Loading...
2003.11.12 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY November 12, 2003 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • October 13, 2003 meeting • October 23, 3002 joint work session w/ City Council C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider Application 2003-13 for a Variance to allow division of an existing parcel at 4366 Xenia Avenue North into two lots not having the 60' minimum width. Item continued from October 13, 2003 meeting. 2. Consider Application 2003-14 for a Variance from the sign requirements at the Crystal Shopping Center located at the southwest corner of Bass Lake Road and West Broadway (103 Willow Bend). Item continued from October 13, 2003 meeting. 3. Consider Application 2003-16 for a new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map for the City of Crystal. Item continued from October 13, 2003 meeting. 4. Consider Application 2003-17 for Site Plan Review of proposed improvements to the Target store at 5537 West Broadway. 5. Consider Application 2003-18 for Lot Division at 4068 Hampshire Avenue North. D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2003 A. CALL TO ORDER Page I of 7 The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Davis, K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Nystrom, Strand, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter, Community Development Assistant Dietsche, and council member Hoffmann. Absent was the following: Sears. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2003 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2003 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS Consider a variance to allow a detached accessory building in the front yard at 4948 Quail Ave N. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended denial of a variance to allow a playhouse in the front yard. However, staff is recommending approval of a variance to allow patios in the front yard of the subject property and seven similar parcels, provided that the area of patios does not exceed 5% of the front yard, based on the suggested findings of fact in the staff report. Commissioner Davis questioned whether or not other parcels along Twin Lake were allowed to build structures between the house and the lake. He also asked if there were any immediate plans to develop or abandon Twin Lake Boulevard. Planner Sutter replied that most other properties along the lake are treated differently, because they actually have lake frontage, unlike the subject property and the other seven similar properties. Planner Sutter stated that he was unaware of any plans to improve or abandon Twin Lake Boulevard. Commissioner T. Graham questioned how much space was between the house and the south lot line and if there was a possibility of moving the playhouse to this area. Planner Page 2 of 7 Sutter stated that under the current zoning code, structures are not permitted in side yards. However, as part of the new zoning ordinance rewrite, it is being proposed that accessory �•-� structures be allowed in side yards. Applicant Kristin Sonquist, 4948 Quail Ave N, stated that prior to beginning construction of the playhouse, her and her husband consulted with city staff by telephone and explained that they wanted to replace an existing shed located in the rear yard with a playhouse. After discussing the building code requirements for structures in the rear yard with staff, they proceeded with construction of the playhouse. It wasn't until they received a stop work order from the city's building official that they became aware that there was obviously a miscommunication, and that they were building the playhouse in the front yard, and not the rear yard as they originally thought. Mrs. Sonquist stated that because of the unique configuration of the property, it did not occur to them that the east yard facing the lake could actually be considered the front yard. Also, because there was previously a shed in this location, they were under the impression that structures were allowed in this area. She stated that most of their recreation takes place on the east side of the property, and for safety reasons, they would appreciate a variance to allow the playhouse to remain in the front yard. Commissioner Krueger questioned why the applicant continued construction after receiving the stop work order from the building official. Mrs. Sonquist explained that they thought that it was a mistake because the order referred to a "shed". She stated that they tried to speak with the building official to resolve the issue, but he stated that according to city code, the structure was currently in violation, and if they wished to keep the playhouse in the front yard, they could request for a variance to do so. Commissioner T. Graham questioned about the verbal okay the Sonquists received from city staff and the assumed miscommunication. Mrs. Sonquist replied that when inquiring about the construction of the structure, they explicitly stated that the structure would be located in the rear yard. Planner Sutter stated that the question most likely was answered under the assumption that the homeowner was referring to their actual rear yard, not front yard. Commissioner K. Graham stated that she was very conflicted with this issue. For properties that face the lake, she always considered the lake side to be the front yard. However, in the case of the subject property, she stated that allowing structures in the rear yard could be more unappealing to the neighbors than allowing them in the front yard. She also questioned if the playhouse was considered a temporary structure and if city code had different regulations for temporary structures. Planner Sutter responded that the current zoning code prohibits any buildings from being permitted in the front yard, whether temporary or permanent. Tracy Bergman, 4934 Quail Ave N, stated that she just recently purchased a neighboring home south of the subject property and feels that the playhouse obstructs her view of lake. She feels that an obstruction of the lake would devalue her property a great deal. Therefore, the playhouse would fit better in the rear yard. Neither the shed, nor the Page 3 of 7 playhouse, were there when she purchased the property, and she does not appreciate the playhouse located so close to her property line. Mrs. Sonquist apologized to Ms. Bergman about the location of the playhouse and stated that she was unaware that the neighbor didn't approve of the location. There have always been tree branches that extend down to the ground in this area, so that view from Ms. Bergman's property has always been obstructed. Marty Gates, 5108 48th Ave N, stated that there seems to be a lot of recent controversy with these eight parcels. She suggested that this is just one of many restrictions that the city and Planning Commission need to clarify for these property owners, to avoid further confusion in this area. A letter was submitted by Bill Felker, 4802 Quail Ave N, requesting that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance. A letter was submitted by Marilyn Kamp, 4824 Quail Ave N, requesting that the Plaiming Commission deny the requested variance. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Davis stated that this is definitely a unique property and feels that reasons used to justify a typical variance may not be applicable in this case. Commissioner Nystrom responded that she would love to accommodate the owner as well, but the Planning Commission is required by law to justify any variance by the three criteria for an undue hardship. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2003-12 for a variance to allow an accessory building in the front yard at 4948 Quail Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Davis to recommend to the City Council to continue until November 12, 2003 the discussion of a variance to allow patios in the front yard of Blocks 1 and 6 of Twin Lake Shores, provided the cumulative area of patios in a front yard do not exceed 5% of the area of the front yard. Motion failed 3-4 with Krueger, K. Graham, and VonRueden voting aye and Davis, T. Graham, Nystrom, and Strand voting nay. Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Krueger questioned why the Planning Commission would grant a variance that an applicant did not specifically request. Planner Sutter stated that after visiting the subject property and witnessing a patio in the Sonquist's front yard, staff agreed that it should be dealt with as part of this application, and could be justified that because of the uniqueness of the property (the patio would meet the three part criteria for an undue hardship). Moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to allow patios in the front yard of Blocks 1 and 6 of Twin Lake Shores, provided the cumulative area of patios in a front yard do not exceed 5% of the area of the front yard and comply with the same setbacks as if they were located in the rear yard. Motion carried 6-1 with Davis, K. Graham, T, Graham, Nystrom, Strand, and VonRueden voting aye and Krueger voting nay. 2. Consider a variance to allow division of an existing parcel at 4366 Xenia Ave N in to two lots not having the 60' minimum width. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended the public hearing be continued to allow staff additional time to research the issue. => Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Strand to continue the public hearing for Application 2003-13 at the next regular meeting on November 12, 2003. Motion carried. 3. Consider a site plan review for proposed improvements to the Crystal Shopping Center located at the southwest corner of 56th Ave N and West Broadway (103 Willow Bend), together with variances from parking lot setback and sign requirements. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended denial of the variance from the parking lot setback and sign requirements, but recommended approval of the site plan, based on the suggested findings of fact stated in the staff report. Ken Henk, Paster Enterprises, stated that they were really excited about this redevelopment project. The purpose of the redevelopment is to keep the shopping center competitive with others in the area. The loss of tenants in one of the end units is the reason they are requesting the variance from the parking lot setback. It is difficult to keep tenants in this location because of the lack of parking and thought it would be a good idea to resolve this problem as part of the redevelopment. Angle parking is preferred because of easier access and safety concerns. Also, because of the reconfiguration of the site, Pa -6 e S of 7 some of the tenants will no longer have frontage on a street and therefore are requesting signage be added as part of their lease. Commissioner VonRueden stated that allowing the second sign would be conditional upon bringing the current sign into compliance with current city code. Mr. Henk responded that they have not researched the cost of bringing the existing sign into compliance. Also, Mr. Henk and Ed Paster stated that at the time of the sign's construction, it was thought to be very important to keep the historic symbol of the crystal ball on that corner. So, the request was made for a larger sign to incorporate this symbol. Several of the commissioners seemed to think that the existing sign may be too tall and may be more effective if downsized. Kathy Anderson, project consultant, stated that as part of this redevelopment, they are trying to achieve more streetscape with buildings facing 56th Ave N. But in order to make this a success, additional parking will be required on the north end of the west building. Because there is adequate access from other drive aisles around the building, Ms. Anderson wasn't quite sure why the fire inspector was requiring the drive aisle along Bass Lake Road to be a minimum of 20 feet in width. Planner Sutter suggested that staff discuss the situation further with the fire inspector. Commissioner T. Graham questioned why there was a need for additional parking if the site already has a surplus of 100+ parking spaces. Ms. Anderson replied that a majority of 11,0*111 this parking is in the rear of the building and not close to access off of 56th Ave N. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Strand to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham to deny Application 2003-14 for a variance from the parking lot setback at the Crystal Shopping Center (103 Willow Bend), despite the lack of supporting findings of fact by staff. Motion failed with no second. Moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to approve Application 2003-14 for a variance from the parking lot setback at the Crystal Shopping Center (103 Willow Bend). Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report. Motion carried 4-3 with Davis, K. Graham, Strand, and VonRueden voting aye and T. Graham and Nystrom voting nay. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Davis continue until November 12, 2003 the discussion of Application 2003-14 for a variance from the sign requirements at the Crystal Shopping Center (103 Willow Bend). Findings of fact are so the applicant can research the feasibility of downsizing the existing sign and allow the addition of a second free-standing sign on the property. Page 6 of 7 Motion carried. -- Moved by Commissioner VonRueden and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2003-14 for site plan review for proposed improvements to the Crystal Shopping Center (103 Willow Bend), along with the conditions set forth in the staff report. Motion carried. 4. Consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change future land use designations of certain parcels in the City of Crystal. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval based on the suggested findings of fact stated in the staff report. => Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to close the public hearing. Motion carried. => Moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2003-15 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of certain parcels in the City of Crystal. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report. Motion carried. 5. Consider a new zoning ordinance and zoning map for the City of Crystal. Planner Sutter stated that staff is currently working on revisions to the new draft and would like to continue the public hearing to provide time to consider any additional revisions. Tom Hawes, 3100 Welcome Ave N, addressed the Planning Commission regarding future land use of the property west of Hwy 100 and south of 32nd Ave N. Moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to continue the public hearing for Application 2003-16 at the next regular meeting on November 12, 2003. D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION Page 7 of 7 1. Receive an update on a study of potential transit -oriented development around the proposed Bus Rapid Transit station on County Road 81 and Bass Lake Road. 2. Receive Quarterly Development Status Report. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT => Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Chair VonRueden Secretary Nystrom CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION * Work Session * October 23, 2003 The Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. for a joint work session with City Council. Present were the following Planning Commission members: K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Nystrom, Sears, Strand and VonRueden. Also present were: Council members Anderson, Grimes, Hoffmann, Joselyn, Krueger and Meintsma; City Manager Norris; Community Development Director Peters; Planner Sutter; and City Attorney Bubul. The Planning Commission and City Council discussed the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Staff will prepare a revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance for the November 12, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. rI t Sicretary Nystr Chair VonRueden Minutes approved at the December 8, 2003 meeting. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 7, 2003 TO: Planning Commission (November 12th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing (continued from October 13th meeting): Consider Application 2003-13 for a Variance to allow division of an existing parcel at 4366 Xenia Avenue North into two lots not having the 60' minimum width. A. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of two platted lots that, in the late 1960s, were combined into a single parcel for the purpose of receiving a single tax statement. The current legal description is Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, Robbinsdale Home Gardens Third Addition. One of the original lots (Lot 9) is 50' wide, and the other (Lot 10) is 55' wide. The owner wants to divide this combined tax parcel into the original two lots. The Subdivision Ordinance (City Code section 505.13 Subd. 2 states that a division of lots combined for tax purposes may be approved administratively (by staff) if the new parcels meet current lot requirements. Based on the city's past practice, staff believed that a variance was needed because each lot would have less than the minimum 60' lot width. The property owner applied for a variance to reduce the minimum 60' lot width requirement for each lot to 50' and 55', respectively. The following Exhibits are attached: 1. Plat map and aerial photo showing location of property. 2. Applicant's narrative. 3. Tentative house plans for Lot 9. 4. Survey showing existing conditions on the property. B. STAFF COMMENTS The existing Zoning Ordinance (Section 515) has no definition of "lot of record" for the purpose of determining whether a substandard lot is lawfully non- conforming ("grandfathered in"). 2. The Subdivision Ordinance (Section 505) defines a "parcel of record" as "a parcel of land of any legal description or size that is recorded with the appropriate county officer". "Appropriate county officer" is defined as the Recorder or Registrar of Titles. Neither the Assessor nor Taxpayer Services departments are included in the definition of "appropriate county officer". 3. When someone combines two or more lots for the purpose of receiving a single ...- tax statement, they do so through the Assessor or Taxpayer Services departments. They do not need to do anything through the Recorder or Registrar of Titles. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance says that re -division of a parcel of record that was combined for the sole purpose of receiving a single tax statement, hereinafter called a "combined tax parcel", may be approved administratively by staff, but only if each of the resulting parcels meet current standards. However, this doesn't appear to make sense, because the definitions of "parcel of record" and "appropriate county officer" suggest that a combined tax parcel is not a parcel of record. 5. Past practice has been to interpret the Subdivision Ordinance as prohibiting the re -division of a combined tax parcel into its original parcels unless the original parcels meet all current requirements. Based on staff's review of the code, we feel that this practice is incorrect. The correct interpretation would be that parcels of record, as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance, can be combined and re -divided at the request of the property whether or not the parcels of record comply with current requirements, so long as the parcels of record are not changed. 6. In the case of the subject property, this means that the applicant can re -divide the tax parcel (P.I.D. 16-118-21-21-0123) into its two parcels of record, Lot 9 and Lot 10, without needing a variance from the current lot width requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Please note that the variance request still needs to be formally denied, and staff feels there are sufficient findings of fact for doing so. 7. Staff feels that this new, correct interpretation is consistent with the city's policies encouraging infill development. In most cases, it would also be consistent with the land use pattern and lot configuration typically found on the blocks on which combined tax parcels are located. The subject property provides an example of this, because its block was originally platted and developed with lots not complying with the current minimum width. Allowing re -division of the combined tax parcel into its two parcels of record would allow construction of a new house on the currently vacant Lot 9. That would be a better fit with the development pattern of the rest of the block. 8. Staff's examination of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance regarding this application has led us to conclude that changes to both ordinances and also the city's special assessment policies may be needed. The Zoning Ordinance changes will be incorporated into the draft currently under consideration. Subdivision Ordinance and special assessment policy changes will be proposed in the near future. VARIANCE - LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS - 4366 XENIA 2 C. RECOMMENDATION 1. Request for Planning Commission action. Staff recommends that Application 2003-13 for a variance from the minimum lot width requirement at 4366 Xenia Avenue North (Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, Robbinsdale Home Gardens Third Addition) be denied based on there being no undue hardship. Specifically, strict application of the Zoning Ordinance in this particular case would not constitute an undue hardship because it would meet only one out of the three criteria. All three criteria must be met for the city to make a finding of an undue hardship. The following findings of fact are suggested: ❑ 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 applicant still retains reasonable use of the property in the form of an oversized single-family lot. Strict application of the minimum width requirement does not prevent the property owner from continuing to use the property in its present form. ❑ The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. There are no circumstances unique to the property. The plight was created by the landowner when he agreed to combine the two lots into a single tax parcel. ❑ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding block is comprised of developed lots comparable in width to each of the two parcels of record that comprise the subject property. 2. Informational items related to this application: a. For the reasons described in the Staff Comments in Section B, the city will not prevent the applicant from dividing the existing combined tax parcel into its two parcels of record (Lot 9 and Lot 10). Denial of the variance is necessary because the `reasonable use' finding cannot be met. However, since the variance is unnecessary in the first place, the denial does not prevent the applicant from re -dividing the combined tax parcel. b. Staff expects to ask the City Council to authorize refunding the $200 variance application fee paid by the applicant. The reason for this is that, in the process of evaluating the variance request, it has been determined that neither a variance nor any other Planning Commission or City Council action is necessary for the applicant to re -divide the combined tax parcel. C. Staff will proceed with revising the draft of the new Zoning Ordinance to address the issues raised by this application. Staff will also propose revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance and special assessment policies in the near future. VARIANCE - LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS - 4366 XENIA 3 F. I Res:._.._.. 1 3; q3 10 > 17C. 5 60 176S 611 COOL, Z4 Olp IM, v r12 AVE. m 'I f7l 71U, 9 11.94 6 1-y" Ite 11 No Z -M SCALE: I fl: 2W41 F50.Z 4 Z-- =I-- — Ic... Z. 69 0 00) . . 2I (102°y -C E 53 SBC_ U. ISO z NO. . ............ B 31c.15 • ZZ4 ,7, D.W.Jones St Town ti 2ol. Z -ALV F . Tis9T­ Z. 69 G6 71.1 cl, 2 E 53 % 4 Z09.2 G 2 6 1 17 2 Zol Z 16 3P_j en 1!5 14 13 ZZ 10 v ZO?. z ti 2ol. Z -ALV F . cl, PROPERTY INFORMATION: Address: 4366 Xenia Ave. N. P.I.D. 16-118-21-0123 Legal Description: Robl insdale Nome Gardens, 3rd Addition ATTACHMENT NUMBER 6 We purchased Lot 9 in 1965. The property had a little old house from the 1920's, in poor condition, no running water and an outhouse. The Crystal City Assessor, Mr Mahoney had been charging our house on Lot 10 for two fireplaces and a finished basement, which we never had. Mahoney said to make up for his error, he would make one tax statement for both lots 9 and 10 and not increase the total valuation. nothing has been done to lot 9 since that time. We have a daughter who has owned a home in Golden Valley for 30 years, wants to sell same and build a new home on lot 9. They have a 12 year old son who wants to stay in this school district. She had a staff blood infect- ion i i. years ago, has not --been able to work since, and would like to have a single level home. She has a design for the new home which will have an unfinished second floor expansion for later resale. FRONT ELEVATION A _ g er BACK ELEVATION A 8 91 32' FRONT ELEVATION A 2 9' BACK ELEVATION A 2 El 9' P,P, r, ;r, �,rE i u , IL "' f ��rnr�� �r�or �7C7Li;OCi© �J - J Ln��i�_ 1111 3 f C'1L]❑'3 (— _ ll— 2• 48' -pt.pa, . 60 BITUMINOUS 11 IF k BITUMINOUS --- N 89 48 17 E 177.25 t �------------ --- -- 42.2 38.2 430 L; -i 1i)� Lo / -7 0 I ----9.1 ---- Ly. i l3 _--w- i y s < n �J a / \ Y' si4. qt .. >X, t - BUILDING 0.15 FEET SOUTH OF PROPERTY LINE t NmE rr �- BUILDING -0.01 FEET SOUTH OF PROPERTY LINE `60 I '�+ ---- � S 89.48'17" w 177.00 al " K f_ II W o V) z D m 11 9 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 8, 2003 TO: Planning Commission (November 12th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing (continued from October 13th meeting): Consider Application 2003-14 for a Variance from the sign requirements at 103 Willow Bend (Crystal Shopping Center) This application from Paster Enterprises originally had three parts: A sign variance, a parking setback variance, and site plan review. The parking setback variance and site plan review have been approved by the City Council. The sign variance request was to increase the maximum height and area, and reduce the minimum setback to allow a new, second freestanding sign on the property. The Planning Commission continued the sign variance request to its November 12, 2003 meeting. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, Paster Enterprises has decided to reduce the size and adjust the location of its proposed new sign so that it would comply with the sign ordinance. They are also proposing to modify their existing sign, located at the southwest corner of Bass Lake Road and West Broadway, so that it too would comply with the sign ordinance. Therefore no sign variances are required. Copies of the most recent correspondence from the applicant and drawings of the proposed signs are attached. Staff feels action should still be taken on the requested variance to avoid leaving any loose ends. As before, staff recommends denial because the request does not meet all of the following criteria, as required by Section 405.25 Subd. 3. Specifically, the recommended findings of fact for denial are as follows: • There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply to other properties. The site is level, and its boundaries are not configured in a way that precludes sign construction or denies visibility due to lack of street frontage. • The variances are not necessary for preservation and enjoyment of property rights. The ordinance permits the owner to have two freestanding signs. The owner could build a slightly smaller, shorter version of the proposed new sign if he would also reduce the size and height of his existing sign at the intersection of West Broadway and 56th Avenue. The cost of modifying the existing sign at the intersection of West Broadway and 56th Avenue does not constitute an undue hardship. The granting of the height and area variances might not be detrimental to the public welfare. However, the granting of the setback variance clearly would be. The 10' setback for freestanding signs is necessary to promote efficient and safe traffic flow on 56th Avenue, as well as pedestrian safety near the main entrance to the shopping center. Any hardship related to the requested height and area variance is directly related to the presence of an oversize, over -height sign at the intersection of West Broadway and 56th Avenue. In 1989, the City Council made it clear that the large sign at the intersection would be permitted but no other freestanding signs would be allowed. This sign could be replaced by a conforming sign to allow construction of a second freestanding sign at the main entrance. Because a slightly smaller, shorter version of the proposed sign could be built upon downsizing the existing freestanding sign at the intersection of West Broadway and 56th Avenue, the only hardship on those issues is economic. Planning Commission action on the sign variance is requested. CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER - SIGN VARIANCE 2 Engineering - Planning - Surveying - Landscape Architecture MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John Sutter - City of Crystal COPY: Mr. Ken Henk - Paster Enterprises i FROM: Eric Johnson DATE: November 5, 2003 RE: Crystal Shopping Center - Sign Variance Mr. Sutter — In response to the October 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting where the Crystal Shopping Center signage variance was continued, Paster Enterprises is requesting to -� withdraw their variance request. Paster Enterprises has worked with Signart to redesign the existing pylon sign located at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and West Broadway to bring it into compliance with the City's sign ordinance. Likewise, the proposed sign to be located at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Willow Bend (the main northeast drive location) has also been modified to bring it into compliance. In addition, this sign is proposed to be located a minimum of 10' from the property line to also keep it within compliance. Please see the attached graphics. The end result being, with the modification and the redesign of the two pylon signs, a variance will not be required. Paster Enterprises will work with City staff utilizing the sign permit process to pursue the permitting and construction of these two pylon signs. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. Please feel free to contact Mr. Ken Henk at Paster Enterprises or myself if you have any questions regarding our request. Page I Offices: Hibbing • Minnetonka • Ham Lake • Twin Ports (952) 933-0972 • 6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (952) 933-1 153 Equal Opportunity Employer bA55 LAKt KUAU/��(UU... KU. NU. 1L0) CEMOVE G AND ONEW ICN • C r f� 11 \'— — — — — i — — — — ����������"�I _ 5 —I IIIII1iIi111I III I RESTAURANT.+.. o.. \\\ 3. 095 50. FT. -" - T - RESTAURA O -- -_T___ 2.464 RESTAURANT 11.7�'��� �O 3,500 - -- -T-- SO. FT -sAw art __ 50. FT_ W '(1', cc c »� --1 - - -I-- --T-- - -T-- If. --r --1-- --T-- --T- -I-- --T-- --1- �` PROPOSED ELECTRICTRANIJ LOCATION. SFYYEERIr aAw1EeTAUI urTs )BID WITH ELECTRIC COW CUT LINEo/ ALTERNATE NO� . 1 WILLOW BEND (`_�_ %'` .i`1 _�SDEwALR _-1-- moi,>\ TMM CSCA �> TO DRAM TO iMGET PARKM LOT Um WEST WING - ''-0/ _ __ ,�\� _T _ __}__ _ 6 �( \\ --t --- - =_T J. -- --?-- CSCA C \` ROPO*9"STER--�-- _ _ 77,500 s. -_ --T- - -- r-' - --t-' _ - LOCATRMSI _T _ -_T__ (SEE ARCRI--DNS Z. - -T- __ __ -_T__ __T_ EAST YANG OR DETAILS)_ n[�� __T__ _ __T__ __T__ __T__ C.. I % � V DMG V u� 71.500 s.L __T --- T -- --- 1 T-- __ __ '—T-- E: -- -- PRDPOSED ELECTRIC 1 iONe SIDEWALK I __ __ WAW - -� TRCD, ANSFORMER LOCAT10N. V LECTR ERf" L- sa4�. mq�= •. L_ _ _ _ _ _ •L. _ _ _ _ - --- _ _ /�,5 1 _ _ - -_ AADITECNA4 LA•Ta (: CORCTEETE�SWALE TO -I _ A7MARCEr_I_ - 4iE I 1 1 120J'... uNc ETv.I�E_._:_.___ . I I 1 I 1 I FJ 1 1 •i .ti� MICHAELSI ( MARSHALLS 23,885 SF \ 29,940 SF LOCATION. VERIFY "TH ELECTRIC CO. r— -- SIGN LEGENI r SAIL 9OEW�_ 'j"� R �l ry-Q1jB�r QTNERs {""� t_ - AW CUT 24 OE � a -� � L ` r r 5L 2' i II LNE.C�•) c 1: :ONCRETE SIDEWALIL ADNATE STRIPING 100 H TARGET MINA %mPwG GRAIR sour A PEOES IRAAOC_ _ ASII-ILNCIOSURE ME,.RANS - _ 1•-6• U-% �'.f =GAGE COLCR PEA t_ - AW CUT CDDE 10, � a -� A.D.A. k S' � "TE LE 2' i II LNE.C�•) FLUE BAi AD fi' J �' GAIY I ! I SWARE 4'-6' EELLM( > F*— 6' STEEL 1 CONCRETE it u _ I I No T _ DET AL .fi' MIN. OR I I BDLLMD NSTAI DSJ DEPTH L_J .—coNrs ' PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASENENT UNITS — — — — —s— — — — — — — — — 54TH AVENUE NORTH r—-------11—------� F---�-- 1•-6• U-% �'.f =GAGE COLCR PEA �I CDDE 10, A.D.A. k S' "TE LE 2' T'VAN FLUE BAi AD fi' J �' GAIY SWARE 4'-6' EELLM( 6' STEEL 1 CONCRETE it u _ I I No T DET AL .fi' MIN. OR I I BDLLMD NSTAI DSJ DEPTH L_J .—coNrs -�>;� ��.�-�=t•�„ �:��:.�-•.�� _=�_�� ��,..= .a.��„e.� s �� r ._ham.. � � �.,-.�.���:�:�.-��:___w<� ��- � - �- N f \ EXISTING PYLON: - 12'-0” REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REDUCE OVERALL HEIGHT, TE NAN` TENANT PANEL I ELEVATION - PYLON A- �EXISTING SCALE: 1/4" = l'-0" NEW INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HEADER CABINET WITH ROUTED TEXT & BACKED W/ TRANSLUCENT ACRYLIC. \ EXISTING TENANTS CABINETS REPAINTED W/ NEW COLOR SCHEME. REMOVE EXISTING NEON N ACCENTS, REPAINT REVEALS N W/ NEW COLOR SCHEME RETRO- FIT NEW POLE COVERS W/ SQUARE ALUM. COVERS PAINTED WITH NEW COLOR SCHEME. PROPOSED NEW PYLON TO MATCH MATERIALS & COLOR SCHEME OF PYLON A. 0 Lo N ELEVA SCALI \ EXISTING PYLON: REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURE \ TO REDUCE OVERALL HEIGHT. \ NEW INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HEADER CABINET WITH ROUTED TEXT & BACKED W/ TRANSLUCENT ACRYLIC, EXISTING TENANTS CABINETS REPAINTED W/ NEW COLOR SCHEME. REMOVE EXISTING NEON ACCENTS, REPAINT REVEALS W/ NEW COLOR SCHEME RETRO- FIT NEW POLE COVERS W/ SQUARE ALUM, COVERS PAINTED WITH NEW COLOR SCHEMI PROPOSED NEW PYLON TO MATCH MATERIALS & COLOR SCHEME OF PYLON A. ELEVATION - PYLON B -PROPOSED NEW SCALE: 114" = V-0" EMH e Q e EXISTING HYDRANT 5' PARKING BASS LAKE ROAD SETBACK EXISTING 6" HONEYLOCUST OR TO REMAIN OPOSED PYLON - — _— EXISTING 6" HONEYLOCUST SIGN TO REMAIN 10 PYLON EXISTING 8" HONEYLOCUST SIGN SETBACK o v TO REMAIN PROPERTY LINE d. S, d.. 4■ BACK OF CURB IN FACE OF CURB DO NOT ENTER (TYPICAL) TYPICAL). a 24. M I STOP SIGNS 3 I 25' ° ----- -`I NEW TREE IN — — — - - TREE GRATE yI a n ----- e 8 a Te EXISTING RETAIL ----- i ----- ----- 3 RLK M PROPOSED PYLON SIGN LOCATION PASTER ENTERPRISES LLD. - CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER U 20 SCALE` IN FEE Date: 11/5/03 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 7, 2003 TO: Planning Commission (for November 12th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator 7 SUBJECT: Revised timetable for consideration of the( new Zoning Ordinance) Staff will provide an updated draft for review and discussion at the November 12t" meeting. Because the revised draft will not be completed until the day of the meeting, we need to continue the public hearing one more month to December 8, 2003. Revised timetable below. Timetable for consideration of the new Zoning Ordinance PLAN COMM MEETING TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION TO BE COMPLETED 2 002 DefiRi}iGRS; R 1 dic}rin} ebFua •9,22003 G 1 Rd G `) diStrig}c o�-ranuvz�rr.Tcrrvc� MaFGh 19, 2903 1 1 and special di }rig} july 1¢ 2903 parking Rog, iiremeRtS A6igust 11 2003 GeReFal per#eFmaRco standaFds September22, 2089 Oettebef-0893 . Oeteber Oeteber November 12, 2003 Review and discuss additional changes based on public comments and City Council input December 8, 2003 Make final recommendation to the City Council Assuming the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the new ordinance and map on December 8, 2003, the adoption process would proceed as follows: • City Council first reading: December 16, 2003 • City Council second reading and adoption: January 6, 2004 • Publication: January 15, 2004 • Effective date: February 14, 2004 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 8, 2003 TO: Planning Commission (November 12th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2003-17 for Site Plan Review of proposed improvements to the Target store at 5537 West Broadway. The applicant wishes to modify their plans and for this reason would like consideration of their request to be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on December 8, 2003. Please see the attached letter from the applicant. The Planning Commission is asked to open the public hearing, take any public comment offered, and then continue the public hearing until its next regular meeting on December 8th L 0 10k _L_� November 3, 2003 Mr. John Sutter Planner & Redevelopment Coordinator City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive North Crystal, Minnesota 55422-16969 Dear Mr. Sutter, URS Corp. is representing Target Corp. in its application for zoning approval of their proposed remodeling improvements to its Target store located at 5537 West Broadway in Crystal. As you know we have submitted application materials which include an existing conditions survey, proposed site plan, proposed landscaping plan, proposed building elevations, project narrative, project cost form and application form with fee. This application is scheduled for the November 12`h Planning Commission meeting. As we discussed on the phone last week, Target wishes to revise the scope of its proposed work at this site and needs to re -submit revised site plans and landscaping plans along with a new project narrative and project cost form. Since these changes will require additional time for City Staff review and time to address any comments, URS Corp. requests that the Planning Commission table this item at the November 12th meeting and schedule it to be heard at the December 8`h Planning commission meeting. I am confident that this extra time will be sufficient to complete revised drawings and allow City Staff to review and comment on the revised plans. Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have at 61-2-373-6838. Sincerely, r Rollyn Peterson Cc: Alice Roberts -Davis/ Target Corp. Thomas Lincoln/ URS Corp. File 13707-086 Thresher Square • 700 Third Street South • Minneapolis, MN 55415 • Phone: (612) 370-0700 • Fax: (612) 370-1378 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 8, 2003 TO: Planning Commission (November 12th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2003-18 for Lot Division at 4068 Hampshire Avenue North. A. BACKGROUND The City of Crystal is gradually acquiring property for Hagemeister Pond Park. The subject property is 428' deep and has a large, low, wooded area abutting the park. The property owner wishes to donate part of his property to the city for park purposes, and is therefore requesting lot division to detach the east 173'. The west 255' would remain with the existing house at 4068 Hampshire. The following informational items are attached: ❑ aerial photo showing the subject property; ❑ plat maps showing the area around the property before and after the proposed lot division; and ❑ survey showing the area to be detached for addition to the adjacent park property. B. STAFF COMMENTS The parcel remaining with the house would be 91'x 255, or 23,205 sq. ft. (0.53 acres). The existing house would easily comply with the setback and other requirements of Crystal City Code. The park parcel would be combined with the existing park property abutting it to the south. Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2003-18 for Lot Division at 4068 Hampshire. Planning Commission action is requested. mm- PARK 2 L J r7111 1 R 0 4( 15 -17. JZ 11, 17. jl.�3 4&5 .41 ST Co. P L ter' 9*'-v7O 131 69 68 G cs.c 63 LL 6 11 i7.32 LAJ 7V till �w A/ 77.3z C) J� a \� W 3: u 0 IVA, 4 2 64 ae 1 0 Tas Of C) eo t , 0 37 2 1 11, ;j L 514& L 3 49Z. 58 41 St ZI-78 S 3zi. z 55 it 14 r 15 T 5 TOO ".!I% 9S.4 QD X96.9 pL 30 IOV) 7 P ?iT OF 75 .0 two') 2 a 157.5 31 i 295.16 28 tsf. 4(4 4ZS4 15 5 3 32 27 9 *068 N I 7. 28 10 2 ' FK 537 5 _f t 6(532.7 1 17 34 25 4 35 24 12 �P43 Do m 94 36 to 01vio 23 13 4Z9. ZA Ito D.N.A. 642 W 36 ;a 37 22 14 .57 AK Isis S Z4, 45 J� J3 21 E-NIVNG q0669 HA"P&41PE f7AIQM- Vv-,t wv " A& PAR.IC PN PA RKI W, 2 i . '-M �- 0 7'1.11 7.R 77-35 3 4 NO 4 P L A,C E W45 4`6w5 -12 11 j, 7113 415-54 3 V 7 LAJ C) W > (Do Z Q. 4 wk0 k, 2 0 I ILp 5 THIS 15 77-12'fg as 41 st- -L-90." 3 T.-N, . 6o L: tj too r: 15 -1 - jo. I* is 14 u #L 4* q:30(f4 7 Pj T OF 7 4 2JA In 31 'Q' 157 5 28 8 iAl 'T 3 Xr 32 33 r 219 10 34 25 II 4 3 5 3" 24 36 6 23 13 Ota. ZA 37 22 14 36 -- WN. 2 TT— 3s N 21 -1 2 7. 15 Ems 140691 an-ummumma PAxceL -w REnwm wiT*t ext -sr, j4 G pfowmtY &etablished in 1982 LOT SURVEYS 9 OMPANY, INC. INVOICE NO. 61456 LAND SURVEYORS F.B.NO 913 - 39 aaclsl'iRED UNDER THE Y.arrs or sre'1's or lMrxssoTe SCALE: 1 " = 30' City of C y 5 t r a 1 7801 73rd e,eane North 789•-680-.3093 • Denotes Iron Mornanent Fax No. 783-680-3= YinneapolL, Ylnneeota 66428 J�ttrtrr'yars Trrtifiratr N 89"58' — W-285_41 --— — — — — — — I 30.00 I I I ml o I O a1 I m I M I W " �a 7 m Q oI i a zi I �I� z (428.40 plat) I::•.___----- _...._._..-•------•--•_-------- _..____.___.____.-_---._.___._..__._......._._ N90°00' 00"E I _ 427 84 3o 00 4Heaf - - - 255.08 a I I �.Ole L 0 T %UI CD o 255.26 I' ....----•--..____.__.__.....__ _ -----_ __ ___.__!._....-__-•-- N89°59' 40"'V y1an (428.36 plat) I Description: LOT 2, GAULKE' S ADDITION We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a surveyof the boundaries of the above described land and the - location of an buildings and visible encroachments, if any from or on said land. )j Surveyed by us this_21st _day of November 2001. % Signe ir�aarirawvry ,.._�,.-_ _ ■ Gregory./Prasch, Afinn. h._ No. 24992 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS October 21, 2003: 1. Application 2003-12 for 4948 Quail Ave N: • Variance to allow a playhouse in the front (east) yard - DENIED. • Variance to allow limited patios in the front (east) yard — APPROVED. (Both actions were consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation.) 2. Application 2003-14 for 103 Willow Bend (Crystal Shopping Center): • Variance to reduce parking lot setback - APPROVED. • Site plan for reconfiguration of the shopping center —APPROVED. (Both actions were consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation.) 3. Application 2003-15 to amend the Comprehensive Plan: • Corrective amendments to the Future Land Use map —APPROVED. (Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation.) Page 1 of 1 11/08/2003