must be permitted to remain.' The issue
here is whether parking constitutes an existing nonconforming "use" of property that the City must
allow to continue.
The Minnesota courts have not specifically addressed whether parking may constitute a lawful
nonconforming use on property. Several Minnesota cases recognize open storage as a
nonconforming use protected against zoning changes .2 In those cases, however, open storage was
the primary purpose for which the owner used the property, which is factually different from the
situation here, where parking is not a primary, but an "accessory" or "incidental" use of the
property.
Some courts have concluded that an accessory or incidental use of property does not create a vested
interest and, in particular, that a property owner "does not have an inherent or vested right in the
continuation of a particular manner of parking automobiles on his property."3 Also, there is some
authority supporting the conclusion that an incidental or accessory use cannot be the basis for the
establishment of a nonconforming use.
It is my opinion that the City may apply the new parking limitation to all property owners,
regardless of whether the owner parked more than four vehicles on their property before February
14, 2004 (effective date of the new zoning ordinance). If the City adopts this position with respect
to enforcement of the parking requirement, it could apply either of the following rationales:
Parking, as merely an "accessory" (rather than a "principal") use of the property, does not
establish a lawful nonconforming use, giving the property owner the right to continue to
park an unlimited number of vehicles on the property.
2. Under the previous zoning ordinance (unlike the current ordinance), off-street parking was
not defined as an "accessory use" in the R-1 District, nor was parking defined as any other
kind of "use" of property. Rather, the previous ordinance contained separate regulations for
off-street parking that applied to all zoning districts. Thus, because parking was not
' See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le.
2 See County of Isanti v Peterson, 469 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 505 N.W.2d 54; Qi!Y
of Savage v Richard Knutson, Inc., 1991 WL 222387 (Minn. Ct. App., Nov. 5, 1991).
3 See City of Lake Geneva v. Smuda, 249 N.W.2d 783 (Wis. 1977); Gear v. City of Phoenix, 379 P.2d 972 (Ariz. 1963);
Borough of Northvale v. Blundo, 195 A.2d 221 (N.J. 1963) (accessory uses should not be unduly restricted but they may
not persist where they impair the residential character of a neighborhood).
4 8A McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.209 (3rd ed. 1994).
2
considered a "use" of property and does not appear to fall within the previous definition of
"non -conforming use," there is arguably no basis for the existence of a non -conforming use.
Although there is some legal authority in other jurisdictions to support rationale #1, the City should
keep in mind that there is no definitive authority in Minnesota supporting the conclusion that
"accessory uses" may not establish a lawful nonconforming use. Thus, I believe rationale #2 has
more merit. Finally, the City should be mindful that, under the logic of rationale #2, parking could
become a non -conforming use under the new zoning ordinance because parking is now a
"permitted accessory use" of property.
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
November 16, 2004:
Adopted a resolution approving a Preliminary Plat for an 18 unit townhouse development at
3148 Douglas Drive North, and approved first reading of an ordinance rezoning same from
R-1 Low Density Residential to PD Planned Development (Application 2004-10).
December 6, 2004:
Approved second reading and adoption of an ordinance rezoning 3148 Douglas Drive
North from R-1 Low Density Residential to PD Planned Development (Application 2004-
10).
All of the Council's actions on the items above were consistent with the Planning
Commission's recommendations.
Page 1 of 1 12/03/2004