2002.01.14 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY
January 14, 2002
7:00 p.m.
Crystal City Hall — Council Chambers
4141 Douglas Dr N
1. Approval of minutes from the November 13, 2001 meeting and December 10, 2001
work session.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Application 2001-13 for a variance to reduce the
required setback from public streets for a fuel pump canopy at 6000 42nd Avenue
North (P.I.D. 16-118-21-23-0078). Application submitted by Big B's Gas & Goods
(applicant and property owner).
3. Consider approval of meeting dates and application deadlines for 2002 applications.
* RELOCATE TO CONFERENCE ROOM A *
4. Discussion item: Review land uses along Douglas Drive south of 32nd Avenue and
discuss potential for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to address vacant parcels
and redevelopment potential in the area.
5. Facilitated discussion with Craig Rapp of DSU Consulting.
6. Informational items:
• City Council actions on Planning Commission items
• Quarterly Development Status Report (as of December 31, 2001)
7. Other business.
8. Adjournment.
• For additional information, contact John Sutter at 763-531-1142 .
f:\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\PLANCOMM\2002\01.14\agendasummary.doc
November 13, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m.
with the following present: Elsen, T. Graham (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Kamp
(arrived at 7:17 p.m.), Krueger, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were
the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche.
Absent (excused) were Magnuson, K. Graham, and Koss.
1. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to
approve the minutes of the October 8, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
2. Item continued from October 8th 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).
The owner has constructed a freestanding deck extending 5' into the required front
yard setback. 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 8th 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.
Planner Sutter stated that staff s review of the four properties cited by the
applicant revealed that 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.
Planner Sutter mentioned that 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.
Planner Sutter stated that 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.
Staff recommends denial of Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce the
required front yard setback from 30' to 25', but recommends consideration of
possible revisions to the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner T. Graham inquired if someone had requested further discussion of
this issue.
Commissioner Elsen responded by stating yes, that the Planning Commission
thought that the porch was a great improvement and staff should consider the
possibility of a revision to the zoning ordinance to allow this sort of structure.
Planner Sutter added that he would be surprised if the City Council would object
to the idea, at least in general terms. The details would need to be worked out by
the Planning Commission as part of the zoning ordinance re -write.
Commissioner T. Graham asked if this was a motion to amend the zoning
ordinance and Commissioner Elsen responded by stating that it was not a motion
to amend, but to explore alternative options and ideas.
Tom Rick, 5755 Twin Lake Terrace, expressed that he was still confused as to
why the structure was in violation of the zoning ordinance. He said that it was his
understanding that if the structure is not attached to the house and capable of
being moved, it is legal.
Planner Sutter replied by stating that the structure is above grade and that if the
property owner lowered it, it would be acceptable. He reiterated that there are
other options to consider, but he also stated that a revision of the ordinance makes
sense. Until a decision is made whether or not to make revisions, the porch may
remain in place.
Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to
close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to
recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2001-10 for a variance at
5755 Twin Lake Terrace.
Findings of Fact are as follows:
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:
❑ 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 would give the owner the desired walkway without
encroaching on the required setback.
❑ 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.
❑ "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.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Von Rueden and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to
ask staff to include a provision allowing unenclosed porches to extend into the
front yard setback in the revised zoning ordinance for Planning Commission
review.
Motion carried.
The City Council will consider the request at its November 20th meeting.
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).
Planner Sutter stated that the subject property includes seven parcels which were
redeveloped by the Economic Development Authority and Industrial Equities in
1999. 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 31S`
Planner Sutter continued to state that 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 City Council
considers the final plat:
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 Avenue) 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.
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:
❑ 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.
Commissioner Elsen asked Planner Sutter if he foresees any problems
with the vacation of County Road 81 right-of-way and Planner Sutter
responded that he did not.
Mark Mayerich, 5554 Zane Ave N, was concerned that this application
might be for a rezoning of the area, since he was a neighboring resident.
He also stated that he is pleased that the application appears to be simply
replatting an existing development, but he is still curious about future use
of the subject property.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kamp
to close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Krueger inquired if the replatting would affect the tax rolls.
Planner Sutter did not think so, and Commissioner Kamp agreed.
Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner
Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2001-
12 Preliminary Plat of Crystal Business Park encompassing the parcels
currently addressed as 5430, 5454, 5518 & 5540 Lakeland Avenue North;
591756 th Avenue North; and 5541 & 5549 Zane Avenue North.
Findings of fact and conditions are as follows:
❑ Provided the four items listed in "B" above are resolved, the
Preliminary Plat is consistent with the requirements of Crystal City
Code.
Motion carried.
4. Informational Items:
❑ City Council actions since last Planning Commission meeting
Planner Sutter stated that consideration of the proposal by LivingWorks
Ventures will resume at the November 20, 2001 City Council meeting and
notices will go out to neighboring residents on November 14''.
Commissioner Elsen asked Planner Sutter if staff was planning on
informing the residents of the size of the dwelling.
Planner Sutter replied that the Notice of Public Hearing included a copy of
the building's floor plan, and that those wanting additional information
such as the square footage could call or stop by City Hall. He also stated
that staff felt the question of who would be living in the building was not
relevant to the land use issue. He warned that the applicant could
challenge the city with a lawsuit if denied, using the justification that
residents were briefed on irrelevant information that is not related to land
use.
Commissioner Elsen stated that the residents should be aware that the city
is losing tax money because of the increase in dwellings such as this. By
not sharing this information, she thinks we are misleading the residents.
Commissioner Nystrom questioned if the notice that was being sent out to
the residents states that what the applicant is requesting, is against the
Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Sutter explained that the notice was very clear in what the
applicant was requesting, including that the request does not coincide with
the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the request requires at least five votes
to approve, so it is possible that it will be denied. For that reason, it was
especially important to make sure that the staff treated this application the
same way it would treat any other.
Commissioner Elsen reiterated her frustration that anyone can just come
into Crystal, take over property, and it be taken off the tax role.
Commissioner Kamp reminded Commissioner Elsen that the Planning
Commission should only be concerned with land use. The Planning
Commission should not discuss or be concerned with city revenue.
Commissioner Nystrom stated that she did not understand how any
resident could look at land and not think about taxes.
Planner Sutter replied that in this particular case, there is a possibility of a
PILOT agreement. The City Council may choose to explore its options
regarding the tax issue. For example, city might develop a policy that
stipulates if an applicant seeks funding from Hennepin County, the state,
or HUD, a PILOT agreement may be a condition for city approval of the
funding request.
Commissioner Krueger brought up the issue of parking space and asked if
it would be adequate for an alternative use for the site. Planner Sutter
explained that there will be a total of 12 spaces for the dwelling and that it
could be modified to meet the minimum requirement for the most likely
future use, a 4-plex.
Commissioner Von Rueden asked Planner Sutter if he checked on why the
Planning Commission had to revote on the issue at the last meeting.
Planner Sutter explained that the City Attorney stated at the October 23rd
City Council meeting that City Ordinance does not allow the Planning
Commission to move forward with an issue until there is a majority vote
to make some sort of recommendation to the City Council. That vote may
be to recommend approval, recommend denial, or forward an item to the
City Council with no recommendation. Staff also made it clear to the
Planning Commission at the October 8d' meeting that they did have the
option of continuing the item until the next meeting.
Planner Sutter mentioned that the application for a variance to reduce the
required setback from a public street at 6702 51" Place North was denied.
He said as it turned out, the guy wire could have been moved after all.
Therefore, there was no justification to grant the variance without the guy
wire hardship. The applicant and city staff were misinformed by Xcel
Energy, leading us to believe that there was no way to relocate the
structure.
Commissioner Kamp was curious if the applicant had started building the
garage and Planner Sutter said that no permits had been pulled yet.
5. Informal discussion and announcements.
Planner Sutter announced that there have been no applications submitted
for next month's Planning Commission meeting yet and suggested the idea
of an informal work session if a regular meeting isn't necessary.
6. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kamp
to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Chair Magnuson
Secretary Nystrom
December 10, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 6:00 p.m.
for a work session with the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, T. Graham,
Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, and Nystrom. Also present were the
following: Community Development Director Peters, Planner Sutter, and
Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) was Von
Rueden.
Craig Rapp, DSU Consulting, facilitated the work session with the Planning
Commission and presented the following topics for discussion:
1. Job description of the Planning Commission
❑ State statutes
❑ City ordinances
❑ Commission by-laws
❑ Spoken and unspoken expectations of the Planning Commission
■ Advisory to the City Council
■ Upholding the expectations of the City Attorney
■ Upholding the expectations of the citizens
■ Upholding the expectations of businesses and developers
2. Strengths of the Planning Commission
❑ Familiar with the city
❑ Commitment
❑ Consider best interest of the city
❑ Desire to be involved
❑ Relatively unanimous in beliefs
0 City Council affirms high percentage of decisions made by Planning
Commission
❑ Represent a cross-section of the community
❑ Experience
3. Weaknesses
❑ No common opinion of weaknesses
❑ Meetings often get off track
❑ Strong feelings of disrespect that impact the group
❑ Constant interruption of speakers (dialogue vs. testimony)
4. Opportunities
❑ Use work session to reflect
❑ Improve organization of the commission before decisions are affected
11 Training for continuous improvement and education
❑ Capitalize on common commitment
❑ Take advantage of the diversity the commission possesses
5. Threats
❑ Simple issues becoming destructive
❑ City Council is concerned about Planning Commission effectiveness
❑ Citizens are losing confidence
❑ Poor decisions may result in confusing signals being sent to applicants
6. Additional concerns
❑ Audio or video recording of the meetings
❑ Attendance regulations
❑ Staff recommendations
❑ Public hearing procedures
Following Mr. Rapp's presentation, the work session was opened up to the
Planning Commission for discussion and feedback concerning these topics.
Commissioner Elsen addressed the issue of staff recommendations that are
included with each staff report as being a great resource for justification and
clarification. She stated that it is only a recommendation, and feels free to agree
or disagree with staff based on her own findings. Commissioners Nystrom,
Kamp, and K. Graham all agreed.
Commissioner Koss replied to Commissioner Elsen's statements by stating that
he thought the recommendations sometimes come as a disadvantage in the
decision making process of the Planning Commission. By providing a
recommendation, staff makes it too easy for commissioners to agree, instead
making their own decision. Koss suggested that staff should include a few
options to consider, but not give a specific recommendation.
Commissioner T. Graham stated that he feels in some instances, when staff has
not made a recommendation, it has been a good learning experience for the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Magnuson agreed with Commissioner Koss that it might be a
good idea for staff to provide the Planning Commission with a few options and
leave the recommendation open ended so it doesn't mislead the public.
Planner Sutter stated that staff always tries to make a recommendation and
provide contradictory findings to assist the Planning Commission in the decision
making process. Planner Sutter also reminded the Planning Commission that
the recommendation is just the opinion of staff and commissioners should feel
free to make their own decisions.
Commissioner T. Graham asked if everyone really thinks this is a problem with
the Planning Commission. He stated that Planner Sutter and the commission
always remind the public that staff recommendation is just that.
After giving feedback, Mr. Rapp and the Planning Commission came to a
general consensus that staff recommendation is beneficial and all commissioners
expressed that they did not feel pressured to agree with the recommendations.
Commissioner K. Graham commented on the experience of the Planning
Commission, and stated that she wasn't really familiar with the commissioners'
backgrounds. She thought that it would be very helpful to learn more about one
another to gain a better understanding of each commissioner. All
commissioners were in agreement that gaining more knowledge about one
another would be very beneficial and assist in group interaction.
Commissioner T. Graham stated that he did not agree with labeling the Planning
Commission as disrespectful. Commissioner Nystrom agreed with
Commissioner T. Graham and added that it was very rare for the Planning
Commission to have disagreements.
Mr. Rapp responded by clarifying that disrespect and disagreement mean
different things to different people. From the reaction he received when talking
to each commissioner, Mr. Rapp stated that the Planning Commission is
primarily having trouble with issues related to disrespect.
Commissioner Magnuson admitted that the Planning Commission may not
always be as courteous to the public and to other members of the commission as
they should be. Although, Commissioner Magnuson did state that she felt these
episodes are fairly isolated and mostly take place during controversial public
hearings. She added that disrespect is not intentional by anyone on the
commission. It simply happens when people get upset or have emotional
outbursts.
Commissioner Krueger stated that only the chair of the Planning Commission
should recognize speakers and use Robert's Rules of Order to ensure a well -
organized meeting.
Commissioner Koss expressed that the commission is sometimes disrespectful
towards citizens who choose to speak at public hearings. He stated that on more
than one occasion, citizens have been treated inappropriately by the way they
are talked to by commissioners, especially when dealing with ethical issues.
Mr. Rapp suggested the Planning Commission explore this issue further and
develop some "rules of conduct" for the meetings. The following were
common values mentioned by the commissioners:
❑ Integrity
❑ Consider best interest for the city
❑ Patience
❑ Empathy
❑ Open-minded attitude
❑ Honesty
Ll Courtesy
Commissioner K. Graham stated that everyone communicates and interprets
communication differently and that could be the reason some feel disrespected.
Commissioner Koss suggested that video taping the Planning Commission
meetings might ensure a more professional atmosphere. Several commissioners
agreed that video taping would also be a helpful reference material.
Commissioner Kamp brought up dialogue vs. testimony with speakers and stated
that it is definitely an issue that should be addressed. Commissioners T.
Graham and Krueger agreed that dialogue with the applicant might be
appropriate at times to clarify the situation, but not with anyone else.
Mr. Rapp replied by stating that the discussion process during the meetings
seems to be a concern among all commissioners and needs to be addressed. He
also suggested discussing some management techniques for future meetings.
Several commissioners inquired about the possibility of receiving additional
training to teach innovative decision making techniques. Meeting with the City
Council was also suggested as a way to network, make better decisions, and
build a stronger city.
Planner Sutter stated that he supported the idea of an annual joint meeting with
the City Council, however, he warned that additional meetings may create a
problem with conflicting decisions, opinions, and recommendations. Only
general objectives should be addressed among the commission and the council.
Mr. Rapp concluded the work session by prioritizing steps for improvement as
follows:
❑ Spend time getting to know and understand one another
❑ Work on defining the decision making process and accountability
system
❑ Meet with City Council
❑ Discuss, prioritize, and receive training on decision processing
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Chair Magnuson
Secretary Nystrom
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 8, 2002
TO: Planning Commission (January 14th meeting — Item #2)
FROM: Sara Dietsche, Community Development Assistant
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Application 2001-13 for a
variance to reduce the required setback from public streets for
a fuel pump canopy at 6000 42nd Avenue North (P.I.D. 16-118-
21-23-0078). Application submitted by Big B's Gas & Goods
(applicant and property owner).
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a fuel pump
canopy to extend into the required 22' setback from the public streets
surrounding his property. The proposed canopy will require a setback of
3' along 42nd Avenue North and 13' along Adair Avenue North.
The filling station was constructed in the early 1950's and has remained in
operation as the original use since that time. Although the B-3 district
permits the use of a canopy, a variance is being requested because the lot
area is not sufficient to allow a canopy on the site in compliance with the
setback requirements.
At the September 10th meeting, the applicant submitted some preliminary
information for the Planning Commission to review and discuss. As a
result of the discussion, staff was directed to research the background of
the property for justification of a possible undue hardship. Based on these
discussions, the applicant has developed a proposal for the Planning
Commission to consider.
A notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing was mailed to all
residents within 350 feet of the subject property on December 27, 2001.
The following informational items are attached:
❑ plat map showing the subject property and adjacent parcels;
❑ applicant's statement of undue hardship;
❑ letters of recommendation;
❑ survey showing existing conditions on the subject property and
proposed changes;
B. STAFF COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned B-3 Auto -Oriented Commercial. The lot is
97.47' wide x 63.79' [avg.] deep, and has an area of approximately 6218
sq.ft. The lot does not comply with the city's B-3 standards for min. depth
(150') and min. width (130'). It also does not have the min. area (22,500
sq. ft.) required for a motor fuel station CUP. However, the property was
developed before these requirements were in effect. The surrounding
land use is mixed with retail and office commercial, as well as single-
family residential.
Due to the unique configuration of the lot, it is not possible for the
applicant to construct a canopy while complying with the required setback.
The owner feels that updating the property to incorporate a canopy is
necessary to protect the modernized, electrical pumps, as well as the
customers, from the elements. Installing a canopy would also provide
signage and allow the removal of the freestanding sign on the west end of
the property to decrease on-site congestion and increase parking area.
In addition, it should be noted that the following items were discussed with
staff and agreed upon by the applicant as conditions for approval of the
variance:
❑ remove existing freestanding sign and replace with a handicapped
parking spot;
❑ provide a 15' triangular landscaped area at the southeast corner of
the site
❑ install tree and a hedge to provide screening on northeast side of
property;
The city has previously granted variances for similar requests for the
properties located at 3401 Douglas Drive North and 5359 West Broadway,
however it is not clear what reasoning was behind the finding of a
hardship for either property.
Section 515.56 Subd. 5 and state law require that an "undue hardship" be
present for a variance to be approved. For a situation to constitute an
"undue hardship'`, all of the following three conditions must be present:
❑ "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used
as reauired by this Zonina Code."
❑ "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
Property and not created by the property owner."
❑ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.,,
Staff believes that a variance request could be justified because the
property is subject to the conditions of an undue hardship. The main
question here is whether a raised canopy is necessary for the owner to
make reasonable use of the property.
C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT
The property is subject to the conditions of an undue hardship,
specifically:
❑ "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used
as required by this Zoning Code." Staff opinion is that in order for
the applicant to make reasonable use of the property, approval of
the variance request must be granted. The applicant is concerned
about protecting his investment and staff is in agreement that it is
necessary to install a canopy to remain in competition with
surrounding filling stations. Although the property has made the
best of operating without a canopy in the past, advances in
technology and modern convenience no longer afford the applicant
the opportunity to continue a successful business without updating
the property to coincide with other filling stations. Also, it is crucial
to protect the electrical components of modern fuel pumps from the
elements, as well as the customers. For these reasons, staff feels
a canopy is necessary for continued use of the property as a filling
station.
❑ "The pliqht of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
Property and not created by the property owner." The property is
considered a legal, non -conforming use because of the date of
construction and the fact that the original use has continued without
interruption. The site's B-3 zoning clearly anticipated that the filling
station use would continue. If the city's intent was for the site's use
to change to a non auto -oriented use, then the city would not have
zoned it B-3.
❑ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality." The neighborhood was developed with a mix of
commercial and residential uses. Commercial uses are clustered
along 42nd Avenue North, as is the subject property, while
residential properties are set further away from the high traffic
areas. The property would not encroach on the required setbacks
to residential property, but rather the setback from public rights-of-
way. No negative impacts for the neighborhood are anticipated.
D. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-13 for a variance to
reduce the required setback from public streets for a fuel pump canopy at
600042 Id Avenue North, provided all conditions set forth in section B of
the staff report are met. The setbacks would be 3' from 42nd Avenue
North and 13' from Adair Avenue North.
The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City
Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its
February 5, 2002 meeting.
Z f7,3
I
.11 ....
.. 111.15
40 I..
- - -
y is
8 v
19
I
ELICIT--
9
2.c5 1r53
•
!17. 17 -
4o I
91.55
Zl
s7
�
LOT 90�
tr�
60
b O
le
U v It8
O 7e o
J
12 �y�yoovs , z m
259.44 Q ` � 6
3� '
II � 30
/ m �5 v 'o
.9 t8 w ju
1 96.6 � ` 75.9 1
_ 2je 3 n (76) 39
ZZ70.83
e.sc
(C
(CO (95)
3j 33 Rd. No. /°°
"
0PO0•� tio> iz7 1'4h 9� ��' � = � y (
/3s. /9 _ v
25
211..Z3
ZL/33.6/
� 6(.70) h
_ n
zz11cIZZ_
6o
- - -
y is
8 v
* - P
h N
io.
ELICIT--
9
2.c5 1r53
_� __
91.55
Zl
LOT 90�
7
" 2 r
93.3
0
I'
N
°R
'
6
3
q 9 v
� 93.3 90
/ 93.3 •,^.
f 6q.3
°°
LqT
v
a
133
21&.5
r A
4 ^
u •�1 2
`
a 1
v (1 Z'2 5
b
8
128
3 1.
Zzl
44 thz�5
i° 1.75
Q
11
24
IZd
I
! . 5 ♦w
10 vJ
Z M.
v "
.:
I
23
8
3
223
7
4
21
4
6216.5
~216.5-5
O
20
518116.5
a
ZIG.; I v_
Z
19
6
v 17 .,
2
- 18
7
16
3 u
17
8 -
15
-
16
9,
14
13
6
15
10
12
•
R . G 3G
14�,
it
2
°
ST��
ADD.
I
179
12
a
10
2145 , 'e
1l9.7f
9L.7c
O
43rd
1z 9 0
v v
!Zd
a
& 21 4.5 4
Z 5
1I 4
0 2
v° 7
"` 2
10
3
63
9
4 �(�
V
W
Q
.e
8
5
5rS
29
' 1Z8
ZI6.S 7
Z14, 6
120.25
m
�0.25
11.68
�(3400)�
c !l
Z0 I
z
° )57C Cd,
Z
6
GIE
a
(1600)
(Z600)
(3600)
51.6
53.1
•, •
(3000)
o
°t -
Lrl
D
ROKFORO
54.
M
4U
G4.26
59.6
ss/ R0 -4D
•
• '
Q
v
_ 2
1 '-
_
v e
�_ 5'
4 -
3N_
N
;£/8
N 60 Z
)4.
74.
^
" I Q
Q
^.,
58.35
"51.35
54
54 V
2=
I�
Z
•
r� v
Ire
116.7
3 e
13
v 26 e
2
54
4
. 2 vo
- -
I
Q
165
Q
15 .3 O
4
25
e
1Z.4
72.
Q
2
7
° 3
5
24
2
I
3
•
6
23
a
.4 4
4
O9
5
u 5
`
7
22
T
I
�") r_
5
8 PA,?
1
10
6
TO CITY OF CRYSTAL
FROM BRAD CARLSON
BIG B' S
REGARDING FUEL CANOPY
ITEMS DISCUSSED
1. WE WILL REMOVE BIG B'S SIGN AND
MAKE IT A HANDICAPPED PARKING
SPOT.
2. WE WILL LANDSCAPE THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER WITH USING 15 FOOT
SETBACKS.
3. ADD TREE TO NORTHEAST GRASSY
AREA TO BLOCK LIGHT FROM CANOPY.
4. ADD HEDGE BETWEEN FENCE AND
EXISTING TREE.
5. REASON FOR HARDSHIP
CONSIDERATION. 1. THIS STATION IS
ZONED FOR AUTO FUELING WHICH
COULD INCLUDE A CANOPY BUT
BECAUSE OF THE LOT CONFIGURATION I
NEED TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO
PUT A CANOPY IN-OTHER REASONS FOR
CONSIDERATION WITH THE
INSTALLATION OF THE PAY AT THE
PUMPS I NEED TO PROTECT THE
ELECTRONICS FROM THE ELEMENTS.I
ALSO THINK THE CANOPY WOULD HELP
PROTECT MY CUSTOMERS FROM THE
ELEMENTS.
6. THE VARIANCE I NEED IS TO A 3 FOOT
SETBACK ON 42' AVE N AND A 13 FOOT
SET BACK ON ADAIR.
THANK YOU
BRAD CARLSON
763-533-8609
David G. Schwappach
6001 42nd Ave. North
Mpls., Mn. 55422
DECEMBER 29, 2001
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;
As a fellow business person of Brad Carlson (d/b/a Big B's)
I would very much like to see a canopy over his gas pumps.
Mr Carlson has remolded his entire property during the last
year and a new canopy would make it a state of the art
facilty.
ZRZG.Sch.
David ach
SINCE 1989 1 HAVE BEEN LOOKING OUT MY WINDOW AND SLOWLY SE
THIS CITY GETTING OLDER. NOW AS A BUISNESS EII
OWNER IN CRYSTAL, I AM ALWA
INTERESTED WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE THIS CITY A MORE ATTRA ,
PLACE. PEOPLE WHO TRAVEL ON COUNTY ROAD 9 CTI
ARE WELCOMED TO OUR CITY ,
THE ADAIR CROSSING, AND I FEEL THAT IT IS TIME WE ALL MAKE AN EFFORT
"CLEAN-UP". AS FAR AS BIG B'S ERRECTING 1
A CANOPE ABOVE HIS GAS PUMPS
FEEL IT IS THE FIRST STEP OF MANY TO WELCOME PEOPLE TO OUR CITY IN
APEALING WAY. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO LOOK OUT M A
Y WINDOW AND SLOWLY SE
THIS CITY GETTING NEWER.
THANK YOU, JIM STONE, SIyEET TASTEOEITALY
—_j
w
�rz
o� �
W N ZO
M
I
N
a
a
0'SL
BCL
Q
K)5j VO
I
o Q
to
tr
o
1•
D
O
A D A I
R A V E.
0
rn
c0
a
'm
co
OHO
C6
ti
J
M
Q
� Z
N
lB 1
5T
O
o
^ Q
N Q
�
o
U
Z2
o
aV
m
�.
m
o
U
a
O
N 00 2
54"W 75.40
Li m
U
Q
no
mo
N�
a
0'SL
eano ONOO
+
o Qa t
"'
nl
Z
�
a
r.
z UW
UU ZN N
ri
n
\00 n
~
1�
C, 0
z
Y
o o �Z
6 6.
m
N m
O
V
��
nm
CONC BARRIER CURB
2
U
Z
N00*28'54"W
}
I
52.18
U
9
W
p
66
0 0
96 L, �Z Z
6
L
I
u
W
I( Y
N
66 of 00 XV
^
N00 8 Ol
o
O_ z �
r 2
w
�rz
o� �
W N ZO
M
I
N
a
a
0'SL
BCL
K)5j VO
I
o Q
v44 0 C
tr
o
1•
D
U
'm
co
OHO
C6
Z1 /
�
M
Q
N
lB 1
5T
O
o
^ Q
N Q
9.
3Jbj kJlaa Ol
o
�.
S2
c
Y
Li m
U
Q
no
mo
N�
a
r
r m
a�
m , .
o Qa t
_
z UW
UU ZN N
ri
n
\00 n
6 6.
CONC BARRIER CURB
N00*28'54"W
52.18
9
�,1�
9
I( Y
N
�r
yJ
J <W
ZN
Y�
CL�_Cl/y
zm
ZU
5� VZ
V.
I �a MO
r
w
it
C/) N
W
WO
U O
ZN C N
Q
N z *k CY z O
UI W p N
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
p
N
L
O
CV UO i' O .c
N
Nti
O
C14
N
C14
N
U)
N
Q
E
W Z L
L
O
c
N
N
•*�
'—'
•�
0— LL E
a
--=)n
O
Q
ch
cn
N
OzWZ
O
C14
W O DO
T'
•
L
Wa.0t-
DazF-
O
CQaa
-�
N
O
N
N
•*�
'—'
cn
z
O
Cn
O
N
N
LL
N
o
C
Z
J
0
ca
L
'finnW
OV Q.
a;
•�
�w�Q
>
c
N
W J
.Q
i
N
L
N
.Q
N
L
T
O
d
�W'!J
d
ti
am
U
Z
c
O
4
Z
O W
N
T
CN
O
0
fn =
z�Zv
T
N
O
Z� J
L
Cn
5
a ` wm
LU
L
L
m
LL
a
n
W
W
N
OzWZ
C14
W O DO
T'
a U w =
L
Wa.0t-
DazF-
O
CQaa
-�
CN c 0
N N N
06
T N T
L �
C
a �
EM
N
0
O
N
CQ
a
all
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
N
N
O
Cn
O
N
T
p
C
N
0
N
L
N
0
0
T
N
N
N
.Q
N
L
T
O
d
cC
d
ti
am
U
O
O
L
L)cc
Zi
0
LL
a
n
N
OCV O
O O N
N O
O N N
T
L L
T
0 d
CL >
cn i
O z
O N
N N O
O O
O O N
N N
L co
� � T
N � d
O
Q cn 0
N
c tV
Q)
� 0 n
a) c I
t0 Lo
M M Q) CMO
O O U
O N O w
N O
O L V)
c .OE c
LL (D a o
V
X � �
N C
0 y
� N �
c w
N p
O M c a
N 0 oc
rl N N E cQ
T 70
N m
L
E L M-6 O
d : c s r.r.
U)
�L
U U Q
N Q
R
(D
� U
U
c O
N Q).c .v N
O MU -2 c °8
O O O c
N O c N U
N �Y C
M L`
L M 0 a) U C
T° t5
E a m
L (Q
� C) C
a) a
0 0 O
o
0) m ( C
S� a) > O
o c4
E �
m � �
N N 0
10
O O 0 0 a)
N N U w L
to O Y aa) .0
T N U c 0
L L U c
.Q O U
a) co L
E ami O
U.
CU O ca �
>V a) ,c U
O a� ��a
z 0 �o
N
O
O
0
U
O
N
0
0
N
N
m
O
U
CL
CL
N
0
U_
CL
CL
z
z
z
N
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
O
Cn
N
T
M
L
L
.Q
.Q
.Q
O
d
d
U
O
O
ol
Zi
0
N
OCV O
O O N
N O
O N N
T
L L
T
0 d
CL >
cn i
O z
O N
N N O
O O
O O N
N N
L co
� � T
N � d
O
Q cn 0
N
c tV
Q)
� 0 n
a) c I
t0 Lo
M M Q) CMO
O O U
O N O w
N O
O L V)
c .OE c
LL (D a o
V
X � �
N C
0 y
� N �
c w
N p
O M c a
N 0 oc
rl N N E cQ
T 70
N m
L
E L M-6 O
d : c s r.r.
U)
�L
U U Q
N Q
R
(D
� U
U
c O
N Q).c .v N
O MU -2 c °8
O O O c
N O c N U
N �Y C
M L`
L M 0 a) U C
T° t5
E a m
L (Q
� C) C
a) a
0 0 O
o
0) m ( C
S� a) > O
o c4
E �
m � �
N N 0
10
O O 0 0 a)
N N U w L
to O Y aa) .0
T N U c 0
L L U c
.Q O U
a) co L
E ami O
U.
CU O ca �
>V a) ,c U
O a� ��a
z 0 �o
N
O
O
0
U
O
N
0
0
N
N
m
O
U
CL
CL
N
0
U_
CL
CL
z
z
z
CITY CRYSTAL 4141 Douglas Drive North
Crystal, MN 55422-1696
763-531-1000
2002 City Council Meeting Dates
Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
January 2
January 15
February 5
February 19
*** March 4
March 19
April 2
April 16
May 7
May 21
June 4
June 18
July 2
July 16
*** August 5
August 20
September 3
September 17
October 1
October 15
** ` November 6
November 19
December 3
December 17
January 7, 2003
***Denotes a change from the regular Ist and 3rd Tuesday meetings of the City Council. Meetings are re-
broadcast at 6:30 P.M. each Sunday on Channel 16 with Northwest Community Television.
bowl as brive �anc Use
Soutl�
Avenue
of .) 6 tI�
tow Out WY 100111MOA
ws*r. not too a "Wry, "logarpl,
Future
W1011 Or"Wrfac"ESTU"
=<Visa lqffVt*m**,c I%k
WWI& get "W64 9'I'm R
City of Cry,,tol C
M"glp 096%", 9aO-**w*m#4,s, sit
WOUTTaxt
OA'le*'MtA*"*T
. +,
VIOtV,& 4* $040VATV *
=0 two'bMITOO&L
MOWMAY Im to -4144[T
an
Propose� LanJ Use
To: Crystal Planning Commission
From: Craig R. Rapp, DSU
Re: Next Session
Attached you will find an agenda for our next meeting. Our goal for the meeting will be
to build on the work we accomplished at our last session by working on a number of the
issues identified.
Specifically, I would like to get the group to focus on individual and team responsibilities
for a successful group effort, explore the issues of meeting procedures and decorum, and
make some commitments for accountability and future actions.
We should expect to commit between 2-3 hours for this session.
City of Crystal
Planning Commission Worksession
Monday, January 14, 2002
Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Where we've been — a brief review of the previous
meeting
3. Group exercise
4. What do we want?
5. How do we get there?
6. The Role of the Individual
7. The Role of the Group
8. Accountability
■ To ourselves
■ To the group
■ To the City Council
9. Options/Models/Ideas
IO.Commitments
11. Next Steps
12. Adjourn
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
(since last Planning Commission meeting on November 13, 2001)
November 20, 2001:
1. DENIED: 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.
2. DENIED: Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce the required front yard
setback at 5755 Twin Lake Terrace.
3. APPROVED: Preliminary Plat of Crystal Business Park.
CITY OF CRYSTAL
Development Status Report — 4th Quarter 2001
(as of December 31, 2001)
PLANNING & ZONING APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Glen Haven Memorial Gardens Funeral Home, 5100 West Broadway. This would be an 8,030
sq. ft. building located adjacent to the pond on West Broadway. Approval was granted in April
1999 and an extension was granted in August 2000. Approval expired because construction
was not initiated by August 15, 2001. However, they are expected to re -apply for approval of the
facility when they make a final decision to go forward with the project.
2. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens maintenance building. This would be a 5,000 sq. ft.
maintenance building with a fenced and screened outdoor storage area. Site plan approval was
granted in June 1999 and an extension was granted in August 2000. As a condition of approval
the building will be required to not have metal walls or roofing. Construction began in fall 2001
and completion is expected in spring 2002.
3. Alpine Dental, 5237 Douglas Dr. In August 2000, the City Council approved a site plan for a
3,500 sq. ft. dental office building. A revised site plan reorienting the building was approved in
February 2001. The site includes two parcels, one of which was a redevelopment lot sold by the
EDA to Alpine Dental in 1999. Construction is complete.
4. Parkside Acres (47th & Zane). In September 2000, the City Council approved a development
plan for 40 townhomes and ten single family homes on the ten acre site. The ten single family
homes are being built on two acres along the west side of Zane Avenue and the townhomes are
being built on the remaining eight acres. The development will include a pond and wetland area,
landscaped berms along 47th Avenue, and ped/bike trails connecting the development to the
Crystal Community Center. Thirteen townhouse units have been sold at an average price of
$284,000. Four single family homes have been sold at an average price of $302,000. For more
information call Jeff Habisch at the Parkside Acres office (535-1955).
5. Lot Division at 6828 Corvallis. The City Council approved this lot division on April 17tH It
creates a new lot at 6827 51 st Place out of what was formerly a double frontage lot at 6828
Corvallis. The existing house at 6828 Corvallis will remain and a new house will be built at 6827
51St Place. The resolution approving the lot division has been recorded but the owner and
builder are still working out the details of the property transfer. Construction of the new house
will probably have to wait until spring 2002.
6. Dunlo Motors (5241 West Broadway). The City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Plan on June 19th for construction of a new building and reconfiguration of the parking lot.
Construction of the new building is nearly complete; demolition of the old building and
reconfiguration of the parking lot will follow.
7. Valley Place Estates (7221 32nd). The City Council approved this medium density 14 -unit
townhouse development on August 21St. Construction of the infrastructure is underway and the
first units are expected to be completed by spring 2002. The developer, Z. B. Companies, has
stated that the starting price for these three bedroom / two bathroom townhomes will be
approximately $170,000.
01/21/02 F:\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2001-4thquarter.doc
REDEVELOPMENT - SINGLE-FAMILY REHABILITATION (scattered site rehab)
8. 5204 Florida. The EDA purchased this property from HUD in March 2000 for $61,200. It was a
small rambler with 816 sq. ft. and a crawl space instead of a full basement. We completely
rehabbed the house and converted it to a split foyer home with 1,752 sq. ft. (1,189 finished). We
sold the house in December 2001 for $166,000. Total expenditures were $162,400, house sale
proceeds (after realtor and closing costs) were $155,800, and net expenditures were $6,600.
9. 632838 th . The EDA acquired this house in December 2001 and we expect to request bids and
select a contractor by mid February 2002. Rehab work would begin in the spring and would be
completed by early summer. Total expenditures are estimated at $182,600, house sale
proceeds (after realtor and closing costs) are estimated at $156,200 and net expenditures are
estimated at $26,400 (not including a 5% contingency). We plan to use CDBG funds to cover
this gap; as a consequence, the house must be sold to a family earning at or below 80% of the
regional median income.
REDEVELOPMENT — SINGLE-FAMILY NEW CONSTRUCTION (scattered site lots)
10. 5608 Regent. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Sussel Corp. for $30,000. Construction is
complete. The new house will be a two-story with 2,489 sq. ft. (1,689 sq. ft. finished), three
bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached double
garage. The assessor's estimated value is $183,200. This house is pre -sold.
11. 4833 Douglas. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Feyereisen Construction for $40,000. The
new house will be a two-story with 2,728 sq. ft. (1,927 sq. ft. finished), 4 bedrooms, 21/2
bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached triple garage. The assessor's estimated
value is $204,000. Construction is expected to begin in fall 2001. Sale information is not yet
available.
12. 3200 Adair. In November 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Novak -Fleck for $60,000. The new
house is a split entry with 2,571 sq. ft. (2,361 finished), four bedrooms, three bathrooms and an
attached triple garage. The assessor's estimated value (house and land combined) is $211,000.
Construction is about 50% complete and is expected to be done by early spring 2002. This
house is pre -sold.
13. 4330 Adair. In October 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Al Stobbe Homes $46,500. The new
house is a two story with 2,868 sq. ft. (1,916 finished), three bedrooms, two and one-half
bathrooms and a detached double garage. Construction is about 30% complete and is expected
to be done by early spring 2002. The assessor's estimated value (house and land combined) is
$210,000. Sale information is not yet available.
14. 6617 45th. In October 2001, the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home
construction. The existing 500 sq. ft. home was demolished in November by the City's Public
Works Department. (The existing 896 sq. ft. garage, which is heated and insulated, remains on
the property.) The target price for the property is $60,000 and the target value (lot, existing
garage & new home combined) is $198,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot
are due January 25th and the EDA will consider the proposals and hold a public hearing on the
lot sale on February 5th. Construction is expected to begin in spring 2002 for completion by mid-
summer.
01/21/02 F:\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\Develop mentStatusRepo rts\2001-4thquarter.doc
REDEVELOPMENT — DEMOLITION AND LAND -BANKING FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT
15. 521734 th Place. In October 2001 the EDA acquired this extremely blighted house for demolition
and land banking for future redevelopment. The acquisition price was $72,000. Demolition was
completed in late 2001 by the City's Public Works Department.
16. 532434 th Place. In December 2001 the EDA acquired this extremely blighted house for
demolition and land banking for future redevelopment. The acquisition price was $78,000.
Demolition by the City's Public Works Department is scheduled for February 2002.
01/21/02 F:\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\Genera l\DevelopmentStatusReports\2001-4thquarter.doc
�1