The URL can be used to link to this page

2003.01.13 PC Meeting PacketPU 4F;,Li c. CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY January 13, 2003 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall — Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. ANNUAL ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1. Election of Officers • Chairperson • Vice -Chairperson • Secretary 2. Approval of Meeting Calendar and Due Dates for 2003 Applications C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • December 9, 2002 meeting D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider Application 2002-24 for a Variance to reduce the garage door setback from 20 feet to 8 feet at 4228 Brunswick Avenue North. E. OLD BUSINESS F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discuss preliminary draft of the new Zoning Ordinance (proposed C-1, C-2, C-3 and 1-1 district regulations) G. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Quarterly Development Status Report 2. Interviews to be held on January 21St for Planning Commission appointments H. OPEN FORUM 1. ADJOURNMENT 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTION BALLOT POSITION: CHAIR (CIRCLE ONE) K. GRAHAM T. GRAHAM KAMP NYSTROM SEARS STRAND KRUEGER VONRUEDEN CITY OF CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS ARTICLE 1. MISSION STATEMENT The role of the Crystal Planning Commission is to serve the City Council and citizens of Crystal by formulating recommendations in land use matters and by devoting the time necessary to listen to fact, to consider public input and to render decisions in an objective manner. To be successful in this role, Planning Commissioners acknowledge and honor these values: • Open-mindedness: Decisions are made free from prejudice or bias; Commissioners are receptive of new ideas and to reason. • Respect: Commissioners listen to and show respect for the opinions and positions of fellow Commissioners as well as those who come before the Commission. • Equal treatment: Everyone appearing before the Commission has the same privileges, status and rights. • Attack the problem, not the person: Personal attacks are not tolerated, but honest and informed debate is encouraged. • Offer and accept constructive criticism: Constructive comments are to be encouraged and welcomed; unfavorable judgments that find fault and fix responsibility are not. • Responsibility to the City of Crystal: The best interests of the city of Crystal are paramount and rise above parochial interests. • Shared responsibility: The Commission as a whole bears the responsibility for decisions and recommendations that are made. ARTICLE IL ORGANIZATION A. Election of Officers The officers of the Commission shall be elected by the members of the Commission at the January meeting each year. Officers shall serve for a period of one year, commencing with the first meeting of each year. The term of office for each Officer is one year, and that no Officer may serve for more than two consecutive years in the same position. B. Officers The officers of the Commission shall be a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and Secretary. In addition, there shall be an official administrative secretary who need not be a member of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISION BYLAWS -APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 11/19/02 Page 1 of 3 C. Duties The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission, shall have such powers of the supervision and management as may pertain to the office of the Chairperson. 2. The Vice Chairperson shall preside and perform all duties of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence, disqualification or disability. 3. The Secretary shall be responsible for administrative work necessary for the operations of the Planning Commission, unless city staff has been directed by the City Manager to assume these administrative duties. In the absence of the Secretary, a temporary Secretary may be appointed by the presiding officer to fulfill the duties of Secretary at that meeting. The Secretary shall keep the minutes of all meetings and all records of the Commission. Minutes of the meetings shall be mailed or delivered to all Commission members and shall include the notice and the agenda for the next regular meeting. The Secretary shall notify all members of any special meeting of the Commission. Approved minutes shall be provided to the City Council in the next available meeting packet or newsbrief. In addition to these administrative duties, in the absence of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, the Secretary shall preside and perform all duties of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence, disqualification or disability. 4. It shall be the duty of each member to notify the administrative secretary if such meeting cannot be attended. D. Task Force Task forces shall be formed when deemed necessary by the Chairperson. Such Task Forces shall consist of a leader, who shall be a member of the Commission, and any number of people, members or non-members, the leader deems necessary to successfully complete the task. The Chairperson shall appoint the leader of any Task Force, keeping in mind the interests of individual members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be ex officio members of any Task Force formed. ARTICLE III. MEETINGS A. The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve regular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise set by the Commission at the January meeting of each year. In addition, the date and time for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum. B. Quorum, consisting of a majority of the members of the Commission, shall be sufficient to transact the business of the Commission. C. The Commission may hold special meetings to complete or initiate business at the call of the Chairperson, or upon the request of three members of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISION BYLAWS -APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 11/19/02 Page 2 of 3 D. The roll shall be called at each meeting and a record of those members present or absent shall also be recorded in the minutes of such meeting. E. The order of business will be as follows: Call to Order Approval of Minutes Public Hearings Old Business New Business General Information Open Forum Adjournment ARTICLE IV. ATTENDANCE Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from more than three regular meetings in a calendar year is not considered acceptable because it impairs the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the community. For this reason, upon a Commissioner's fourth absence from a regular meeting within a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences and the City Council may take action to remove the Commissioner. All Commissioners are expected to notify city staff prior to any meeting if unable to attend. ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROVISIONS No member of the Commission shall be authorized to speak on behalf of the Commission publicly until the Commission has first considered and approved such statements. The City Council or City Manager shall be notified in advance of the nature of any public statement of official policy concerning the Commission. ARTICLE VI. AMENDMENTS These rules and procedures may be amended by a majority of the membership at a regular or special meeting. Notice of the proposed amendments shall be mailed to all members of the Commission by the Secretary prior to the meeting at which the amendments are to be voted upon. Any member of the Commission may, in writing, propose amendments to these rules and procedures. PLANNING COMMISION BYLAWS - APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 11/19/02 Page 3 of 3 'Due Dates for Planning & Zoni._g Applications in 2003 (City of (___ j' sial) DUE DATE FOR APPLICATION, FEE, AND REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (Typically 3% weeks before the Plan. Comm. meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (PUBLIC HEARING) (2"d Monday, unless otherwise noted.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING #1 (REQUIRED FOR ALL APPLICATIONS) (1St or 3rd Tuesday, unless otherwise noted.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING #2 (ONLY REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCES)* (1St or 3rd Tuesday, unless otherwise noted.) January 17, 2003 February 10, 2003 February 18, 2003 March 4, 2003 February 14, 2003 March 10, 2003 March 18, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 21, 2003 April 14, 2003 May 6, 2003 May 20 2003 April 18, 2003 May 12, 2003 May 20, 2003 June 3 2003 May 16, 2003 June 9 2003 June 17 2003 July 1, 2003 June 20, 2003 July 14, 2003 August 4, 2003** August 19, 2003 July 18, 2003 August 11, 2003 August 19, 2003 September 2, 2003 August 15, 2003 September 8 2003 September 16, 2003 October 7 2003 September 19, 2003 October 13, 2003 October 21 2003 November 14, 2003 October 17, 2003 November 12, 2003*** November 18, 2003 December 2, 2003 November 14, 2003 December 8, 2003 December 16, 2003 January 6, 2004 December 19, 2003 January 12, 2004 January 20, 2004 February 3, 2004 *The second City Council meeting is only required for ordinance changes such as rezonings and zoning ordinance text amendments. Also, adopted ordinance changes do not go into effect until 30 days after the ordinance is published; this means they typically are not effective until six weeks after City Council meeting #2. **City Council meeting normally scheduled for Tuesday, August 5th will be held on Monday, August 4th because the 5th is National Night Out. -Planning Commission meeting normally scheduled for Monday, November 10th will be held on Wednesday, November 12th because the 11th is a state holiday. For further information regarding Planning & Zoning applications or related matters, call John Sutter at (763) 531-1142. s CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 2002 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: K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES => Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. ^ D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discuss preliminary draft of the new Zoning Ordinance sections pertaining to R-2 and R-3 district regulations. Planner Sutter summarized and detailed areas of the draft with considerable revisions. The Planning Commission engaged in specific discussion about the following: 1. Maximum densities in R-2. Planner Sutter stated that the maximum density for R-2 is based on the Comprehensive Plan, which states that densities are to be no less than 5 and no more than 12 dwellings per gross acre. Commissioner T. Graham questioned if densities would be determined during site plan review and Planner Sutter replied yes and would depend on the character of the surrounding area and the potential for negative impacts on the community. 2. Home occupations as an accessory use in R-2. Commissioner Magnuson expressed concerned that unlawful home occupations are becoming more and more prominent throughout Crystal neighborhoods and was curious as to how the city was handling the situation. Planner Sutter explained that some home occupations are permitted, but must comply with specific standards set forth by -004N the zoning code. Enforcement action on unlawful or "nuisance" home occupations is usually on a complaint basis. City staff investigates the complaint and then notifies the property owner if a violation is observed. If legal steps have Page 2 of 3 to be taken, the process can be lengthy and the outcome uncertain. T. Graham suggested exploring home occupations in more depth during the public hearing of the draft ordinance. 3. Garage sale signs as a permitted accessory use. Commissioner K. Graham inquired about the difficulty of enforcing garage sale signs throughout the city. Planner Sutter stated that any non-governmental sign placed in the right-of-way is considered abandoned litter and it is important to state that garage sale signs are only permitted on the property where the sale is to be conducted or the private property of others, with their consent, for the very reason of enforcement. Several commissioners also stated that it might be a good idea to state that real estate signs are also not permitted in the right-of-way or on public property. Planner Sutter stated that real estate signs are not really a zoning issue and that any non- governmental signs in public rights-of-way are prohibited by state law, as well as city code. 4. Bed and breakfast establishments. Planner Sutter stated that bed and breakfast establishments would be a conditional use in R-2 and R-3, but posed the question of how the Planning Commission would feel about adding these to R-1. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was not in favor of allowing bed and breakfast establishments in R-1 and was concerned that they would alter the character of a single-family neighborhood. Commissioners T. Graham and Kamp stated that these establishments are usually well kept and suggested the Planning Commission consider adding them to R-1. 5. Minimum lot requirements in R-2. Planner Sutter stated that staff is suggesting a minimum lot area of 4000 square feet per dwelling, but in no event less than 15000 square feet. Several commissioners stated that the minimum lot requirements were too lenient, while some stated they were too restrictive. After much debate, the majority of the Planning Commission agreed that the minimum lot area should be 5000 square feet per dwelling and that the 15000 square foot minimum lot area could be eliminated, because the minimum lot depth and width of 100 feet determines a 10000 square foot minimum lot area. Planner Sutter also suggested that attached dwellings would be exempt from the minimum lot depth and with requirements. 6. Minimum floor area for multiple dwellings in R-2. Planner Sutter summarized the minimum floor area requirements and Commissioner K. Graham questioned if these requirements also applied to senior housing facilities. Commissioner Magnuson stated that the floor area requirements were average and advised not to lower the requirements for senior housing, because the Planning Commission cannot determine future use of the facility. Commissioner K. Graham stated that was a valid concern, but also stated the commission should consider affordability, especially for seniors. Planner Sutter suggested changing the minimum floor area requirements as follows: Efficiency unit 600 square feet 1 bedroom unit 700 square feet Page 3 of 3 2 bedroom unit 850 square feet 3 bedroom unit 1000 square feet 4+ bedroom unit 1000 square feet and 100 square feet of floor area for each bedroom Planner Sutter explained that these figures are near the lower end of what is being built in the suburban market, and therefore would be appropriate minimums. 7. Front setbacks in R-2. Commissioner Krueger suggested to consider measuring the front setback from the property line only, instead of the street centerline to account for narrow streets. Planner Sutter stated that the city intends on conducting a study to find out how many properties would actually be at a disadvantage because their property is located on a narrow street. If need be, the zoning ordinance could be changed to account for these properties or variances could be granted in those cases. F. GENERAL INFORMATION • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • Letter of Resignation from Planning Commission Chair Commissioner Magnuson announced her resignation and stated it was a pleasure to have served on the Planning Commission for many years. The Planning Commission and staff thanked Commissioner Magnuson for helping to guide so much new development in the city through the years. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Secretary T. Graham 10� Vice Chair VonRueden MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 2003 TO: Planning Commission (January 13th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-24 for a Variance at 4228 Brunswick Avenue North to reduce the required setback from 20 feet to 8 feet for a detached garage facing an alley. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 60' x 128' lot at 4228 Brunswick that is also served by an alley to the rear. Lot area is 7,680 sq. ft. (0.18 acres). The property is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Improvements to the property include a single family house, deck, shed, and an existing driveway in the front yard accessed from Brunswick Avenue. Driveways are not permitted in the front yard unless they lead to a garage; however, in this case the _ driveway has been allowed to remain because there is no other off-street parking on the property. Construction of a garage and/or parking spaces in the rear yard will require removal of the driveway in the front yard. The property owner, David Bronson, wishes to build a 24'x 24' detached garage in the rear yard to be accessed from the alley. The garage doors would face the alley directly. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 515.07 Subd. 5(c)(3) of Crystal City Code) requires that, when the garage doors face a street or alley directly, the garage must be set back at least 20' from the property line. The owner is requesting a variance to reduce the required set back from 20 feet to 8 feet. As part of this project, the owner has said that the existing shed would be removed. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post on December 30tH The following exhibits are attached: 1. plat map and aerial photo showing the location of the subject property; 2. photos of the existing site conditions; 3. narrative and garage plans submitted by the owner; 4. sketch of owner's request including a lot coverage calculation sheet; and 5. sketch of city staff's two alternatives including lot coverage calculation sheets. B. STAFF COMMENTS The 20' setback requirement has two main purposes: (1) to protect the safety on streets and alleys by providing sight distance for cars backing out of garages, and (2) to provide a place for vehicles to park in front of the garage without them �. encroaching on public right-of-way. The owner's request would preclude both of these purposes. 2. As is typically the case with variance requests, it is important to examine whether a substantially similar improvement could be constructed without the variance. There are two ways the owner could build the garage in accordance with the required setback: a. The garage could be oriented the same way but set back the required 20' instead of the requested 8'. This is illustrated as City Staff's Alternate #1 and attached as Exhibit 5. The amount of fill needed would be greater than it would be under the owner's request. The area to be filled would be greater but at its deepest point the fill would not be significantly deeper than it would be under the owner's request. The garage would be approximately 4' from the trunk of the Basswood tree. The Basswood tree might need to be removed, depending on the health of the tree and degree of disturbance to its root zone. While this alternate would require no setback variance, it would require a variance to increase the rear yard coverage to at least 35%. This would be less than the variances recently granted to increase rear yard coverage to 40% for similar lots at 4957 Florida and 6511 50th. Based on previous determinations that all alley - accessed lots suffer an undue hardship from the 30% maximum rear yard coverage rule, and also the city's policy to address this hardship through the variance process until the Zoning Ordinance is revised, staff would recommend approval of a coverage variance. b. The garage could be oriented sideways to the alley and placed on the south side of the driveway. This is illustrated as City Staff's Alternate #2 and attached as Exhibit 5. The amount of fill needed would be greater than it would be under the owner's request. The area to be filled would be greater and at its deepest point the fill would be approximately 1' deeper than it would be at its deepest point under the owner's request. VARIANCE - 4228 BRUNSWICK PAGE 2 OF 6 The garage would be even further from the Basswood tree than in the owner's request. —� While this alternate would require no setback variance, it would require a variance to increase the rear yard coverage to 40%. This would be the same as the variances recently granted for similar lots at 4957 Florida and 6511 50th. Based on previous determinations that all alley -accessed lots suffer an undue hardship from the 30% maximum rear yard coverage rule, and also the city's policy to address this hardship through the variance process until the Zoning Ordinance is revised, staff would recommend approval of a coverage variance. C. The owner's statement of hardship includes the following: (i) the likely removal of the Basswood tree in the rear yard makes Alternate #1 unreasonable; (ii) the necessary fill and retaining walls, together with (iii) the presence of overhead wires, makes Alternate #2 unreasonable; and (iv) the required setback is not necessary because the alley is not used south of his property and therefore safety is not an issue. (i) Regarding the tree, the city does not have a policy of allowing buildings to encroach into required setbacks to save trees. It is not unusual for property owners to remove trees in order to make improvements to the property. The owner would retain reasonable use of the property even if he has to remove the tree. (ii) Regarding the fill and retaining walls, the slope is relatively gentle and not out of the ordinary for lots in Crystal. Some amount of fill and retaining walls would be likely even with the owner's request. The topographic conditions on the lot are not so unusual or severe that they justify a variance from the setback requirement. (iii) Regarding the overhead wires, it is clear from the drawing of Alternate #2 that the garage will not pass directly under the overhead wires. Even if the necessary separation distances cannot be met, the owner has the option of installing underground service lines from the utility pole to the house. (iv) Regarding the use of the alley, it is correct that the alley is not currently used by either abutting owner to the south. It is blocked at the south end of his property and its right-of-way ends 60' south of that point. However, it is important to note that the city has not blocked the alley; rather, one of the adjacent owners has done so by putting a birdhouse in the middle of the alley. This structure is unlawful and it may be removed at any time without notice. While at the present time neither owner to the south uses the alley, they VARIANCE - 4228 BRUNSWICK PAGE 3 OF 6 may choose to do so in the future. Furthermore, redevelopment of the existing uses along 42nd Avenue might cause the alley to be reconnected to a public street or other property. It would be short- sighted to assume that the alley will never be used south of the owner's property. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Ordinance (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd. 5) and state law have a three- part test for determining whether a variance can be granted. A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. The three-part test is as follows: (1) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code; and (2) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner; and (3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 1. Suggested findings applicable to the Variance requested by the Owner — to reduce the setback for a detached garage facing an alley from 20' to 8'. a. For Approval. Because staff believes that none of the three criteria are met in this case, we can offer no suggested findings of fact to approve. b. For Denial. Strict application of the requirement that the vehicle entrance be set back at least 20' from the property line along the alley 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 the variance is not granted, the owner still retains reasonable use of the property. A detached two car garage can be configured on the lot in at least two alternate ways that would comply with the setback requirement. The fact that the owner does not wish to incur costs or make trade-offs necessary to comply with the setback does not mean that he has been denied reasonable use of the property by the setback. ❑ The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The plight is created by the owner. The topographic conditions on the property are not substantially more severe than those found elsewhere in Crystal. The plight results from the property owner's preference to minimize costs instead of complying with the setback. ❑ The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. Other alley -accessed garages on this block are in compliance with the setback in question. The proximity of the VARIANCE — 4228 BRUNSWICK PAGE 4 OF 6 owner's garage doors to the alley will create a different appearance, function and level of safety for the alley on that block. Furthermore, it is possible that in the future the alley will be used by the properties to the south or extended to connect to public streets or other property. This would exacerbate the safety problems the setback is intended to prevent. 2. Suggested findings applicable to the Variance suggested by city staff — to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 40%. a. For Approval. Strict application of the 30% maximum rear yard structure coverage in this particular case would constitute an undue hardship because all three of required criteria would be met. Specifically: ❑ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. On most standard Crystal lots, the property can accommodate accessory structures such as a two car garage, driveway, deck, etc. and still comply with the 30% coverage rule. However, properties with detached garages accessed from alleys do not have the same opportunity for these reasonable and customary accessory uses, even if the lot meets the city's minimum width, depth and area requirements. Strict application of the 30% coverage rule in the case of 4228 Brunswick would prevent this 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 owner. The property meets the city's requirements for lot width, depth and area. The house does not take up an unusually large portion of the lot. The rear yard is not unusually small. The Zoning Ordinance has created the hardship by applying the same coverage rule to lots with alleys as those without alleys, even though lots with alleys almost always need more rear yard coverage than lots without alleys to accommodate the same accessory structures. ❑ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Having garages and driveways in the rear -most part of the property, even if it does exceed the 30% limit, is the standard form of development on properties served by alleys. City calculations show that a 40% limit on the subject property would result in rear yard open space typical for alley -served properties. b. For Denial. Because staff believes that all three criteria are met in this case, we can offer no suggested findings of fact to deny. VARIANCE - 4228 BRUNSWICK PAGE 5 OF 6 D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of Application 2002-24 for a Variance at 4228 Brunswick Avenue North to reduce the required setback from 20 feet to 8 feet for a detached garage facing an alley, based on the Findings of Fact in Section C(1) above. 2. Staff recommends approval of a Variance at 4228 Brunswick Avenue North to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 40%, based on the Findings of Fact in Section C(2) above. It should be noted that whether or not the requested variance is granted, any construction of a garage or parking space in the rear yard will require the property owner to remove the existing nonconforming driveway in the front yard as part of that project. 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 next regular meeting on January 21st. VARIANCE - 4228 BRUNSWICK PAGE 6 OF 6 41 J 41: 33 4o (j ; 1) 1 .: 01c) N — - Ifft �1.010 I t--:; 2,3 r,-� 2 — — ri;z2 3 2 1:3 5.1 ID SO 0) 22 3 3 21 j3S.1 't 1 115.1D (?- : , 3 -72 U 4 7 1 21 4 Jlk I z 3 c —I S. 20 611 C.5 �06 20 t 7 11 Z 1 19 6 18 /IS ZI W19 6 17 is 7 18 7 .1 16 --l'- DD. 4. N 17 ti B h 17 6 15 1616 9 14 13 15 10136 1 z S 'LO) STH 14 LU 11 12 10 ALaL---:j Z'1(.5 13 lz 43rd lz 12 own" C Ar 12 /y, /Y CO/ %A 10 S2- '0� D 3 II AT- 00, 6 3 9 2 94. 24 co 60 4 10 ZfO a ZI I'Z 0 IM7 4 2 1� �14 e5 3 27B 96-6 75.9 97.5 IZ0.25 �O Z5 t d1,Gd 01 /68 -SG (Co(76) ,"Z-0.82 1� 3 9 14 t',l . (95) .6 C94)04 (3 4 0 0) -7 01) 77.27 33 27 (78) 00 Igy9 w j600) 51L - 4 'o h83. -C -q WA ()C70 ZI 60 /1 .7 6 2 2 6 4 2�5 7 5 24 3 6 23 4 a 5 22 9 10 .CO 6 .8,C 21 7II 9 20 - 12 1 10 9 9 13 10 18 35 13 16 4 o �?Oc KFORr) ROAD 5 4 3N N 2 41st M `64 135 135 \4� 0 C d4) 9 GX. (01 QV � ,{a �C!►� \�� L am `" f,5j I X1 COW -CYT� ff6r yaf� (cok-kj (vow all 6y (60 V(-Vl C,�w -FrM, alle� 1od�ctqw�S+� 4 "P d (VI 64- 0 cn 1'�a� to �-N, �-�� t �Y L f I k w + YKr Y i tly 1 eg +t y a +9u ai ai` f V � rY w frl Y,a' o v t +i ✓E". � N ��Y �' +, � �' �'"1+m I i',��yi',. t h '� a �. ��Tt� �C+ *� : l "tA� � � �` .P�'� „p„�';. L ��jj F • Np}e' ill e� s f�lo,(2 -cp oke Request for variance: For 24 x 24 garage at 4228 Brunswick Ave N. Crystal MN. See photos to help show rear yard lay out and how south side of yard slopes below alley grade. It is my desire to build garage as shown on drawing on the north side of rear yard as shown on site plan. Because of the large basswood tree, I can only build so close to it without risking damage or loss of the tree. Because of this I request the variance Locating the garage on the south side would be hindered because of the overhead wires in the way. The yard drops off the alley so much it would require w retaining walls, and tons more fill to bring it up to alley grade to keep water and ice from draining into garage. Please note that the alley behind my house is blocked off past my yard to the south (see photo). That means that I am the last home to use the alley. There would be no one to use it beyond me Also note there are only 2 other property owners on the entire alley that currently use or need the alley. I believe my request to be reasonable and will allow me to best utilize The area I have to work with in my rear yard Please approve my request so I can move forward with my project. Thank you, Dave Bronson Property Owner t;0(/IST (1) Calculation for Rear Yard Accessory Buildings & Structures <<< APPLICANT >>> Address: Permit Number: 4228 Brunswick Avenue North Rear Lot Dimensions Length Width Sq. Ft. 1 74.00 60.00 4440.00 area of rear yard 30 to be Removed .................... 120.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Project Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 400.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] ............. 768.00 32 SUBTOTAL ......................... 1168.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... (120.00) 34 TOTAL ............................... 1048.00 as a%: 23.6% Remaining Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Project Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1332.00 1048.00 284.00 as a%: 6.4% rearyardcoverage-proposed-applicant.xls Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 2 30% 4440.00 1332.00 maximum rear yard coverage Existing Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 20.00 14.00 280.00 deck 4 12.00 10.00 120.00 shed 5 0.00 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 400.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 24.00 24.00 576.00 new garage 15 8.00 24.00 192.00 new driveway 16 0.00 17 0.00 18 0.00 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 768.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 12.00 10.00 120.00 shed 26 0.00 27 0.00 28 0.00 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 120.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Project Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 400.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] ............. 768.00 32 SUBTOTAL ......................... 1168.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... (120.00) 34 TOTAL ............................... 1048.00 as a%: 23.6% Remaining Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Project Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1332.00 1048.00 284.00 as a%: 6.4% rearyardcoverage-proposed-applicant.xls Calculation for Rear Yard Accessory Buildings & Structures <<< STAFF ALT. #1 >>> Address: Permit Number. 4228 Brunswick Avenue North Rear Lot Dimensions Length Width Sq. Ft. 1 74.00 60.00 4440.00 area of rear yard 30 to be Removed .................... 120.00 Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 31 2 30% 4440.00 1332.00 maximum rear yard coverage SUBTOTAL ......................... Existing Structures in Rear Yard 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 34 3 20.00 14.00 280.00 deck 4 12.00 10.00 120.00 shed 5 0.00 35 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 400.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 24.00 24.00 576.00 new garage 15 20.00 24.00 480.00 new driveway 16 10.00 20.00 200.00 optional auxiliary space 17 0.00 18 0.00 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 1256.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 12.00 10.00 120.00 shed 26 0.00 27 0.00 28 0.00 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 120.00 rearyardcoverage-proposed-staff1.xls W? C. 00 .57- 1/2/2003 Calculation of Total Coverage after Project Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 400.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] ............. 1256.00 32 SUBTOTAL ......................... 1656.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... (120.00) 34 TOTAL ............................... 1536.00 as a %: 34.6% Remaining Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Project Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1332.00 1536.00 (204.00) as a %: -4.6% rearyardcoverage-proposed-staff1.xls W? C. 00 .57- 1/2/2003 M Calculation for Rear Yard Accessory Buildings & Structures Address: Permit Number. 4228 Brunswick Avenue North <<< STAFF ALT. #2 >>> rearyardcoverage-proposed-staff2.xls &,q� 1/2/2003 Rear Lot Dimensions Length Width Sq. Ft. 1 74.00 60.00 4440.00 area of rear yard Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 2 30% 4440.00 1332.00 maximum rear yard coverage Existing Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 20.00 14.00 280.00 deck 4 12.00 10.00 120.00 shed 5 0.00 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 400.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 24.00 24.00 576.00 new garage 15 30.00 24.00 720.00 new driveway 16 10.00 20.00 200.00 optional auxiliary space 17 0.00 18 0.00 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 1496.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 12.00 10.00 120.00 shed 26 0.00 27 0.00 28 0.00 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 120.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Project Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 400.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] ............. 1496.00 32 SUBTOTAL ......................... 1896.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... (120.00) 34 TOTAL ............................... 1776.00 as a %: 40.0% Remaining Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Project Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1332.00 1776.00 (444.00) as a%: -10.0% <<< STAFF ALT. #2 >>> rearyardcoverage-proposed-staff2.xls &,q� 1/2/2003 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 9, 2003 TO: Planning Commission (for January 13th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Timetable for Development of Revised Zoning Ordinance and Map Due to the impact of holidays and vacations since the December meeting, I do not have the next section of the draft new ordinance ready for your review and discussion. For this reason, we have added another month to our estimated timetable (see revised schedule below). PLAN COMM MEETING TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION November 12, 2002 Definitions; R-1 district December 9, 2002 R-2 and R-3 districts January 13, 2003 no discussion February 10, 2003 C-1, C-2 and 1-1 districts March 10, 2003 Special districts (Planned Development, Floodplain, Shoreland, Airport); Administration; Zoning Map April 14, 2003 Review complete draft ordinance & map; set public hearing date May 12, 2003 Public Hearing May 20, 2003 City Council — first reading June 3, 2003 City Council — second reading June 12, 2003 Publication July 12, 2003 Effective date of ordinance & map Also, staff has determined that we can probably eliminate the C-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial district by incorporating auto -oriented uses into the C-2 district as conditional uses along sections of certain corridors like County Road 81 and West Broadway. This should help us further simplify the ordinance and eliminate unnecessary text and zoning map designations. CITY OF CRYSTAL Development Status Report (as of December 31, 2002) PLANNING & ZONING APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Parkside Acres. The City Council approved a development plan in September 2000 for 40 townhomes and 10 single-family homes on this 10 acre site. The single-family homes are being built on 2 acres along Zane north of 47th and the townhomes are being built on the remaining 8 acres along Adair north of 47th. The development includes a pond and wetland area, landscaped berms along 47th, and trails around the development connecting it to the Community Center. 27 townhouse units have been sold at an average price of $286,000. 6 single-family homes have been sold at an average price of $304,000. For more information call the Parkside Acres office & model home at 763-535-1955. 2. Lot Division at 6828 Corvallis. The City Council approved this lot division on April 17, 2001. The original parcel went through the block, with frontage on both Corvallis and 51St Place. The existing house at 6828 Corvallis has been rehabbed and sold. The new house at 6827 51St Place has not yet been sold, for a while it was listed for sale on the MLS for $229,900. 3. Valley Place Estates (7221 32nd). The City Council approved this medium density 14 -unit townhouse development on August 21, 2001. Construction of the townhomes and site improvements are nearly complete. The starting price for these 3 bedroom / 2 bathroom townhomes is $179,900. 4. Crystal Business Park (5500 Lakeland). The Preliminary Plat has been approved but the Final Plat is on hold until Hennepin County determines the right-of-way requirements for the reconstruction of County Road 81. This is a clean-up item from a 1999 redevelopment project that culminated in construction of a 92,000 sq. ft. office -warehouse building. 5. Big B's Gas & Goods (6000 42nd). On February 5, 2002, the City Council approved a request for variances from the front yard and side street side yard setbacks to allow construction of a canopy over the fuel pump islands. The canopy has been installed but landscaping on the site will wait until spring 2003. 6. Edgewood Gardens (an infill development in the vicinity of Edgewood Avenue between 38th and 39th). This is an EDA project and is described in detail in #20 below. 7. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens (5100 Douglas). On April 16th, the City Council approved the cemetery's request to build a 500 sq. ft. mausoleum. Construction has been completed. 8. Lot Combination and Division at 3528 and 3538 Brunswick. This is an EDA project and is described in detail in #24 below. 9. Living Works Ventures (3200 Douglas). This request included rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential and Site Plan Review for a 2 family dwelling. The dwelling will be used as a supportive housing facility for people with brain injuries. The G:IPLANN/NGIGenerallDevelopmentStatusReportsl2002-4thquarter.doc Pagel of4 City Council gave final approval on August 5, 2002 but construction is not expected to begin until spring 2003. 10. Preliminary and Final Plat to divide 4957 Florida, together with variances. The City Council approved the plat of Florida Addition on August 5, 2002. One lot at 6511 50th will be available for new home construction and the other lot will include the existing house at 4957 Florida. Construction of the new house is underway; it will be a 2 story, 3 bedroom, 2'/Z bathroom house with 1,624 finished sq. ft. plus an 812 sq. ft. basement. This project also includes new detached 2 car garages for both the new house and the existing house. Both garages will be accessed off the adjacent alley; to allow this, variances were granted to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 40%. 11. Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire. This was approved by the City Council on July 16, 2002 after the city purchased 4060 Hampshire in June 2002 for $187,500. The lot division split off the east 173' and incorporated it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. The west 256' of the lot remains with the house. After making some necessary repairs to the house, the city re -sold it in November 2002 for $189,000. 12. Lot Division at 4059 Douglas. This was approved by the City Council on August 20, 2002 after the city purchased 4059 Hampshire in June for $179,900. The lot division split off the west 145' and incorporated it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. The east 150' of the lot remains with the house. After making some necessary repairs to the house, the city re -sold it in December 2002 for $186,500. 13. Salt Storage Building at the Crystal Public Works Facility (6125 41S). A conditional use permit, site plan and variances from the setback and height restrictions were approved by the City Council on August 20, 2002. Construction of the 50' x 70' salt storage building and 25' x 70' lean-to for vehicle parking is currently underway and will be completed by winter 2003. 14. Variance for house at 6922 42nd. The City Council approved this request on September 17, 2002. It will permit a main floor addition to an existing house to encroach 21' into the required front yard setback. The variance will also permit the addition of a second story to the house in the future. Construction has not yet begun. 15. Variance for house at 5709 Wilshire. The City Council approved this request on September 17, 2002. It will permit 2 encroachments into the required rear yard setback: An attached 2 -car garage encroaching 16' and a house addition encroaching 2'. A building permit application has been submitted and construction is about 50% complete. 16. Lot Combination and Division at 6621 32nd. The City Council approved this request on September 17, 2002 to reconfigure 2 existing parcels into 3 parcels. One of the 3 parcels will include the existing house at 6621 32nd; the house is being substantially rehabbed and a new detached 3 -car garage has been built. The other 2 parcels will be 13,000 sq. ft. lots available for new home construction in spring 2003. 17. Rezoning of 6820 44th. The City Council approved this request on September 17, 2002 to rezone this existing 2 -family dwelling from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. This allowed a severely fire -damaged duplex to be repaired and restored as a duplex. The rezoning was deemed appropriate because the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex. G:IPLANN/NGIGenerallDevelopmentStatusReportsl2002-4thquarter.doc Page 2 of 18. Variance at 3513 Kyle. The City Council approved this request on November 6, 2002 to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 50%. The reasons were similar to those discussed in the granting of variances for 4957 Florida and 6511 50tH REDEVELOPMENT - SINGLE-FAMILY REHABILITATION (scattered site rehab) (No active projects at this time.) REDEVELOPMENT — SINGLE-FAMILY NEW CONSTRUCTION (scattered site lots) 19. 6617 45tH. In October 2001, the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The existing 500 sq. ft. home was demolished in November by the City's Public Works Department. (The existing 896 sq. ft. garage, which is heated and insulated, remains on the property.) In March 2002 we sold the property to Al Stobbe Homes for construction of a new 2 -story house with 2,727 sq. ft. (1,791 finished), 3 bedrooms, and 2'/2 bathrooms. Construction is complete and the property is for sale for $259,900. 20. Edgewood Gardens. In December 2001 the EDA acquired the property at 6328 38th for rehab and resale. In February 2002 the EDA acquired the home located at 6404 38th for demolition and a home at 3821 Douglas for resale. In March 2002 the City Council transferred the vacant parcel located at 3818 Florida to the EDA for development. These 4 parcels were incorporated into a new plat called Edgewood Gardens. The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on May 21, 2002 and the Final Plat on August 5, 2002. The use of the plat's 8 parcels is described below: LOT ADDRESS USE OF THE PROPERTY PRICE 1 3821 Edgewood Sold to Feyereisen Construction for new house; $ 72,500 construction about 25% complete. (3,166 sq. ft. w/ 2,122 finished; 4 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 2 3813 Edgewood Sold to AI Stobbe Homes for new house; $ 75,000 construction to begin in spring 2003. (3,442 sq. ft. w/ 1,916 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 3 3808 Edgewood Sold to Novak -Fleck for new house; construction $ 76,000 about 50% complete. (3,746 sq. ft. w/ 2,413 finished; 4 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 4 3812 Edgewood Sold to All Quality Builders for new house; $ 70,000 construction about 50% complete. (3,591 sq. ft. w/ 2,439 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 5 3820 Edgewood Sold to Novak -Fleck for new house; construction $ 66,000 about 50% complete. (2,694 sq. ft. w/ 1,796 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 6 6404 38" Sold to Al Stobbe Homes for new house; $ 62,000 G:IPLANNINGIGenerallDevelopmentStatusReports12002-4thquarter.doc Page 3 of construction about 25% complete. (2,870 sq. ft. w/ 1,916 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 7 632838 th Existing home rehabbed by EDA and sold; discussed << n/a >> in previous Development Status Report (09/30/02). 8 3821 Douglas Sold as -is on Oct. 25, 2002 to private party who will $ 159,900 complete required repairs. 21. 4355 Welcome. On June 12, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The house and garage have been demolished by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003, the EDA will hold a public hearing to consider the proposals on February 18, 2003, and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. 22. 4641 Douglas. On June 19, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The house and garage have been demolished by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003, the EDA will hold a public hearing to consider the proposals on February 18, 2003, and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. 23. 5757 Quail. On July 29, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The house and garage have been demolished by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003, the EDA will hold a public hearing to consider the proposals on February 18, 2003, and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. 24. 3528 Brunswick. On July 15, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. On June 18, 2002, the City Council approved the re -alignment of the common lot line with 3538 Brunswick. The house and garage have been demolished by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $75,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $280,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003, the EDA will hold a public hearing to consider the proposals on February 18, 2003, and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. 25. 5740 Quail. The EDA is buying this fire -damaged property for demolition and new home construction; we expect to close on the acquisition by mid-January 2003. The house and garage will probably be demolished by the city's Public Works Department in late winter or early spring. The existing storage shed in the back yard will remain on the property and be re- sold along with the lot. The target price for the property is $57,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot will be due on June 2, 2003 and construction is expected to begin by fall 2003. REDEVELOPMENT — DEMOLITION AND LAND -BANKING FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT (No active projects at this time.) G:IPLANNINGIGenerallDevelopmentStatusReportsl2002-4thquarter.doc Page 4 of 4 1 3 0