2003.06.09 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY
June 9, 2003
7:00 p.m.
Crystal City Hall — Council Chambers
4141 Douglas Dr N
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• May 12, 2003 meeting
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider a Variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from
30% to 42% for property located at 4331 Welcome Avenue North.
D. OLD BUSINESS
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. GENERAL INFORMATION
C��7��1►�3�]:i�1uJ
H. ADJOURNMENT
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION
May 12, 2003
A. CALL TO ORDER
Page I of 4
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the
following present: Davis, K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and
VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter, Community Development
Assistant Dietsche, and City Council member Hoffman.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the
minutes of the March 10, 2003 meeting with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
C. INDUCTION OF TOM DAVIS INTO PLANNING COMMISSION
New Planning Commissioner Tom Davis was sworn in by Chair VonRueden.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Site plan review for a 3,420 sq. ft. addition to an existing office building, together
with parking lot and landscaping modifications at 5200 Douglas Dr N (Family Eye
Care Center).
Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of
the site plan based on the suggested findings of fact in the staff report.
Commissioner Krueger questioned why there why there was only one handicapped
parking space for the facility. Planner Sutter replied that only one handicapped parking
space is required for lots with fewer than 50 spaces.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to
close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to
recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2003-01, site plan review
at 5200 Douglas Dr N. Findings of fact are that the plan meets the requirements
of City Code, it is a good addition to the community, and that the planting
recommendations stated by the City Forester will enhance the site.
Page 2of4
Motion carried.
2. Consider a variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from
30% to 40% at 3534 Kyle Ave N.
Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of
the variance based on the suggested findings of fact in the staff report.
Commissioner Krueger questioned how many garage doors the applicant intended to
install for the new 3 -car garage. Planner Sutter responded that such information was not
included in the variance application.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to close
the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2003-02 for a variance to
increase rear yard structure coverage at 3534 Kyle Ave N. Findings of fact are as
stated in the staff report.
'"'*N Motion carried.
3. Consider a variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from
30% to 50% at 3516 Kyle Ave N.
Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of
the variance based on the suggested findings of fact in the staff report.
Commissioner Sears questioned whether or not there would be any negotiation on the
trees that the EDA would like to preserve on the site. Planner Sutter replied that although
the EDA would really like to preserve the three trees indicated on the site sketch in the
staff report, selecting the best house plan for the site is most important.
Commissioner T. Graham asked what style of house is favorable to the EDA on 40' wide
x 128' deep lot. Planner Sutter stated that in order to maximize square footage on a small
lot, the most logical and desirable plan would be a two-story house.
Commissioner Kamp stated that he thought one of the reasons the EDA was so interested
in redeveloping this area was to widen these 40' non -conforming lots such as 3516 Kyle
Ave N to be conforming to City Code. Commissioner T. Graham stated that if the city
could make a 40' wide lot viable, then he could see no reason to widen these lots. He
also stated that in his opinion, granting the variance would allow reasonable use of the
property without negative impact.
Commissioner K. Graham asked the anticipated sale price of the new house upon
completion. Planner Sutter responded that the target lot price is $50,000 and the target
Page 3 of 4
value (lot and new house combined) is $206,000. Commissioner K. Graham questioned
if the city were to combine two 40' wide lots, what the 80' wide lot would be valued at.
Planner Sutter explained that just because a 40' lot is valued at $50,000, doesn't mean
that an 80' wide lot would be valued at $100,000. He stated that the 80' lot would
probably be valued around $65,000 because it still could only have one house on it.
Commissioner K. Graham responded that it is obvious why the city feels it is beneficial
to keep these lots at 40'.
Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to
close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2003-03 for a variance to
increase rear yard structure coverage at 3516 Kyle Ave N. Findings of fact are as
stated in the staff report.
Motion carried 7-2 with Davis, K. Graham, T. Graham, Nystrom, Sears, Strand,
and VonRueden voting aye, and Kamp and Krueger voting nay.
4. Consider a variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from
`'� 30% to 50% at 3520 Kyle Ave N.
Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of
the variance based on the suggested findings of fact in the staff report.
Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
=> Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Strand to
recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2003-04 for a variance to
increase rear yard structure coverage at 3520 Kyle Ave N. Findings of fact are as
stated in the staff report.
Motion carried 7-2 with Davis, K. Graham, T. Graham, Nystrom, Sears, Strand,
and VonRueden voting aye, and Kamp and Krueger voting nay.
E. OLD BUSINESS
None.
F. NEW BUSINESS
Page 4 of 4
Update on a study of potential transit -oriented development around the proposed Bus Rapid
Transit station at County Road 81 and Bass Lake Road. Presented by Brad Scheib of Hoisington
Koegler Group.
G. GENERAL INFORMATION
Quarterly Development Status Report
H. OPEN FORUM
I. ADJOURNMENT
=> Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Secretary Nystrom
w
Chair VonRueden
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 29, 2003
TO: Planning Commission (June 9t" meeting)
FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2003-05 for a Variance to increase the
maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 42% at 4331 Welcome
Avenue North.
A. BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 45.5' wide x 176.4' deep lot with 8,026 sq. ft. (0.18 acres). It
is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The
property owner wishes to construct a new one -car garage, driveway and some sidewalk
in the rear yard. As is typical for homes in the surrounding area, the garage would
have driveway access from the alley at the rear of the property. The existing house
and other structures plus the proposed garage and driveway would result in rear yard
structure coverage approaching 42%.
The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure
coverage from 30% to 42%.
Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject
property on May 29tH
The following exhibits are attached:
A. plat map showing the location of the subject property;
B. site sketch;
C. coverage calculation sheets; and
D. narrative.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
The requested variance would increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from
30% to 42%. As shown on the coverage calculation sheet, this would allow installation
of a new 16'x 22' garage plus a driveway and some new sidewalk for access.
The main issue in this case is whether reasonable use of the property includes these
coverage items. Staff opinion is that this property is unduly impacted by the city's
maximum structure coverage rule because the garage is accessed off an alley.
In 2002-2003 the city approved variances to increase the maximum rear yard structure
coverage to 50% on three lots somewhat similar to the subject property: 3513, 3516
and 3520 Kyle. However, these three lots are slightly narrower (40' vs. 455) and much
shallower (128' vs. 176) than the subject property. This raises the question of whether
a variance should be as generous when the lot is deeper and the potential rear yard
area is greater. We may want to consider changing the draft Zoning Ordinance's
"maximum coverage varies with lot width" idea to "maximum coverage varies with rear
yard area" instead. Staff intends to discuss this concept with the Planning Commission
in the near future.
The applicant's situation is complicated by the fact that the house is placed unusually
far back on the lot. This reduces the rear yard area when compared to similar lots, thus
reducing the allowable coverage and increasing the needed variance. The subject
property is so deep that, if the house had been placed in a more typical position, no
variance would be needed from the current 30% standard even for a double garage and
a larger driveway.
Staff suggests that the applicant's request be granted to provide the minimum variance
needed for the currently proposed project (42%). Any future projects would be subject
to the re -written Zoning Ordinance which will likely have less restrictive coverage limits.
C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
1. For approval:
Strict application of the 30% maximum rear yard coverage in this particular case
would constitute an undue hardship for the following reasons (Crystal City Code
515.56 Subd. 5):
❑ "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as
required by this Zoning Code." If the variance is not granted, the property
owner will be denied reasonable use of the property. Most Crystal lots can
accommodate accessory structures such as those proposed by the applicant
and still comply with the 30% maximum rear yard coverage. However,
properties with garages accessed from alleys do not have the same
opportunity for these reasonable and customary accessory uses. Strict
application of the ordinance in the case of the subject property would prevent
the property from being put to a reasonable use.
❑ "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
and not created by the property owner." The plight of the landowner is the
result of the property's alley access. The area that would be covered by
structures in the rear yard is not unusual or excessive when compared to
other alley -served lots of similar size.
VARIANCE - 4331 WELCOME
PAGE 2 OF 3
- ❑ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. "
Having garages, driveways and decks/patios completely within the rear yard
is the standard form of development on properties served by alleys, even if it
does exceed the 30% coverage limit. The site sketch and coverage
calculations show that a 42% limit on the subject property would result in rear
yard open space typical for alley -served properties of comparable width to the
subject.
2. For denial: Because staff believes that all three of the undue hardship criteria
are met, we have no suggested findings of fact for denial.
D. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Application 2003-05 for a Variance to increase the
maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 42% at 4331 Welcome Avenue
North. The suggested Findings of Fact are in Section C(1) on the previous page.
The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City
Council consideration. The City Council would consider the recommendation at its
meeting on June 17tH
VARIANCE - 4331 WELCOME
PAGE 3OF3