Loading...
2001.11.13 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY Crystal City Hall, 4141 Douglas Dr N November 13, 2001 Council Chambers 7:00 PM 1. Approval of minutes from the October 8, 2001 meeting 2. ITEM CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 8T" MEETING: Consider Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755 Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). Application submitted by Laurene A. Rick (applicant and property owner). 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Application 2001-12 Preliminary Plat of Crystal Business Park encompassing the parcels currently addressed as 5430, 5454, 5518 & 5540 Lakeland Avenue North; 5917 56th Avenue North; and 5541 & 5549 Zane Avenue North. Application submitted by Industrial Equities LLC (applicant and property owner). 4. Informal discussion and announcements. 5. Informational Items: ❑ City Council actions on Planning Commission items 6. Adjournment • For additional information, contact John Sutter at 763-531-1142 • G APLANNINGIP LANCOMM12001111-121agendasummary.doc October 8, 2001 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was T. Graham. - Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions. Motion carried. i3. Public Hearing: Consider Application 200 1 -10 for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755 Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). Application submitted by Laurene A. Rick (applicant and property owner). Planner Sutter stated that the owner has constructed a freestanding deck extending 5' into the required front yard. The deck has been built with railings and posts that make it look like a front porch. Staff has notified the owner that the structure is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed. The owner does not wish to remove the deck and is requesting a 5' variance in the front yard setback so that the deck may remain. Planner Sutter told the Planning Cornmiss on that due to a medical condition, the owner believes there is a need for a protected %valkway from the front door to the garage. However, protection front rain or ,snow already exists in the forin of a 3' t gave which is located along the front and rear of the house. Staff believes that the main question here is whether a raised deck is necessary in the area under the eave for the owner to have the desired access across the front of the house to the garage. The Planning Commission was also instructed to note that the deck has been built to look like a front porch extending all the way across the front of the house. As clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance, a deck is a structure and therefore must meet the minimum front yard setback. For a variance from a setback to be granted, state law requires that an "undue hardship" must be present. For a situation to constitute an "undue hardship", all of the following three conditions must be present: Q The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. " u "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. " u "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " Staff does not believe that this request meets any of these criteria and feels that the owner has reasonable alternatives that would be consistent with the setback requirements. The alternates suggested included removing the blocks, railing, and posts currently extending above the deck, and lowering the deck so that it sits directly on grade or to remove the deck entirely (possibly re -using it in the rear yard) and install a sidewalk or patio under the eaves across the front of the house. Staff recommends denial of Application 200 1 -10 for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30' to 25' at 5755 Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D. 03- 118-21-32-0022). Laurene Rick, owner and applicant of 5755 Twin Lake Terrace, stated various reasons of why she thought the structure needed to be built. She felt the previous walkway was insufficient due to the lack of protection from the rain and snow and needed to be elevated in order to create a safe walkway to the garage from the front door. Commissioner Magnuson explained that the Planning Commission had never granted a variance to reduce a front yard setback in the past, so even if the property owner would have requested the variance prior to construction, the request would most likely have been denied. Ms. Rick presented several photographs of other properties in Crystal with similar structures that also appear to encroach on the front yard setback. She asked the Planning Commission for clarification as to why these properties were approved for construction. Commissioner Magnuson referred the property addresses to Planner Sutter, who was asked to determine whether or not these properties were granted variances from the front yard setback requirement. She also stated that it is impossible to know what was recommended by staff per telephone conversation with reference to specific guidelines and procedures that need to be taken in order for the structure to comply with City Ordinance. Tom Rick, 5755 Twin Lake Terrace, and son of property owner and applicant told the Planning Commission that when he inquired about building such a structure, he was assured that if the structure is not attached to the house, it was allowed. Planner Satter admitted that staff could have discussed the issue, but would have also told the property owner that they should brim in a drawing of what they want to build do that thea was nig misunderstanding, Planner Sutter recommended that the applicant meet with the Building Official to discus possible alternatives, or [o consider altering the existing structure: to conform witli the requirements of the Tont yard setback, Don Bohn, 5747 Twin .Lake Terrace, and neighbor to the applicant expressed his concern for the safety of the walkway for the elderly, including the property owner. Ee also stated that the structure is very well built and a beautiful addition to the front of the liouse. Mr. Bohn added that lie did not understand why the City of Crystal insists on picking on residents who want to better their property, when there arc all sorts of properties that are in desperate need of attention and repair. Commissioner Magnuson explained that the city has ordinances and variance regulations for a reason. She stated that staff will look into the other properties with similar structures and some alternatives for the applicant. She assured the property owner that the city will do what they can to work with them to resolve the matter. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to table the public hearing until staff and the applicant have a chance to look at other properties with similar structures and present further information. Motion carried. Planner Sutter stated that the city could consider rewriting or altering the City Ordinance to allow for this type of structure without a variance. The Planning Commission agreed with Planner Sutter. Many commissioners stated that the structure really enhanced the house and property and would like to see it stay. Public Hearing to consider Application 2001-11 requesting the following actions at 3200 Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by LivingWorks Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner): * Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential; ❑ Rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential; and °D Site Plan Review for construction of a two family dwelling. Commissioner Koss was asked to step down from the commission, due his location of residence and other property near the proposed site. Planner Sutter stated that Living Works Ventures would like to build a two family dwelling on a property that is presently guided Neighborhood Commercial and zoned B-4 Community Commercial. The property is vacant. The facility would be used as a supportive housing facility for 12 low income disabled adults. Six people would be housed in each of the two dwelling units. Under the present land use designation and B-4 zoning, residential uses are not permitted. The following changes would be required for the development to proceed: rc3 Change the property's Future Land Use designation (Comprehensive Plan, Fig. 7) from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential. a Change the property's zoning classification from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential. o Approve the submitted site and building plans. Planner Sutter noted that the original application requested a change to High Density Residential and R-2 zoning. Because the two are not typically compatible, staff suggested that the applicant request Medium Density Residential and R-3 zoning, which are compatible. The applicant has agreed to accept this suggestion. Planner Sutter stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows a mixture of residential and commercial land uses in the area near the property. These include Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Parks & Conservation. The basic issue appears to be whether Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or Medium Density Residential (MDR) is the appropriate long- term use of the subject property. Planner Sutter stated that this situation is clearly one where the Planning Commission and City Council need to make a judgement between two equally defensible positions. Decisions regarding the Comprehensive Plan's land use designations are where the city has the greatest degree of discretion and judgement. The fundamental issue was the land use designation and that the commissioners have the ability to deny the request based on the land use designation alone. Planner Sutter reviewed the submitted site plan with the Planning Commission and noted specific alterations and areas of concern. He pointed out that the north portion of the porch would have to be eliminated because it extends into the required rear yard setback. Fire sprinkling may be required and Planner Sutter referred the applicant to discuss the issue with the city Building Official. Parking was also mentioned as being insufficient and staff discussed an alternate arrangement of how additional stalls could be placed on the site. In addition, irrigation of turf and landscaped areas will be required as a condition of approval. Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-11 requesting Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Site Plan approval for property located at 3200 Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by LivingWorks Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner). The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. Commissioner Magnuson stated that there are various zoning designations in the surrounding area. She explained that this particular parcel was zoned Neighborhood Commercial and intended for commercial uses and feels it should remain. Commissioners K. Graham and Kamp stated that they did not see a problem with the proposed use and thought it would fit in just fine with the surrounding uses. Commissioner K. Graham sees no opportunities for better use at this time. Commissioners Elsen, Von Rueden, Krueger, and Nystrom all were in agreement that the site should remain zoned Neighborhood Commercial and that an amendment should not be made to the Comprehensive Plan. Tom Davis, Vinland Center, stated that he was under the impression that the Comprehensive Plan is to allow development of the community. He explained that two areas very close to the subject property contain many shops that this property is intended for and therefore, sees no reason why the parcel should remain zoned Neighborhood Commercial. April James, Edina Realty, expressed her opinion by stating that no one else has been interested in the property and she is glad that there is finally a proposal for development. Marty Gates, 5108 48`h Ave N, agreed with and supported the statements made by Tom Davis. She explained that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide the city, but not limit it. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the proposal because it would really add to the community. An individual who identified herself as Peggy, objected to the proposal because of the impact it would have on the surrounding area. She claimed that there are plenty of commercial opportunities that would be a better fit to this area and does not agree with changing the Comprehensive Plan. Lyn loss, 3200 Coloradan Ave N, stated (fiat to her recalleetion, a proposal was made recently to rezone an adjuent pareed of land to the subject property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density residential. Because the Planning Commission denied that request, Ms. Koss does not understand why this proposal is now being considered for approval, especially since the applicant is requesting the same rezoning, Medium Density Residential. Frank Caruso, 3235 Brunswick Ave N, supported Lyn Koss and stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be implemented as intended. An individual who identified himself as Matthew LaBissoniere, encouraged the Planning Commission to think about what the community is facing. He expressed that he did not understand why such a facility that assists animals was approved for the site and a facility that assists humans is not. Commissioner Magnuson addressed Mr. LaBissoniere by stating that once a parcel is rezoned, the entire area is subject to rezoning and these are important conditions that the Planning Commission has to consider. Barb Sadler, 3447 Hampshire Ave N, reiterated how hard it is to keep commercial businesses in the area already and recommended the Planning Commission change the intended use to accommodate other uses. Tess Moleski, 4076 Hampshire Ave N, asked the Planning Commission what uses would be approved in a Neighborhood Commercial district. Planner Sutter listed several typical permitted uses of a Neighborhood Commercial district, including a barber shop, office, ice cream parlor, drug store, gift shop, hardware and convenience stores, and medical and dental offices. Roger Skare, Vinland Center, asked Planner Sutter about the intensity of B-4 zoning. Planner Sutter stated that commercial zoning for this area was originally set 25 years ago. When the recent Comprehensive Plan update was being discussed, staff and the Planning Commission felt that a mix of use would be favorable and that Neighborhood Commercial use would fit this area. The B-4 zoning uses may not always be consistent with Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as Neighborhood Commercial. Until the zoning is updated to B-2, and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission would have the discretion to deny any request that does not ft the Neighborhood Commercial uses. Mr. Skare stated that B-2 zoning includes multiple family dwellings as a conditional use, therefore making the proposed use for this site acceptable. Planner Sutter stated that the proposal from the applicant is not a multiple family dwelling. Mr. Skare replied by asking if the proposal was changed to a multiple family dwelling, would the proposal be approved? Planner Sutter said that the Planning Commission is here to consider the proposal that was in front of them tonight. Mary Tietjen, City Attorney, was asked by the Planning Commission to give her opinion as to the relevance of past applications being approved or disapproved in this area. She replied that past applications may be used to justify a decision made by the Planning Commission. Jeff Bangsberg, Vinland Center, stated that at a previous Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Todd Graham mentioned the Comprehensive Plan and its reference to expanding accessible housing. He urged the Planning Commission to look at accommodating the community. Pat Goetz, 7012 Markwood Dr, stated that in looking at the businesses around the area, there is an abundance of Neighborhood Commercial businesses already. By adding more, it would just create competition and be detrimental to the area. Tess Moleski, 4076 Hampshire Ave N, stated that plans are always challenged and that the Planning Commission should consider changing the Comprehensive Plan. Tony Nelson, 3301 Brunswick Ave N, mentioned that he was concerned for the adjacent properties and he advised the Planning Commission to keep the Comprehensive Plan as is. Steve Gabbert, 3254 Brunswick Ave N, asked if it was because of the Comprehensive Plan that the adjacent property was denied rezoning. He also stated that if the Comprehensive Plan is changed all of the time, that it isn't very useful. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner K. Graham expressed her concern for why some of the Planning Commissioners wanted to turn down the proposal. She pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was not worked on all that hard and that the subject site is not that suitable for Neighborhood Commercial uses. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed. Commissioner Kamp agreed with Commissioner K. Graham and feels that some of the Planning Commission is more concerned about the operation of another facility such as this in the City of Crystal, rather than the issue of land use. Commissioner Magnuson responded by stating that Commissioner Kamp was wrong in the assumption that the Planning Commission is not concerned with land use. Commissioner Krueger stated that he would be in favor on the project if the Comprehensive Plan did not have to be changed and would not affect the future of the area. Commissioners K. Graham and Kamp both stated that future use was not really relevant. The area is in need of this housing and it is a good site. Moved by Commissioner Magnuson and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to approve 2001-11 requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning to Medium Density Residential, and site plan approval for property at 3200 Douglas Drive North, subject to the findings of fact detailed in the staff memo and the following conditions: ci Increase available parking to include two additional spaces o Add landscape buffering to the east side of the property Motion failed 3-3-1,with K. Graham, Kamp, and Magnuson voting aye, Elsen, Nystrom, and Von Rueden voting nay, and Krueger abstained. The Planning Commission proceeded to discuss the site plan issues when Planner Sutter and Attorney Tietjen informed the Planning Commission that in order to make a recommendation, there has to be a majority vote. Commissioner Magnuson asked the Planning Commission to consider the proposal once again and advised for a second motion to be made. Further discussion of the proposal took place. Moved by Commissioner Magnuson and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to modify the Comprehensive Plan to Medium Density Residential for property at 3200 Douglas Drive North. Motion carried 5-2, with K. Graham, Kamp, Magnuson, Krueger, and Nystrom voting aye, and Elsen and Von Rueden voting nay. Motion by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve rezoning to Medium Density Residential and site plan approval for property at 3200 Douglas Drive North, subject to the findings of fact detailed in the staff memo and the following conditions: u Increase available parking to include two additional spaces J Add landscape buffering to the east side of the property Motion carried 5 -1 - l ,with K. Graham, Kamp, Magnuson, Krueger, and Nystrom voting aye, Elsen voting nay, and VonRueden abstained. The City Council will consider the request at its meeting on October 23rd 1 Discussion Item: Possible application for rezoning from B-4 to B-3, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow conversion of the existing Video Update building at 5101 361h Avenue North to a car wash. Planner Sutter expressed his concern about the use of the site for auto -oriented businesses. The Planning Commission expressed their concern for noise, congestion, hours of operation, location, and as an auto -oriented use. Dan Poorman, representative for the car wash, told the Planning Commission that the entire car wash would be enclosed, that he was open to changes of the site plan to eliminate congestion, and operation would be during regular business hours. Commissioner Magnuson told Mr. Poorman that rezoning of the area may be a long-term issue and the Planning Commission does not foresee this location as favorable for an auto -oriented, commercial use. 5 e Discussion Item: Presentation from Northwest Corridor Coalition regarding the planning process for land uses along County Road 81 in Crystal and other cities. The presentation included possible zoning adjustments, as well as the improvement of transportation systems along County Road 81 for future use. Dan Marckel and Jeff Miller, representatives for the Northwest Corridor Coalition, suggested the Planning Commission look at their website, www.cala.uinii.edu using the link "design center" for further updates and upcoming meetings. 6. Informational Items: ❑ City Council actions on Planning Commission items ❑ Quarterly Development Status Report 7. Informal Discussion and Announcements. None 8. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. Chair Magnuson Secretary Nystrom fiwfi, E M 0 R A N D U 17 DATE: November 9, 2001 TO: Planning Commission (November 13thmeeting— Item #2) FROM: 4',;John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: (Item continued from October 8" meeting): Consider Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755 Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). Application submitted by Laurene A. Rick (applicant and property owner). A. BACKGROUND The owner has constructed a freestanding deck extending 5' into the required front yard. The deck has been built with railings and posts that make it look like a front porch. Staff has notified the owner that the structure is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed. The owner does not wish to remove the deck and is requesting a 5' variance in the front yard setback so that the deck may remain. At its October 811 meeting, the Planning Commission held the required public hearing and voted to continue this item to the November 13th meeting so that staff could check into the status of some other properties that the applicant felt might be in violation of the same setback requirement. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of including in the upcoming Zoning Ordinance text amendment an exception to the front yard setback allowing unenclosed porches and decks. The following informational items are attached: u plat map showing the subject property and adjacent parcels; Li letter from Building Official regarding the setback encroachment; • materials submitted by the owner; and • information on other properties with possible violations, as requested by applicant B. STAFF COMMENTS [new] Staffs review of the four other properties cited by the applicant revealed the following: Two were not in violation; one was granted a variance in 1975 because it had three street frontages; and one might be in violation and was referred to the Building Official for possible enforcement action. Staff has also discussed the possibility of allowing unenclosed porches and decks to extend into the required front yard setback. There is general support for this idea but the extent of the allowable encroachment is still an open question. Staff expects that the allowable encroachment would be at least 5' but could be more. Another question is whether this encroachment be allowed to extend all the way across the front of a house (as with the applicant's deck) or be limited to a maximum percentage of the house's front or a maximum square footage, These are issues that staff will discuss with the planning Commission as part of the ordinance revision. Because these discussions will be underway soon, staff will suspend enforcement action against the applicant until the new ordinance is adopted. However, none of this changes the fact that there is no hardship in this case. The property is not unique in any way and none of the three criteria for an "undue hardship" as described in state law (M.S. 462.357 Subd. 6) have been met: For these reasons a variance is not appropriate for this situation. The subject property is zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. The lot is 80' wide x 125' deep, encompassing 10,000 sq. ft. The lot complies with the city's R-1 standards for min. depth (100'), width (60') and area (6,765 sq. ft.). The lot's size and orientation are consistent with others on the same block. The surrounding land use is predominantly single-family detached, The owner has stated that, due to a medical condition, they need a protected walkway from the front door to the garage. (The garage does not have direct access to the house because the bedrooms are located on the end of the house next to the garage; to get to the garage, one must exit the house via either the front or rear doors and then -- walk outside to the garage.) Protection from rain or snow already exists in the form of a 3' eave which is located along the front and rear of the house. Staff believes that the main question here is whether a raised deck is necessary in the area under the eave for the owner to have the desired access across the front of the house to the garage. It is also important to note that the deck has been built to look like a front parch extending all the way across the front of the house. Furthermore, the deck is far longer and wider than would be necessary just to provide a walkway to the garage. The photographs submitted by the owner indicate that the deck is being used as outdoor living space (note the presence of lawn furniture), not just a walkway to the garage. The deck is clearly a structure as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore must meet the minimum front yard setback as would any ether structure. For a variance from a setback to be granted, state law (M.S. 462.357 Subd. 6) requires that an "undue hardship" must be present. For a situation to constitute an "undue hardship" all of the following three conditions must be present: u "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. " VARIANCE FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK - 5755 TWIN FAKE TERRACE 2 u "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. " zi "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " Staff does not believe that this request meets any of these criteria. Staff also feels that the owner has a reasonable alternative that would be consistent with the setback requirements: Remove the blocks and support posts, and lower the deck so that it sits directly on grade. This would also require removal of the railing and posts currently extending above the deck. In this scenario the "deck" would be indistinguishable from a paved walkway except that it would be made out of wood instead of concrete. The owner would still have a wooden surface under the house's eaves, yet its appearance would be much the same as a sidewalk or patio because it would be at grade. Another alternative would be to remove the deck entirely (possibly re -using it in the rear yard) and install a sidewalk or patio under the eaves across the front of the house. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT TO DENY The property is not subject to an undue hardship and therefore the requested variance is not granted. Specifically, none of the three criteria for an "undue hardship" in state law (M.S. 462.357 Subd. 6) have been met: Li "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code." Reasonable use of the property does not require a deck in the front yard. There are reasonable construction alternatives that wouqgive the owner the desired walkway without encroaching on the required setback. a "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner " There are no circumstances unique to the property. u "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, " The structure looks like an attached covered porch, which will alter the essential character of the locality if it is allowed to remain past the required setback line. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of Application 2001 -10 for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755 Twin Lake. Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its November 20"' meeting. VARIANCE FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK - 5755 TWIN LAKE TERRACE 3 H31N3) NXIAMM :jo AllD '1VISAHO AO Alli FZ JJ43CI 100)i '40 v A4 .40 ri 0 HS v so va NiM.L tn14 4 4Z z "lZ L I irz Vy NO +3f i. CaWD) L'4L SL L`A 54 54 X4 S4 5 L SL op JL3L SL L" lo .0 ----k-t4- 9931 SL 57 'j Lon +3f i. CaWD) L'4L SL . " 54 54 X4 S4 5 L V01 op JL3L SL L" lo ----k-t4- 9931 SL 57 'j Lon 1 of OV &P . " 54 54 X4 S4 5 L V01 op liv L" lo ----k-t4- 9931 57 'j Lon - art 1 SLI 4111 5 L op oa OL L" lo ----k-t4- 9931 57 August 20, 2001 Laurene A. Rick 5755 Twin Lake Terr Crystal, Mn. 55429 Dear Laurene A. Rick: It has come to my attention recently during inspections in your neighborhood that you have built a porch/deck'onto the front of your home. In checking the address file for your property, I did not find a permit for the construction. I also found that the porch/deck that you built extends into the required front yard setback. I have enclosed a copy of the survey showing the setback from the property lines that your home was built, It shows a 30 foot front setback which is the minimum required. The permit issued in 1960 also shows that the proposed setback was to be 30 foot. You are hereby notified that you must remove the addition to the front of your home by September 17, 2001. You do have the option of applying for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance but you must show a hardship in order for the City Council to be able to grant a variance. A hardship can not be financial but you must show that your property can not be used as others due to unique circumstances beyond your control. This application must also be received in our office by September 17, 2001. There is a $125 filing fee which must accompany the application. Failure to comply with this order will result in appropriate legal action being taken. to assure compliance with the ordinance. Sbou Id you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-531-1000 Sincerely, William D. Barber Building Official APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE When I first applied for the permit to build a "deck","platform". a Crystal City Official told us we did not need a permit as it is not attached to the, house. We went on this assumption and proceeded to build. On the enclosed pictures, it is obvious that we have not gone beyond the existing sidewalk and about one foot over the overhang. This has clearly enhanced the value of the property. As I am in my 70's and have been diagnosed with arthritis in any hips, I feel I need this protective covering in the winter when there is tee and snow on the sidewalk. (I have no inside door to the garage.) LOT AND FARM SURVEYS CONSTRUCTION SURYCYS TOPOGRAPHICAL PLATT I N G ,DAMES M. HALVERSON REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA PHONE PARKWAY 4-6308 ° 2821 30Tm AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS B= MINN, SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE G oyC p _ I L' ° 4- -.. �3 v ea r r. 7 Z hereby certify that this is a true and cared representation of a survey of the boundaries of: bat t�*o (2), Block one (1), 'fest Twin Lake Shores, Hennepin C'ounty,Minresota and of the location of all buildings, if arq& thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or nn said Land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set for a proposed building. As surveyed by rye this 15 TH. day of February 1-960. f� Twin Lakeierrace I ,10- lk" 2/27/00 ry � y# 5 art.. 3 E ri /e• .. ,- . e— v^W s. ..a.w. Page I of I soe� ohe7w file://A:\MVC-004F.J.PG 10/26/00 57755"" �`w„�r 'EKE G+4%0%0 Page I of I [�fft4Ct�IJ7 Fr4z f r -V A/I 5e�-TVptc,<- L 4� C=am f�7 Lf--' 7 Ole file:#A:\N4VC-041F.JPG 10/7/01 R 61*131 9&*&EY Page I of 1 file:/ :\DiCP 0392 JPG 10/8/01. ?ACTOR: t PERMIT � Y OF CRYSTAL PERMIT TYRE: `141 Douglas [give NorthBUILDT14G Permit Number: ,rystai, Minnesota 55422-1596 Date issued: 011427 512) 531-1000 08/29 l96 WRESS: 5931. JERSEY AVE Nf UPTION: DECK Building Permit Type ADD/ALT RESIDENT Building Workl:`Type NEW Square Feet 200 , o n IKSs .1MMAR i VALUATION ase Pee 24..2 ; trchil yap. �y�R�wvi+ew u$.75' arge ss; $ 75 oral Fee $73.50 ?ACTOR: t A r. S � yr �t . d .� • f R • /+{Cyd; ray U LTE #V R���y/��� >�f r—i, *r✓trs '�� ~ au►+�rni �, '�y -a.» �G,`.`. '.,,; ,� t�..'�",-�^. ��*� Ywi�A*+."":. 1.._7.+E••{�i', •;1�K+.y(`mw'? ��. �.�� "y4�' w, �' � 4,:,,' y"..�•'l ,+„,e�11RY,Qti�i'!'i���_���L! iM=P,3�7t. i�.AMPR 1'�€ �'TA"K C!!”. �t�thFE7t+ . z' t .•-`f .=' 'f"`'�'; �.y�aa!}�c�-.?(.,�'�' #�s�'�'�.r�.�►siz �T e�C�rG�.f{C, iRM �ltT 8I ��S -��pw ' . �& ,?�'1*w3�`i4T�'``A`ti"b�Y ..� F'.. 1,.:,t+ (,,'4.4 �` '!.srt.t7�,'�•" �"`.,,r�'� ,.. +� �` fxw'�+ ._ aa� �•.;.' ...+ . .. , •:r. a rr.,.#w,•'f,�- �� � "�� �� ►J41tM �jjil�y�r�, .r s `� ^t � ,2 - d•X.- art L yR�.y� �� "� .�'. ;�y�FC7�'� •,.r- air .:, >Z„Y., y v zs'�^ yY,„ ,,.mss•-•:� r �.rt �,s _ St. i, q r.. °.'�. r,".,• ?. t..~ 31 }fw -* -> +i �*'� `t"� K.""i" ".i��ii�„'F' r v.st`i�',,„ ,;o..�, ,;�` el w.i; aT'. �. ice... '' `•^^ » • ak z ...'i 4. y' '�`d° ✓r s ''`+:r -a., nr`' ^r*s1u6 •'4, .L✓ � -s'd �. 'a:. K°r.yp." '�: �,.,.4 .f•.`r ,r.w 'x-,+... ,�.. *= w« a - •",, "" „•4, _ '". r1 "' .• �,� s,. _ +. -"'meq. - •,,,, s v -. 3 rz � �c _ �,, 'V �� ._. Ifo-. ". *�.. `.» � &� � �' � _ � � •.(.� �' . 1 '� °Jd+-. ;.e' i yy,�' t +nt y n' y' •„..,im1'C �,-.f '�`r�.«c: ,f._ • •.� .!.•;. s ,1Nj certify that the above 1s+>.&P of a :survey true' aid correct last :s `" . � T`;�• �� ;� f � tirvep of Lot Five.. (5) Bloch jMrea . 3 �tX ; CX,AND CARLSOXIS R&MBLER ,ROW ADDITION, ; Village of 9yetal, ,1�2nneeota. 8 � car eyed by ate .'cthi $` +nth dag € April 1953 Signed Minnesota..... Registration jo. _ -- _7 3 1 - L. -If � �- � � Page I of I to �5c-F f5�2mJT (,-C� its C7-- -, 0 Nx.-y 36, -DE- - c -t E)rT� 11) (Cl cc, I acr i file://D:1DCP-0393.JPG 10/8/01 t YA 414.": Dou a C' C,l r L71Z vv S. . AIDI)R JS DESCRIPTION: DECK Building "Permit -type ADD/ALT RESIDENT Building Words Type NEW CONTRACTOR: OWNER: _Applicant MORGAN MONA 5839 HAMPSHIRe AVE N CRYSTAL MN 55428 (612-)535-0444 C.E.COULTER LAND SURVEYOR ReGINTICKED UP,401EM LAWS Or STATE Or mjr4NcxoTA LACcp.#V* wy OstotftAncic or Cory or. Mim"'A"OL-14 3348 LYNDALE AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS S. MINN. LOCUST 0370 fiimu Unr's Trrttftrutr F" Ln 0 Q- Ilk % CL cc Z4, .A # jay et her 'cert i fy that .,the above j s -'A', true mild correct plat of a slizvey of: I GUSr AITD CkRLQ-cr. I S R."MLEF, ROW SM Villsze Lot Two (2) Block One, (1) of Cr -s seal , V-4 nn e s 0 k$._ As su7veyed by me this 3rd day, of iu=e 195.3 A. D. . Signed I�innesota nA,jsirPtIon Nc. qo-7-19) S&IrR Page 1 of 1 E s :.`� :5" wM Building Inspector's Copy PLAN CHECK FEE �. __._._.____ l City of Crystal, Minnesota PERMIT FEE .. , ...... 4141 Dcuiglas Drive N. Crystal, Minn. 55422 STATE SURCHARGE FEF; $ Telephone: 537.84221 S.A,C.CHARGE ......., ....BUILDINGPERMIT 3437 RECEIPT #'s .. S.. !?steel Jute 26 lg 75 WHEREAS, was duly filed In the office of the Building Inspector, application to slab for carport (Build, install, add to, remodel, repair, moue, wreck as the cast may be) W CATION OF a BUILDING Lot � Block 1 Addition Spears Size of Lot 84.42 Wide 148. 51Lon4 Street No. 4710 5601 Awenue North DESCIUP'"ON OF BUILDING FRONT DMH � STORIES � CONSTRUCTION � ROOF� TO BE USED AS - S --15t 15'2 2 8 t concrete i is for a carport I .� Contract Price $1254 Excluding (list) East aide of garage Distance from front lot line p t. From aide Iot line Ft. Frorn sear lot line Rt. Front -of building faces N S. E W. on (Street) Lot surveyed by (Registered surveyor) Architect or Engineer,—__...._._. Owner Lenard �ri t �SawAddress 4710 56th AveDue North ter! '.._ ,mom �,�• �. c PECTiQIS _._.__. BY WHOM r DATE P1B No. Z —Building Blue Print 1Vo. 3 --Foundation c� iF'orrr�s �tng �Fa No. 4 — Building its get" & In NOrman Interiors No. 5 — Gypsum Board Before Tape No. 6 Certificate of '' cups( al) 41 0 th Lang: W Coon Rapids Residential Commercial ...____.._ Indus tial __. `Z or of Buildings Construction: wM I istfporl tsidg', Route 1, Rosemount, Minn, 17 f— p W L Registered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors 0" sunVEY Scale 3�2 For '? '."? �t� -rw 0 A., A f- '-- C C) -&Y"OfX2 IIZAe s, LA C' # I here ' by certify that this is 0 true and correct representation Of 0 survey of the boundaries of out lot.,j desxrlbtid' obuye. If does not purport to show improvements or d b As s encroachments, if any. surveyed nj,. th�� _� , (loy of CASWELL E&GINEEkING CC), 4 Page I of 1 r ► 1 1P . GLO6. P ami i ir+ Cx M...T'0 4 N i i..•"' ' ` J i IArne- ^ . P-lz a „...—.. „ rlw.. I 1✓ V' r i. f W" {/°•x F t + '�wL '✓ d i .S tli file://D:\DCP 0391.JPG 10!8101 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 9, 2001 TO: Planning Commission (November 13th meeting — Item #3) FROM: 0'�John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application 2001-12 for Preliminary Plat of Crystal Business Park encompassing the parcels currently addressed as 5430, 5454, 5518 & 5540 Lakeland Avenue North; 5917 56th Avenue North; and 5541 & 5549 Zane Avenue North. Application submitted by Industrial Equities LLC (applicant and property owner). A. BACKGROUND The subject property includes the following seven parcels which were redeveloped by the Economic Development Authority and Industrial Equities in 1999. ❑ 5430 Lakeland Avenue North (P.I.D 04-118-21-34-0124) ❑ 5454 Lakeland Avenue North (P.I.D 04-118-21-34-0110) ❑ 5518 Lakeland Avenue North (P.I.D 04-118-21-33-0111) ❑ 5540 Lakeland Avenue North (P.I.D 04-118-21-33-0013) ❑ 5917 56th Avenue North (P.I.D. 04-118-21-33-0012) ❑ 5541 Zane Avenue North (P.I.D. 04-118-21-33-0030) ❑ 5549 Zane Avenue North (P.I.D. 04-118-21-33-0029) The redevelopment resulted in the construction of Crystal Business Commons by Industrial Equities. As part of the redevelopment, the seven parcels were to have been replatted. The proposed plat would create a single parcel: Lot 1, Block 1, Crystal Business Park. Industrial Equities has submitted a request for approval of a Preliminary Plat. City Code requires that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the Preliminary Plat before it is considered by the City Council. Notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post by October 31St. The following exhibits are attached: ❑ map showing the project location (including existing parcels included in the plat); ❑ reduced (8Y2" x 11 ") copy of the proposed Preliminary Plat; and ❑ staff notes on issues to be resolved before the City Council approval. B. STAFF COMMENTS Staff has reviewed the proposed Preliminary Plat and found it to be consistent with existing conditions and the boundaries of the seven existing parcels. The only issues remaining to be addressed are the following relatively minor details which will be resolved before the City Council considers the application: 1. Old curb cuts need to be removed. Four old curb cuts were supposed to have been removed as part of the project construction. They have not yet been removed but staff would like to see them definitely removed no later than June 30, 2002. 2. Private utility lines are located in the public R -O -W. At the intersection of Zane Avenue and Zane Place, private water and storm sewer lines were built in the public street right-of-way. Staff would like to see a statement that the property owner shall be responsible for any repair or relocation costs associated with these lines in the future. 3. Need to ensure plat boundary matches previous taking for frontage road. The curved area along the former frontage road at the south entrance to the site (adjacent to the 4-plex at 5509 Yates) does not appear to match the area actually taken several years ago as part of the intersection reconstruction at County Road 81 and Wilshire Boulevard. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to resolve this issue. 4. Vacation of excess County Road 81 R -O -W must preserve expansion options for the roadway and associated improvements. Hennepin County may not want to totally vacate the easterly 8' of County Road 81 right-of-way. This 8' strip was to be incorporated into the plat. However, since the project was built in 1999, Hennepin County has become involved in the Northwest Corridor Partnership which among other things is looking at options for the redesign and reconstruction of County Road 81. Because this might require more right-of-way than the standard 150' in this area, Hennepin County is now concerned about releasing the 8' strip for private use. While staff has worked out a mutually acceptable solution with Hennepin County, to implement it we will need to know whether this 8' strip was acquired through a fee taking or an easement taking. Once we have this information, we will be able to structure the vacation of the 8' strip in a way that protects it for utility, open space and trail uses which is all that the 8' strip would likely be used for even if the roadway were to be widened. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT Provided the four items listed in "B" above are resolved, the Preliminary Plat is consistent with the requirements of Crystal City Code. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-12 for Preliminary Plat of Crystal Business Park, subject to the following items being addressed prior to City Council approval: CRYSTAL BUSINESS PARK - PLAT APPROVAL 2 ❑ Old curb cuts shall be removed by June 30, 2002; -- ❑ The property owner or their successors shall be responsible for repair, replacement or relocation of any private utility lines located in public right-of-way; ❑ The plat boundary adjacent to the property at 5509 Yates Avenue North shall match the previous taking for the former frontage road; and ❑ Vacation of any County Road 81 right-of-way shall, to the satisfaction of Hennepin County, preserve expansion options for the roadway and associated improvements. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at the next available meeting after the items listed above have been addressed. CRYSTAL BUSINESS PARK - PLAT APPROVAL 3 poRt�ANS Ib 16 oti s v va 4l�� »' 3 a133. �+ 3� 133.9 �9 133.9 0 1 1!3.!40 133.882ND 15 �, 4 5 '°, x !p IZ 4 . 13 91 133 91 ' 0 1{3�� 0 O $•$ P 9 F o c GJ E%� + �B \ IQ1®Q . 1 � 2 13 .89 I 14 5 ;•L3'jp 39 IA 42 6o v15 hod �x !3. 1;�' M �a UJ 5 M 13 .9 133.93 nl /o0 30 30 - I o` �t, 13 6 �, o a� A �gru'3ot. �1 w _A 75: \ 133.91 . a Elap N A \h � • A a R. L. ,� s �. $ R. L. —� /61.93 N.. ian $ Pr 2.9 267.9A 193.96 133.96 1 ° Ba d4.! ►7. oi5] \ n NOVICE a �I I . \ r 133. 133M YN No.468pV Z•I O ADD. 010 55 Z3 0 9 :. v �' Ch°l �- 1 L I \ p 90.31 } Nlh 2 W 1 1 Ra4Z• 233.17 3030 134,o .194. 30 ro, /7&c T-..- -g. 9 3. 30 90 \\ fop Ih• \� AUD. STSUM an ;5 z� I� 39 0 �� �� `y p 40"W OP 0130 44, ° Ep I e 3 �� 40 Ate `� s� 31L Z s 'l ZANE PLACE s z„ ACRES rH 2 D. ' Li 14.96OA X00 VER S _ 57. X31(°) 32.9 • syr-N•7� r +� DOO` Q CASTONIAy tip9 0� 6 "l� 0 Al ; G7.7 . �510 ti. EJP 3 1,20 J -mob _ `'• � I 9o° Ov� h x �l / . S5so ADD. A°`3. -sq -- 5 0 4� - o r 114 _ 205.3. I 1 - - 183.1 IIR.6 si ff. cs• ,,r Js• Sourh &7e o{ 629.5 Res• ....... /315.0. bello✓C Error 7,10 be ii - \ is Pendens proceedings show this ani/e as SS's8• Wh/ch is be/ieve� fo be an error. N ill N P - ERI BY .��.,rw�r�ti... r,..r �r..�"`. :"'�..r�r...�.��.rr � r..—��.rrr........r,.�. �•... w�r�. �—�...�—..r..—�...r �'S � ,: +.....,�• m �... „ate �....r- .��. d:.`. ..r. r �.........+ w. w.+ n.a -� u .r v �..— r r + r�..:..r.. w...— r �.�. r a.r e. u r�r a.., moi ¢�rr"r �� r r ate• r Y — C^r r.�=r:: •-rr�..--s_r,�.-_ _ _r_. ._...._.._ `�W^.rr"r= rs._`..+`.:t`..� �" Z . r.....r rra. r mW O •r � ,i W .r. r r1•r r.r .Yr � � f, m.+. - A ,rr. - �y r W �.. Pr..a sl ti IMI =x -te r_• wusTmLL eowrom Lu. .�.� CRYSTAL BUSINESS PRELMINARY PLAT att HIST AvsMR NORTH* PARK WIN66401 rr r'• 4 Cl /• Cyt 'fir I 7An PITC! NORM • — • e 1® I _ VIA �f ERI BY .��.,rw�r�ti... r,..r �r..�"`. :"'�..r�r...�.��.rr � r..—��.rrr........r,.�. �•... w�r�. �—�...�—..r..—�...r �'S � ,: +.....,�• m �... „ate �....r- .��. d:.`. ..r. r �.........+ w. w.+ n.a -� u .r v �..— r r + r�..:..r.. w...— r �.�. r a.r e. u r�r a.., moi ¢�rr"r �� r r ate• r Y — C^r r.�=r:: •-rr�..--s_r,�.-_ _ _r_. ._...._.._ `�W^.rr"r= rs._`..+`.:t`..� �" Z . r.....r rra. r mW O •r � ,i W .r. r r1•r r.r .Yr � � f, m.+. - A ,rr. - �y r W �.. Pr..a sl ti IMI =x -te r_• wusTmLL eowrom Lu. .�.� CRYSTAL BUSINESS PRELMINARY PLAT att HIST AvsMR NORTH* PARK WIN66401 rr r'• 4 Cl /• Cyt 'fir I 7An PITC! NORM • — I �f S •\ I f 9 I. t 10 Fg I �J ERI BY .��.,rw�r�ti... r,..r �r..�"`. :"'�..r�r...�.��.rr � r..—��.rrr........r,.�. �•... w�r�. �—�...�—..r..—�...r �'S � ,: +.....,�• m �... „ate �....r- .��. d:.`. ..r. r �.........+ w. w.+ n.a -� u .r v �..— r r + r�..:..r.. w...— r �.�. r a.r e. u r�r a.., moi ¢�rr"r �� r r ate• r Y — C^r r.�=r:: •-rr�..--s_r,�.-_ _ _r_. ._...._.._ `�W^.rr"r= rs._`..+`.:t`..� �" Z . r.....r rra. r mW O •r � ,i W .r. r r1•r r.r .Yr � � f, m.+. - A ,rr. - �y r W �.. Pr..a sl ti IMI =x -te r_• wusTmLL eowrom Lu. .�.� CRYSTAL BUSINESS PRELMINARY PLAT att HIST AvsMR NORTH* PARK WIN66401 L7STAfF NOIA= _7!%jTRQLKD T�S i _ srr a.r r o t?(c�55 C.04AN Y P --O-\4 To 6a VACA' D (ck�Fa�ls •fv be, wa-WJ out V;f- Neer► • Co. prior 4c, final Plat) �,:, . W ,.... �.... � ,�•.: �,.•.;: cam. " _.'�-, rte. ••�•r u�... �r v �.+ a a a 0 [� I I i ZI { _lam I I 'I, " - E"* -V- `rf i PmyArTE .'��1 IN Pu 6u L R.-0— `^l 0 i 8 I SPos51bLYS+ONSISrq tT WITH PkwAcus TPrKwG 4bP, ! PROWIIA-G-E 90 AD 11 (it, bv. resolve, pr;w-* f�rwI F \ `t; .....=......_. ... �r•..p� ► a -.i •.s.aa 4 .+.. M w ti...w_ w.�.•r M+ r+_ WrA .W .... .ti rl...lvrtl...W M =x,_.�aCRYSTAL BUSSESS pR�MIMARY PLAT — wr !27 l7t�T AYmlll[ NORTH PARK ---cr w ee�ot s i _ srr a.r r o t?(c�55 C.04AN Y P --O-\4 To 6a VACA' D (ck�Fa�ls •fv be, wa-WJ out V;f- Neer► • Co. prior 4c, final Plat) �,:, . W ,.... �.... � ,�•.: �,.•.;: cam. " _.'�-, rte. ••�•r u�... �r v �.+ a a a 0 [� I I i ZI { _lam I I 'I, " - E"* -V- `rf i PmyArTE .'��1 IN Pu 6u L R.-0— `^l 0 i 8 I SPos51bLYS+ONSISrq tT WITH PkwAcus TPrKwG 4bP, ! PROWIIA-G-E 90 AD 11 (it, bv. resolve, pr;w-* f�rwI F \ `t; .....=......_. ... �r•..p� ► a -.i •.s.aa 4 .+.. M w ti...w_ w.�.•r M+ r+_ WrA .W .... .ti rl...lvrtl...W M =x,_.�aCRYSTAL BUSSESS pR�MIMARY PLAT — wr !27 l7t�T AYmlll[ NORTH PARK ---cr w ee�ot L6 P: C4R5 C4TS 1 ��Z5 wmotk=cNq io• c\i 'p. CN 0 cv cv O0 In 0 0 0 —J u- co W- 0 w Z 0 C-4 W C14 C14 u Z 'k 0 0 7j Z r i 1% Vli - s�,; p4a ervvu 1� � mIN -UNW- FENCE INV IME '.y,, �,."K 29.80 N89*40'2' O. L3 0 Z U 0 29.80 N89*40'2' It \ \1 /-EAST LINE Of NORTHEAST CORP r 266.7 F 90 100.00 N89'05'47'W L J COV 0 Z U 0 Ll .1, SOUTH' IA NORTH o "A It \ \1 /-EAST LINE Of NORTHEAST CORP r 266.7 F 90 100.00 N89'05'47'W LUNA BEATRICE COOPER z z .. w U o GARY M. LOPAC I F 3: �•' V' H G UrtUtyPRIVAM6 14AM N69.41 06"W !� 95.00 -Or CUVFrW. DE t 1. y r r s q r, ,t f cY � i✓I � ! IE}QSTING ONE STORY a; co my se�.e Z. 4. WOOD FENCE 7 V 4LS1ay7rJ q+ L. r r: + MIVy065.0' !f •fir}♦n�J.� A� ! Ir.•�� �? � %' 1 r •�1 Y ��il.j •i rt .{ ry y Y; 9.25 %AO I YAZ'i lrSi 8 16 .n L� "I JEFFREY T. DESCHENE w�'T�-1 Pqfvlms N & Fbk fjeoi-Arrg_ Ob be0o, .n=.LZU 00 A=31*0 12V ., moz L=64 V.. 2.4 IMV vol of 5;7% m i G/41 90 o 1-0 �� / 10 vp Borl7'27 S Adk y 240-2w 2 9.25 %AO I YAZ'i lrSi 8 16 .n L� "I JEFFREY T. DESCHENE w�'T�-1 Pqfvlms N & Fbk fjeoi-Arrg_ Ob be0o, .n=.LZU 00 A=31*0 12V ., moz L=64 V.. 2.4 IMV vol of 5;7% m i G/41 90 o 1-0 �� / 10 vp Borl7'27 S Adk y 240-2w 90' ^~ ' lODOD \ N89*05'47^W � . . � ... . 1p Cl boo www jMofjjjDM* 6.4 . p N" ' .. � . . ..~ / N" ' CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on October 8, 2001) October 23, 2001: 1. CONTINUED: Application 2001-11 requesting the following actions related to property at 3200 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by LivingWorks Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner): ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential; ❑ Rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential; and ❑ Site Plan Review for construction of a two family dwelling. November 6, 2001: 1. DENIED: Application 2001-9 for a variance to reduce the required setback from a public street for a detached garage. Property address is 6702 51St Place North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0015). Application submitted by Brent J. Weyer (applicant and property owner).