Loading...
2002.05.13 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY May 13, 2002 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 8, 2002 meeting C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 2002-7: Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5900 West Broadway). D. OLD BUSINESS 1. Continue the review of land uses along Douglas Drive, south of 36th Ave N to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan. 2. Continue the discussion of the Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. 3. Review City Council action on bylaw changes previously approved by the Planning Commission. 4. Set date for joint work session with the City Council. E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on Planning Commission items. 2. Quarterly development status report. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT April 8, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, T. Graham and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent was Elsen due to her resignation, effective immediately. Commissioner Kamp excused himself at 9:00 P.M. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. 2. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-02 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Drive N, south of 36th Ave N. As part of the process for considering an application for development at 3200 Douglas Drive N, staff received indications from some City Council and Plaiuling Commission members that the Future Land Use designations for the entire Douglas Drive corridor south of 36th Ave N might be flawed. Staff agreed with this assessment and began reviewing the current designations and whether there were alternate approaches that might make more sense ,given the conditions in this corridor. Over the past few months, staff has developed a proposal to modify the Future Land Use designations for the areas near Douglas Drive N, south of 36th Ave N. The proposal would also create a place in the Comprehensive Plan for Special Area Plans, with the first such plan being a description of what type of development the city would find acceptable in this particular corridor. The Planning Commission discussed staff's concept at the January and February meetings and, at the March meeting, voted to initiate the application and public hearing to consider the proposed Special Area Plan including both new text and changes to the Future Land Use map. Plamler Sutter stated that the Comprehensive Plan generally shows High Density Residential throughout much of the corridor, with Neighborhood Commercial clustered at the intersections of 32nd, 34th and 36th Ave N. There are also some Public & Institutional and Community Commercial uses near the south end of the corridor. While the high density areas south of 30th Ave N cover existing apartment complexes, most of the areas guided high density north of 30th Ave N are not actually developed as such. In addition, few of the commercial -guided sites at 32°a and 34th Ave N are actually being used by businesses, and fewer still are being used by businesses that are consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial classification. There is also a fair amount of vacant or underutilized land in the corridor. On the east side of Douglas Dr N, such areas run from the "Gale property" (3148 Douglas) north to the large lot, single family homes at 6115, 6125 and 6203 36th Ave N. On the west side of Douglas Dr N, such areas run from 34t" Ave N to Bassett Creek, just south of 36t" Ave N. The changes proposed by staff would, generally, be either a reduction in allowable housing density and development intensity throughout much of the corridor, or no change from current designations. Existing larger apartment buildings would remain guided HDR, simply in recognition of the likelihood that those uses would remain for the foreseeable future. There may be some small buildings (3, 4, 5 or 6-plexes) that would be made non -conforming by a medium density designation. However, staff feels that these buildings are much more likely candidates for conversion or redevelopment to a different use over time. If conversion or redevelopment does not occur, such uses may continue as lawful non -conforming uses, even if they exceed the maximum MDR density of 12 units per acre. Furthermore, such buildings are typically already lawfully non -conforming with current parking, setback, open space and minimum lot area requirements, so the fact that they might become non -conforming with the new (reduced) maximum density would not have a major impact on those existing uses. There are only three areas where the allowable density would be increased: • The property at 6203 36th Ave N which includes a house plus a large vacant lot at 6213 36t" Ave N. These properties are owned by the same party and due to their low ratio of building value to land value, plus their proximity to the small commercial uses at 36th Ave N and Douglas Dr N, are likely to be redeveloped. Similar properties at 6115 and 6125 36t" Ave N might also be included in such a development, but because they are east of Colorado Ave N, they would remain guided LDR. • The west half of the "Gale property" and the homes on the east side of Douglas Dr N, south to 30t" Ave N would be guided MDR. The area of existing homes along Douglas Dr N (currently guided LDR) would be guided MDR in recognition of the fair to poor condition of many of the existing homes and the need for higher density to make it feasible for the private sector to acquire and redevelop these homes. If there are strong objections to this approach, the existing homes could remain guided LDR with the understanding that it would probably delay or prevent redevelopment of those homes. In recognition of Colorado Ave N as the transition to LDR, the east half of the "Gale property" would remain guided LDR. • The apartment complex on the west side of Brunswick between Medicine Lake Road and 29th Place N was mistakenly guided LDR in the Comprehensive Plan. This was unintentional and clearly is not reflective of either the current land use or how the land is likely to be used in the future. Staff views this as a non- controversial correction item that we happened to notice during our review of land uses in the corridor. Planner Sutter stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan text change would contain the following: Corridor Plan -Douglas Dr N, south of 36`h Ave N Some of the city's greatest potential for residential infill development can be found among the vacant, underutilized, or inappropriately zoned parcels scattered along both sides of Douglas Dr N, south of 36`h Ave N. The specific area included in this corridor plan is the area between Brunswick and Florida Ave N, from 360' Ave N, south to the city boundary. The Future Land Use map shows these parcels predominantly being guided for Medium Density Residential, with some of the transitional areas being guided Low Density Residential for better compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. It is not the intent of the city for these underdeveloped areas to be redeveloped in a haphazard fashion. Specifically, the city has concerns about the following potential negative impacts of redevelopment along this corridor. CONCERNS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: • Isolation. Redevelopment of some parcels might isolate or otherwise make it more difficult to redevelop other parcels in the area. Compatibility. Due to the odd configuration of many of the parcels and limitations on development such as soils, flood zones and the presence of Bassett Creek, it is likely that redevelopment of many sites will be proposed as a Planned Unit Development. While PUDs offer increased flexibility for the developer and the city, there is also the potential for increased impacts on adjacent Low Density Residential areas. Due to the presence of single family neighborhoods adjacent to the Douglas Dr N corridor, it is important that any new development blend in with the existing landscape, adjacent development and surrounding neighborhoods. Systems. One of the characteristics of this area that has made it difficult for development is that it is where Douglas Dr N, a road with a long history in the area, runs adjacent to Bassett Creek. The area is therefore directly impacted by elements of two regional systems, the transportation system and the natural resources system. The city has determined that preservation and enhancement of both transportation routes and open space corridors are important goals for the future well-being of the community, and there is always the potential for development to occur in a way which conflicts with these goals. To address these potential negative impacts, the city has established the following guiding principles for the corridor. These principles shall be used by the city in evaluating any planning, zoning or other land use related application within the corridor plan area. The city may reject any application that does not contain the level of detail necessary to conduct such an evaluation. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: Development shall be consistent with the density limits established for the residential uses shown on the Future Land Use map. If a development site includes areas guided for different densities, the developer may request that the city average the guided density on a pro -rated basis over the entire site. However, the city may require the developer to conform with each guided density instead of a pro -rated average. Density bonuses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance may be granted in cases where the city determines that there is a public benefit that will be enjoyed beyond the boundaries of the development itself. • Development shall not reduce the development potential of other parcels by impeding access or leaving undeveloped or any adjacent small, isolated, difficult -to - develop parcels. • Development shall include additional right-of-way for Douglas Dr N or other public streets as necessary to preserve and enhance the transportation system. • Development shall preserve a public open space corridor along Bassett Creek for the purposes of flood prevention, open space preservation and a possible future public trail. • Development shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and systems, including but not limited to, issues of traffic, parking, noise, buffering, screening, impervious coverage, building size, form and materials. The preferred residential development style would be townhomes or similar structures where each unit has a private entrance instead of apartment -style buildings, where residents share a common entrance. The city reserves the right to deny any application for development that it determines to be incompatible with these guiding principles or any other part of the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Sutter explained that generally, the purpose of this new text would be to provide additional guidance to prospective developers so they have a complete understanding of the city's expectations and guidelines for development in this area. The proposed Future Land Use designations, if adopted, along with the proposed Special Area Plan text, would facilitate development that is more consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan and more compatible with adjacent, existing single family residential neighborhoods. Staff recommended approval of Application 2002-02, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan convering areas near Douglas Dr N, south of 361h Ave N. '"\ Commissioner Kamp asked Planner Sutter to clarify what High Density Residential zoning actually included. Planner Sutter responded by stating that these areas generally consist mostly of established apartment developments that exceed a density of 12 units per gross acre. Planner Sutter reminded the commission that this proposed change is not for a short-term or immediate development. It is because staff does not think that high density is appropriate for this area because it does not coincide with the small parcels of land that have yet to be developed. Planner Sutter referred to the current and proposed land use for this area and noted that staff would like to recommend an additional change be made to include guiding the east half of 3343 Douglas Dr N (south of the medical building) for Neighborhood Commercial. Staff `s opinion is that the most likely long-term scenario is for this property to be incorporated into the medical building property for parking expansion. Commissioner Krueger expressed his concern for getting rid of the Neighborhood Commercial in this general area and would like to see it remain commercial, rather than residential. Commissioner T. Graham asked Planner Sutter to elaborate on what Medium Density Residential zoning included. Planner Sutter responded by stating that medium density primarily consists of transitional areas where a mid -density gradient in housing provides a transition from high to low density and is appropriate and desirable to optimize land use compatibility. Housing types are generally single family attached units that are designed like townhomes or garden apartments that fit into a single-family neighborhood character. Medium density housing is intended to have a density of 5 to 12 units per gross acre. The range of density in MDR is best illustrated by Parkside Acres (at the low end) and Valley Place Estates (at the high end). Stewart Gale, owner of the "Gale Property" on 34th Ave N and Douglas Dr N, asked staff and the Planning Commission if the city has made an ordinance change to include rezoning this area and Planner Sutter replied no, but since development plans must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, this change would have a similar effect to rezoning. Mr. Gale added that about a year ago, an application was submitted to the Planning Commission for a medium density development on his property, however, it was denied. After the application was rejected, Mr. Gale said that he was under the impression that the zoning in this area was not going to change in the near future and that was the reason for denial. He also went on to say that soil 1 tests confirm that pillings would be required for any development on his property. Therefore, because of this cost factor, Mr. Gale would like to see the property guided for higher density to increase the possibility for development. He also stated that he might be interested in building a veterinarian hospital for his daughter on the property and would like to know how the proposed changes might effect this. Planner Sutter reiterated that the west quarter of Mr. Gale's property is presently zoned and guided Neighborhood Commercial. He was not aware there was interest in developing the property for a specific commercial use. Planner Sutter suggested an application be submitted if there is a sincere interest in pursuing the veterinarian hospital. Mr. Gale responded by stating that his main concern before attending this meeting was how much time was left before the zoning was actually changed. He stated that he would rather see the property consistently zoned, instead of being zoned two different ways. Medium Density Residential would probably be the most logical choice if the city was to consistently re -zone the entire property. But Mr. Gale also stated that he is in favor of what staff and the Planning Commission agree is best for the city. Zev Oman, 3200 and 3201 Douglas Dr N, asked how the re -zoning might effect his car lot. Planner Sutter replied that the car lot is currently non -conforming, but would be grandfathered in and that this status would not change due to the proposed amendment. Wally Anderson, 3525 Adair Ave N, stated that he is concerned about the effects re -zoning might have on his business near 34th Ave N and Douglas Dr N. He expressed his desire to someday expand his business onto adjacent properties and keep Neighborhood Commercial in this area. He also was disappointed that property owners only received a one week notice prior to the public hearing, especially on an issue of this magnitude. Commissioner Magnuson pointed out that this property would also be perfect for a townhome development, which could be something for Mr. Anderson to consider. Mr. Anderson agreed and stated that he also owns properties northeast of 34th Ave N and Douglas Dr N. He would eventually like to develop both sides of the creek with townhomes and would also like to see some Neighborhood Commercial areas remain. Commissioner Kamp asked Mr. Anderson how long he had owned the property being discussed and he replied that it has been about 25 years. Commissioner Kamp then asked why he has not developed this property in this period of time. Mr. Anderson replied that the site was not conducive for the intended use. Commissioner Kamp reiterated that this was the very reason the city would like to re -zone this area and according to Mr. Anderson's statement, it sounds like both Commissioner Kamp and Mr. Anderson are in agreement that commercial is not the best use for the area northeast of 34th Ave N and Douglas Dr N. John Anderson, 3353 Douglas Dr N, stated that it has been the intention of himself and his father (Wally Anderson) to expand their business and develop housing along the creek. He has no desire to relocate and if the Neighborhood Commercial is taken away, it will decrease the property values in the area. " Gary Kersten, 3246 Douglas Dr N, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Crystal Terrace Apartments. He explained that six out lots were included with the purchase of the complex. The zoning and the six lots were one of the better selling points of the investment, with the intention of someday expanding the development and beautifying the area. As soon as the zoning is changed, the price per unit increases and the opportunity to provide Crystal residents with stable housing will no longer exist. Planner Sutter explained that the city has control over what density this area should be. Higher end, medium density townhomes could still be built on this property. However, staff feels that additional High Density Residential does not fit the area and coincide with the existing parcel size. The question of whether these parcels should be high or medium density is a policy decision to be made by the city. Commissioner Magnuson pointed out that staff and the Planning Commission are hoping that the proposed changes will add additional housing to the area. A majority of these parcels have never been developed and that is the reason for the proposed changes. Dan Martin, 6308 34t" Ave N, expressed his concern for the loss of Neighborhood Commercial and how it might effect the sale of his property. He stated that in his case, the building on his property is more valuable than the land. Therefore, if the zoning is changed, and the building on-site is no longer an asset, he will lose a great investment. Planner Sutter stated that even if the property was re -zoned, the use could continue as long as the use remains the same, no more than 50% of the building is lost (in cases of fire etc.), or the building is not vacant for more than one year. Kevin Greening, 3442 Douglas Dr N, was curious about how this re -zoning might effect his land if he decides to sell it. Commissioner Kamp replied that it really just depends on the market and the buyer. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Koss pointed out that after hearing the public opinion, he feels that the Planning Commission has the responsibility to really consider the impact on businesses in the area. For example, the property owned by Mr. Gale should be zoned consistent throughout. Commissioner T. Graham stated that the reason for the proposed re -zoning is because the area is in need of change. Properties along Douglas Dr N are in need of improvement and new development is hindered by the current high density zoning. The goal of this project is also to make the zoning in the area more uniform. Commissioner Krueger stated that he could not see getting rid of the Neighborhood Commercial and after the public hearing, he can see that many individuals share his opinion. Commissioner Nystrom agreed with Commissioner Krueger, but also pointed out that many years have gone by without any development on the commercially zoned sites, so maybe it is time for a change. Commissioner VonRueden said that a lot of really good points were brought up at the public hearing and he would like to continue looking at this proposal. There seems to be a concern for the properties zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Planner Sutter suggested to still guide the area Medium Density Residential, but add the intention of small scale office businesses as a conditional use in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Another option would also be not to change the existing parcels zoned Neighborhood Commercial, but re -zone only the vacant parcels. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to continue until May 13, the discussion of Application 2002-02 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Dr N, south of 36th Avenue N. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-03 for a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Plamier Sutter explained that the Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (EDA) has acquired the following four parcels for infill redevelopment: Parcel A: 3818 Florida Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0013 Lot 9, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: Vacant. Owned by the EDA. The platted utility easement across the east 2.5' of this parcel has been vacated. Parcel B: 3821 Douglas Dr N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0001 unplatted land Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Karen Stombaugh) has permission to occupy house through April 30, 2002 and the rest of the property (garden area) through June 30, 2002. The EDA will rehab and sell the house on the open market. Parcel C: 6404 38t1i Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0006 Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Acres, together with unplatted land Status: One single family house plus outbuildings. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Jeff Tepfer) has permission to occupy property through April 30, 2002. The EDA will demolish the house and outbuildings. Parcel D: 632838 th Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0005 Lot 1, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. The EDA is presently rehabbing this house for resale as an affordable home for a first-time home buyer. The area is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R -l. This allows single family subdivisions of single family detached homes at densities not to exceed 5 units per acre. The density of the proposed subdivision will be 3.5 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the city's minimum width (60'), depth (100') and area (7,500 sq. ft.) requirements. It should be noted that, while the cul-de-sac lots are not 60' wide along the curve of the street right-of-way, they are at least 60' wide at the building setback line. For cul-de-sac lots, past practice in Crystal (and standard practice in most other communities) is to measure the lot width at the setback line for compliance with lot width requirements. The plat includes the following streets and easement dedications: • 7' along Douglas Drive (to provide a full 40' width along the west side of the centerline in accordance with Hennepin County's requirements); • 45' radius (90' diameter) cul-de-sac right-of-way; • 10' drainage and utility easements along all front lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all rear lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all side lot lines (except for the north side of lot 8, which will have no easement due to that existing house having a pre-existing nonconforming setback of 2.7'). To serve the new homes on lots 1-5, a new cul-de-sac would be built just south of the existing Edgewood Ave N dead end, approximately 300' south of 39th Ave N. Water and sanitary sewer lines to serve lots 1-5 would be extended a short distance south from their current termini at the dead end. The improved street would have b6-18 concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement in accordance with standard city street requirements. The cul-de-sac would have a 30' radius (60' diameter) from curb -to -curb, which has been approved by West Metro Fire and Rescue staff. The new home on Lot 6 and the existing (rehabbed) home on Lot 7 would be served with existing infrastructure on 38th Ave N. The existing (rehabbed) house on Lot 8 would be served with existing infrastructure on Douglas Dr N. The standard park dedication requirement is now $1,000 per new residential unit. Since this plat would result in a net gain of 5 units, park dedication in the amount of $5,000 is required. The EDA will dedicate as parkland 7,764 sq. ft. (0.18 acres) of the property. At the Hennepin County Assessor's estimated value of $1.15 per square foot (memo in the 6328 38th Ave N rehab project file dated March 6, 2002), the value of this dedication is $8,929. In addition, the EDA is proposing to install a wood chip footpath -type trail to connect the new Edgewood Ave N cul-de-sac with the Florida Park property to the west. The value of this improvement probably approaches $2,000, meaning that the EDA proposing park dedications and improvements roughly double the minimum required by city code. The rehab of the existing homes at 6328 38th Ave N and 3821 Douglas Dr N is expected to be completed by early summer and both homes will be marketed at that time. Site work and installation of public improvements would begin in mid- summer 2002 and be completed by fall. The lots for the six new homes would be sold in the fall and construction on the new homes would be expected to be completed by spring 2003. Planner Sutter reiterated that all of the parcels were voluntary acquisitions. The city would plan to start breaking ground for the project around July 1, 2002. Tim Carney, 3829 Edgewood Ave N, was concerned about the lowland area and proposed runoff from this new development. He questioned staff about whether or not the existing lowland would be filled in, and if not, would it just become cluttered with debris from the increased runoff. He asked if this was a concern of the project and what, if anything, would be done to prevent this from becoming a problem. Planner Sutter responded by stating that most likely the two lots would be built with a walk -out basement. Precautionary measures would be taken to contain runoff on-site, during construction. Also, min. 5' drainage and utility easements would be provided along lot lines. Illegal dumping would also be heavily enforced by the city. Planner Sutter stated that the city would be very selective in choosing a reputable developer that would make sure all demolition materials are disposed of correctly. Mr. Carney asked how the additional runoff would effect the sanitary sewer run. Planner Sutter stated that there is sufficient capacity for additional users and the city Engineering Department had made this determination. Tom Schneider, 3845 Edgewood Ave N, stated that water was definitely a concern of his with the addition of several driveways. He explained that currently, there is no storm drain and the excess runoff from the new homes may cause the water to back up toward the existing homes. Also, he felt that the gas and water pressure would need to be upgraded in order to properly service the area with the addition of the new homes. Commissioner Magnuson replied by stating that the city Engineering Department would make sure this is looked at before development. Planner Sutter added that the city engineers assured him that drainage would not increase. If for some reason this became an issue, it is the city's problem, and would be solved during the future street reconstruction projects. Planner Sutter said that he would discuss this issue with the Engineering Department again and also suggested the possibility of installing a storm sewer under the footpath to solve the problem, if necessary. Commissioner K. Graham questioned staff when street reconstruction is scheduled for this area. Planner Sutter stated that the street study should be finished later this year. The results will determine where reconstruction is most needed. Although, there may be a possibility that the utilities would have to be updated sooner than the scheduled reconstruction. Iver Iverson, 3828 Edgewood Ave N, stated that it has been very nice living at the end of a dead end for many years, however he always knew that the old farmhouse would someday come down. The idea of a cul -du -sac never occurred to him and he questioned what would be done with the excess dirt from the excavation. Planner Sutter stated that the city would prepare the site for construction and any excess dirt would have to be hauled out of the area. He explained that when the EDA acts as the landowner, the city has control over the developer and they would have to abide by the requirements of the EDA. Mr. Iverson stated his concern for the proposed lot sizes and the fact that they might be too small for five new homes. He also questioned how the new homes would blend with existing homes and surrounding ramblers. Planner Sutter stated that most of the new homes would probably be two-story to maximize space. Commissioner Magnuson added that developers have many new styles of'homes that are meant to blend with existing older homes. A great example of this in Crystal is the new "Parkside Acres" development. Mr. Iverson asked if there was any thought to extending Edgewood Ave N completely through to 38th Ave N, instead of creating a cul -du -sac. Planner Sutter responded by stating that a through street would not only require the use of more land, but it would also increase the impact of the development on the residents of this area. The city felt that in order to reduce the impact and costs as much as possible, the cul -du -sac would be a more favorable alternative. Planner Sutter explained that the city is acting because an opportunity presented itself and a developer would have done the same. With the city as the developer, residents have more control over what sort of development happens in this area. Mr. Iverson questioned staff about the cost and how much money the city expected to lose on the project. Planner Sutter explained that 6404 38th Ave N was purchased for $156, 000 and 3821 Douglas Dr N was purchased for $280,000. The lots would be sold to the developer for approximately $60,000- 80,000 each. There is a high demand for move -up housing within the city. The project is expected to generate additional revenue, or at least get back the initial investment to use in other EDA projects. The new homes would be sold at market rate. Commissioner K. Graham stated that infill development is extremely valuable and that this particular development was inevitable. The residents of the area are benefiting because this is an EDA project. A private developer would maximize development potential and would not take into consideration the impact the development would have on the surrounding residents. John Schnell, 3852 Edgewood Ave N, questioned staff about what sort of impact the construction vehicles would have on the existing roads, and if the lots would be level with the surrounding homes. Mr. Schneider suggested checking into how the city is going to ensure that the excess water does not back up into the pond. He also proposed that the city use some of the anticipated revenue to supplement the cost of installing curbs, and improving the roads and drainage system in the area. Planner Sutter responded by stating that because most of the installation work would be done by city vehicles, most of the wear and tear on the roads would be from city vehicles, and any damage would need to be repaired by the city. He also stated that the grade would slope up to the front of the new homes and blend with the existing grade as much as possible. Lindsay Krantz, 4724 Quail Ave N, asked if there would be any economic constraints on who may purchase these homes or a limit on how many individuals may occupy each home. Planner Sutter stated that 6328 38t" Ave N would be limited to a buyer with an annual household income of no more than $54,400. As far as occupancy, the city cannot monitor that, other than standard regulations that apply everywhere in the city. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Magnuson stated that there were some unique issues that were brought up for the Planning Commission to consider, such as the water and drainage issues and a recommendation for the city and the developer to make any necessary road repairs after the construction of the cul -du -sac. Commissioner T. Graham agreed and suggested that the drainage issue be resolved before moving forward with the project. Planner Sutter suggested that the Planning Commission continue the discussion of the project until staff has had the opportunity to speak with the city engineers about the drainage concerns. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to continue until May 13 the discussion of Application 2002-03 for a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Motion carried. o Consider Application 2002-04 for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens (5100 Douglas Dr N). Cemeteries are not currently listed as a permitted or conditional use in the city's Zoning Ordinance. However, the city presently has two cemeteries and both are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential district. One of these is Glen Haven Memorial Gardens. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens wants to build a 17' x 24' mausoleum on the existing cemetery site. Staff stated that this would be an expansion of the cemetery use, in contrast with the previously approved maintenance building which merely re -located an existing accessory function of the cemetery. Because it is an expansion of a use that is not currently permitted, staff's opinion is that the ordinance must first be changed to allow the use in some fashion. Staff recommended that cemeteries be added as a conditional use in the R-1 District. The way the ordinance is currently structured, this would make them a conditional use in all other residential districts as well. The requested from Glen Haven Memorial Gardens therefore has two parts: • Request a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to add cemeteries as a conditional use in the R-1 District; and Request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens Staff suggested that the following conditional use be added to Section 515.19 Subd.4: e) Cemeteries, subject to the following: 1) Such use shall not include funeral homes, crematoriums or similar uses. 2) No building, including mausoleums and accessory maintenance buildings, shall exceed 5,000 sq. ft. in area or 20 feet in height. The total footprint of buildings on the cemetery cannot exceed 1% of the area of the cemetery. 3) Such use may include maintenance and equipment facilities accessory to the operation of the cemetery, subject to the screening requirements of Section 515.07 Subd. 9 and Section 520 (Site Plan Review). 4) The use is consistent with the provisions of Section 515.53 Subd. 1(e). Staff stated that the proposed mausoleum would be consistent with these requirements and also recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the proposed 17' x 24' mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens, upon the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment described above. Conunissioner Magnuson asked Planner Sutter if staff was comfortable with the applicant's request. Planner Sutter replied that staff is favor of the request, but would like feedback from the commission. To give the Planning Commission a better concept of the proposed mausoleum, Planner Sutter compared it to the size of a typical two -car garage. Tom Anderson, 13970 Alabama, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Glen Haven Memorial Gardens. He said that the size of the mausoleum is fitting at this time for the community, however there is a possibility there will be a need for expansion in the future. As proposed, the mausoleum will offer 96 additional burial sites. The Planning Commission seemed to be in agreement that the mausoleum is a reasonable addition to the cemetery, but there was concern that several scattered mausoleums throughout the property may occur in the future. Planner Sutter replied that scattering may not be all that bad, if necessary. It would definitely lessen the impact, as opposed to clustering such structures or building a single, larger structure. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-04 for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow cemeteries as a conditional use in residential districts. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-04 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens (5 100 Douglas Dr N). Findings of Fact are as stated in section C of the staff memo. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-5 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Almsted's SuperValu (4210 Douglas Dr N). Planner Sutter stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales in a temporary garden center, to be located in the south parking lot. The proposed display area would be approximately 17' x 42' and would be constructed of cement block and landscape timbers to create an enclosed shopping area. Staff could foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request and recommended approval of Application 2002-05 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at 4210 Douglas Drive N, subject to the following conditions: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring or abutting residential uses; 2. The area is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use; 3. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way by fencing, screening, or landscaping of sufficient height, width, and density to provide an effective screen; 4. Storage area is surfaced to control dust; 5. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and neighboring residences; 6. Parking spaces south of the proposed location may not be used throughout the duration of the garden center. Roger Olson, Almsted's SuperValu, stated that he was speaking on behalf of SuperValu. He said that the store was looking forward to having a garden center this year. He said the location is fabulous, due to the high visibility from both Douglas Dr N and 42"a Ave N. Mr. Olson assured the Plamling Commission that sales would only be conducted during appropriate hours when the store is also open. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-05 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Almsted's SuperValu (42 10 Douglas Dr N). Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. In addition, the garden center shall not increase the non -conformity of the property. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-06 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Cub Foods (530136" Ave N). Planner Sutter stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales in a temporary garden center, to be located in the parking lot. The proposed display area would be approximately 20' x 60' and would be enclosed by a fence. Staff could foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request and recommended approval of Application 2002-06 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at 5301 36th Ave N, subject to the following conditions: ,•l"IN 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring or abutting residential uses; 2. The area is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use; 3. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way by fencing, screening, or landscaping of sufficient height, width, and density to provide an effective screen; 4. Storage area is surfaced to control dust; 5. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and neighboring residences. Richard Dorfner, Cub Foods, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Cub Foods. He said that Cub Foods has operated the garden center for seven years and foresees no negative impacts. Commissioner Magnuson and Commissioner Nystrom both suggested locating the garden center closer to the entrance this year, so it does not interfere with the traffic generated from the parking lot. Mr. Dorfner stated that Cub has done so and is experimenting with possible alternate locations on the property. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner VonRueden and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-06 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Cub Foods (530136 1h Ave N). Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. In addition, the garden center shall not increase the non -conformity of the property. 3. Old Business All old business was postponed until May 13, due to the longevity of the meeting. 4. New Business All new business was postponed until May 13, due to the longevity of the meeting. All other agenda items were also postponed until the May 13 Planning Commission meeting. 5. Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to adj ourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Chair Magnuson Secretary T. Graham M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 9, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for May 13th meeting) FROM: Sara Dietsche, Community Development Assistant SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Application 2002-7, a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5590 West Broadway). A. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the addition of a patio to an existing building for the purpose of providing outdoor seating and sales. The proposed concrete patio would be approximately 17' x 32', enclosed with a 4' decorative metal fence and screened with shrubs. The patio would hold approximately 9 tables, with seating for 36 customers and have controlled access through the restaurant only. Hours of operation would be 11:00 am to 1:00 am, Monday through Saturday and 11:00 am to midnight on Sunday during the summer and fall months. The following informational items are attached: ❑ applicant's statement; ❑ plan showing the existing restaurant on the subject property and proposed placement of the patio; A notice of public hearing for this application was published on May 1, 2002 and was mailed on May 2, 2002 to all property owners within 350' of the subject property. B. STAFF COMMENTS Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. However, in order for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales to be approved, the following conditions must be met: The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring or abutting residential uses; Since the property is only surrounded by commercial uses, fencing and/or screening is not necessary. However, the applicant is proposing to install both a fence and shrubs to provide privacy from surrounding uses. 2. The area is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use; The restaurant has a gross floor area of 5,234 sq.ft. The proposed floor area of the patio is 544 sq.ft., which is well below 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use. 3. Sales area is surfaced to control dust; The patio would be surfaced with a cement floor. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and neighboring residences; Lighting for the patio is not specified on the site plan, but is not anticipated by staff to be an issue. All lighting will need to comply with the conditions listed above, as well as any other applicable lighting requirements listed in the city code. 5. The area does not reduce minimum parking space required for the establishment; The addition of the patio would not reduce the parking for the establishment. 6. The provisions of Subsection 515.53, Subd. 1 (e) of this code are considered and satisfactorily meta 515.53, Subdivision 1 (e): The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: -- ❑ Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. ❑ The geographical area involved. ❑ Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. ❑ The character of the surrounding area. ❑ The demonstrated need for such use. Staff feels that the proposed patio would be consistent with these requirements. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed patio is consistent with the requirements of the Crystal City Code and as described in Section B above. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-07 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5900 West Broadway). The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its May 21, 2002 meeting. Item 6. Written narrative describing the project We are requesting the addition of an outdoor patio to our new restaurant. This will provide our customers with an outdoor eating environment during the summer and fall months. The patio will have controlled access through our restaurant only. It will hold approximately 12 tables, seating 48 customers. This will be a concrete patio enclosed with four -foot high decorative metal fencing. We will landscape the patio with bushes to make the area more private. The hours of service will be 11:00 am to 1:00 am, Monday through Saturday, and to midnight on Sunday. ile----c__c_. n" �aJ so— IN I ,i. F EI I I I I I I ' M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 9, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for May 13th meeting) FROM: ej ohn Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-2, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. As part of the process for considering an application for development at 3200 Douglas Drive North, staff received indications from some City Council and Planning Commission members that the Future Land Use designations for the entire Douglas Drive corridor south of 36th Avenue might be flawed. Staff agreed with this assessment and began reviewing the current designations and whether there were alternate approaches that might make more sense given the conditions in this corridor. Over the past few months, staff has developed a proposal to modify the Future Land Use designations for the areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. The proposal would also create a place in the Comprehensive Plan for Special Area Plans, with the first such plan being a description of what type of development the city would find acceptable in this corridor. The Planning Commission discussed staff's concept at the January and February meetings and, at the March meeting, voted to initiate the application and public hearing to consider the proposed Special Area Plan including both new text and changes to the Future Land Use map. Notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing was mailed on March 28th to property owners in an area generally between Adair Avenue and Florida Avenue south of 36th Avenue, with extensions of approximately 350' north of 36th Avenue and in the vicinity of Medicine Lake Road. The mailed notice included the proposed new Comprehensive Plan text as well as color maps showing the current and proposed designations for future land use in the corridor. The public hearing notice was also published in the Sun Post on March 27tH. The public hearing was held on April 8th The following exhibits are attached: ❑ map showing the area receiving mailed notice of the proposed amendment; ❑ proposed changes to the text of the Comprehensive Plan (staff's suggested changes since the April 8th meeting are indicated with strikeouts and underlining); ❑ map showing future land use as it is guided in the current comprehensive plan; ❑ map showing future land use as it would be guided if the proposed amendment were adopted; ❑ map showing staff's additional suggested changes for the future land use map, as discussed at the April 8th public hearing; ❑ copy of 515.27 Subd. 4 [e] & [f], Conditional Use Permit provisions for offices and accessory retail uses to be applicable to properties abutting Douglas Drive; and ❑ preliminary site and building plans for a possible office building at 3200 Douglas (just an informational item, not a formal application). B. STAFF COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT 1. Current Land Use Designations. The Comprehensive Plan generally shows High Density Residential throughout much of the corridor, with Neighborhood Commercial clustered at the intersections of 32nd 34th and 36th. There are also some Public & Institutional and Community Commercial uses near the south end of the corridor. While the high density areas south of 30th Avenue cover existing apartment complexes, most of the areas guided high density north of 30th Avenue are not actually developed as such. In addition, few of the commercial -guided sites at 32nd and 34th are actually being used by businesses, and fewer still are being used by business that are consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial classification. There is also a fair amount of vacant or underutilized land in the corridor. On the east side of Douglas, such areas run from the "Gale property" (3148 Douglas) north to the large lot single family homes at 6115, 6125 and 6203 36th. On the west side of Douglas, such areas run from 34th Avenue to Bassett Creek just south of 36tH The following are the Comprehensive Plan's descriptions of Low, Medium and High Density Residential plus Neighborhood Commercial. • Low Density Residential (LDR). Low-density residential correlates with the City's established single-family residential neighborhoods which comprise 47% of the City. Within these areas, neighborhood improvements and housing maintenance are intended to achieve neighborhood conservation objectives. Though there is very little vacant LDR land available, the full range of single-family housing (detached and attached) is intended to be accommodated at five or less units per gross acre. Attached single-family housing is especially appropriate at neighborhood edges (adjacent to nonresidential uses or a major street) where infill potential exists. Selective redevelopment is also viewed as appropriate to improve neighborhood quality and character. Whether infill or redevelopment, projects are intended to: 1) be relatively small, 2) be compatible in design with the established neighborhood, 3) increase the ratio of owner occupied housing, and 4) fill unique market niches (e.g. seniors cottages). • Medium Density Residential (MDR). These are primarily transitional areas where a mid -density gradient in housing intensity from high to low density is appropriate and desirable to optimize land use compatibility. These primarily correlate with existing MDR developments and redevelopment areas. Housing types are generally single family attached units that are designed like townhome or garden apartments that fit into a single-family neighborhood character. Medium density housing is intended to have a density of five to 12 units per gross acre. • High Density Residential (HDR). High Density Residential housing areas are generally found along minor arterials and collectors with higher traffic volumes and existing or potential public transit service. These areas consist mostly of established apartment developments including senior housing that exceed a density of 12 units per gross acre. Because of the lack of available privately owned vacant land and the fragility of established neighborhoods, the City will entertain only limited expansion of HDR housing contiguous to established projects at maximum densities of 22 units per gross acre. • Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - These areas are generally relatively small in size and provide day-to-day convenience retail and service opportunities within easy walking and biking distance of surrounding neighborhoods. These generally contain smaller shops in shopping centers or freestanding structures. They are intended to be more personal in scale and as compatible as possible with the neighborhoods they serve. Typical uses include grocery stores, laundromats, barber and beauty shops, pharmacies, hardware stores, offices and clinics, and non -automotive repair shops which are accessory to retail establishments. Automobile -intensive uses, such as filling stations, car washes and drive-through restaurants, should not be located in these areas except as lawful non -conforming uses. 2. Proposed Land Use Designations. The changes proposed by staff would, generally, be either a reduction in allowable housing density and development intensity throughout much of the corridor, or no change from current designations. Existing larger apartment buildings would remain guided HDR, simply in recognition of the likelihood of those uses remaining for the foreseeable future. There may be some small buildings (3, 4, 5 or 6 plexes) that would be made non- conforming by a medium density designation. However, staff feels that these buildings are much more likely candidates for conversion or redevelopment to a different use over time. If conversion or redevelopment does not occur, such uses may continue as lawful non -conforming uses even if they exceed the maximum MDR density of 12 units per acre. Furthermore, such buildings are typically already lawfully non -conforming with current parking, setback, open space and minimum lot area requirements, so the fact that they might become non -conforming with the new (reduced) maximum density would not have a major impact on those existing uses. There are only three areas where the allowable density would be increased: • The property at 6203 36th which includes a house plus a large vacant lot at 6213 36th. These properties are owned by the same party and, due to their low ration of building value to land value plus their proximity to the small commercial uses at 36th and Douglas, are likely to be redeveloped for townhomes. Similar properties at 6115 and 6125 36th might also be included in such a development, but because they are east of Colorado Avenue they would remain guided LDR. • The west half of the "Gale property" and the homes on the east side of Douglas Drive south to 30th Avenue would be guided MDR. The area of existing homes along Douglas (currently guided LDR) would be guided MDR in recognition of the fair to poor condition of many of the existing homes and the need for higher density to make it feasible for the private sector to acquire and redevelop these homes. If there are strong objections to this approach, the existing homes could remain guided LDR with the understanding that it would probably delay or prevent redevelopment of those homes. In recognition of Colorado Avenue as the transition to LDR, the east half of the "Gale property" would remain guided LDR. • The apartment complex on the west side of Brunswick between Medicine Lake Road and 29th Place was mistakenly guided LDR in the Comprehensive Plan. This was unintentional and clearly is not reflective of either the current land use or how the land is likely to be used in the future. Staff views this as _ a non -controversial correction item that we happened to notice during our review of land uses in the corridor. 3. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Change. Staff feels that, in addition to this corridor, there may in the future be a need to discuss the city's development expectations for certain corridors in more detail. While the plan already has separate descriptions for some mixed use areas (i.e. the Town Center area at 42nd & Douglas, and the West Broadway / Highway 81 corridor), there is no section for other corridor plans to be added. Staff is proposing to add a new section in Chapter F(3) "Future Land Use Categories" called (e) "Special Area Plans". The first (and so far only) such plan would be titled "Corridor Plan — Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue" and would contain the text shown on the attached sheet. In the interest of time, staff will not restate the rationale for the text change because it is explained in detail in the proposed text itself. Generally, the purpose of this new text would be to provide additional guidance to prospective developers so they have a complete understanding of the city's expectations and guidelines for development in this area. Staff feels that this will provide a significantly greater degree of control for the Planning Commission and City Council to exercise when they review development proposals in the future. C. STAFF COMMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT Based on the testimony received at the April 8th public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion following the public hearing, and additional study since then, staff suggests the following additional changes for Planning Commission consideration.- 3443 onsideration: 3443 Douglas to be guided Neighborhood Commercial not MDR. This is a single family rental house located between the Douglas Drive medical clinic (3501 Douglas) and a recently -built 8 -unit townhouse development (3421-3435 Douglas). Staff feels it is much more likely that this property will be converted to office use or be acquired and demolished by the adjacent commercial use for more parking or other expansion. In any event, its potential as a stand-alone MDR property is extremely limited and for this reason staff is recommending that this parcel's land use designation match that of the medical clinic. 2. How to deal with existing neighborhood -compatible commercial uses. As originally proposed by staff, all existing business properties in the corridor would have become lawful non -conforming uses except Lamplighter Square, the medical clinic and the two strip centers near 36th Avenue. (Please note that some of these, like the service station at 3401 Douglas and the used car lot at 3201 Douglas, are already lawfully non -conforming with the Comprehensive Plan.) Some Planning Commissioners and members of the public expressed a desire to accommodate commercial uses that would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels there are two main ways to do this: Alternate A: Designate certain parcels as Neighborhood Commercial. This is essentially the status quo for existing businesses. The problem with this approach is that the NC designation would allow many more uses than the relatively benign office uses that were the focus of much of the discussion. For example, the current B-2 zoning (which is roughly comparable to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation) includes, as permitted uses, the following potentially problematic uses: Amusement places (such as dance halls or roller rinks; bowling alleys; dry cleaning including plant accessory thereto; electrical appliance stores including incidental repair and assembly but not manufacturing; retail stores of new furniture, used furniture, or both new and used furniture.; record and music shops; restaurants, tea rooms, cafes, taverns and off -sale liquor stores; schools (commercial) - music, dance, business, etc.; theatres, not of the outdoor drive-in type; and variety stores, 5 and 10 cent stores, and stores of similar nature. Even assuming we tighten up the Neighborhood Commercial classification a bit, by its very nature it is likely that some NC uses will not be compatible in this corridor. For this reason staff does not favor this approach. Alternate B: Allow office uses by Conditional Use Permit This approach would continue with staff's original plan to guide the commercial properties MDR but would also state in the text that the intent is to allow, by Conditional Use Permit, limited neighborhood -compatible offices and accessory retail uses adjacent to Douglas Drive. The text would state that the revised Zoning Ordinance should provide for this type of CUP as part of the MDR zoning district but that as an interim measure the standards in 515.27 Subd. 4 [e] & [f] should be applied to properties adjacent to Douglas Drive. Staff supports this approach because it gives the city greater control over the type of commercial uses in an otherwise overwhelmingly residential zone. 3. Should the entire Gale property (3148 Douglas) be guided MDR? . The current proposal is to guide the west half Medium Density Residential and the east half Low Density Residential, with the transition at Colorado Avenue. Some Planning Commissioners have expressed an interest in possibly guiding the entire Gale property for MDR. Staff believes that the rationale remains strong for transitioning from MDR to LDR in the vicinity of Colorado Avenue. Allowing MDR to extend east to Brunswick Avenue would raise the question of why the underutilized parcels in the same area north of 32nd would remain LDR. The concept of the Gale property transitioning from MDR on the west to LDR on the east is compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the adjacent land uses. 4. Should the Planning Commission continue this item one more month to allow time for any potential applications to be submitted? The potential office building at 3200 Douglas would be permitted under the present designation (needing only Site Plan Review). However, it would be either prohibited or in need of a Conditional Use Permit after the proposed changes become effective. While there may be additional property owners considering similar "before the change" applications, none have submitted any preliminary plans for discussion or review, and none have submitted a formal Planning & Zoning Application for Site Plan Review. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission discuss whether it wants to continue this item so that applications currently under development can be submitted and considered under the present land use designations. Continuing it to the June meeting would require formal applications to be submitted by May 17th; continuing it to the July meeting would require formal applications to be submitted by June 14th.' Please note that either continuance will require the 60 day decision period to be extended for an additional 30 or 60 days, respectively. D. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed Future Land Use designations, if adopted along with the proposed Special Area Plan text and any additional changes selected from Section C above, would facilitate development that is more consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan and more compatible with adjacent existing single family residential neighborhoods. E. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-2, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council would consider the application at its May 21St meeting. � CC o C. Z O Z w Q _. 2 r r Corridor Plan — Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. Some of the city's greatest potential for residential infill development can be found among the vacant, underutilized, or inappropriately zoned parcels scattered along both sides of Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. The specific area included in this corridor plan is the area between Brunswick and Florida Avenue from 36th Avenue south to the city boundary. The Future Land Use map (Figure 7) shows these parcels predominantly being guided for Medium Density Residential, with some of the transitional areas being guided Low Density Residential for better compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. It is not the intent of the city for these underdeveloped areas to be redeveloped in a haphazard fashion. Specifically, the city has concerns about the following potential negative impacts of redevelopment along this corridor. CONCERNS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: • Isolation. Redevelopment of some parcels might isolate or otherwise make it more difficult to redevelop other parcels in the area. • Compatibility. Due to the odd configuration of many of the parcels and limitations on development such as soils, flood zones and the presence of Bassett Creek, it is likely that redevelopment of many sites will be proposed as a Planned Unit Development. While PVDs offer increased flexibility for the developer and the city, there is also the potential for increased impacts on adjacent low density residential areas. Due to the presence of single family neighborhoods adjacent to the Douglas Drive corridor, it is important that any new development blend in with the existing landscape, adjacent development and surrounding neighborhoods. • Systems. One of the characteristics of this area that has made it difficult for development is that it is where Douglas Drive, a road with a long history in the area, runs adjacent to Bassett Creek. The area is therefore directly impacted by elements of two regional systems: The transportation system and the natural resources system. The city has determined that preservation and enhancement of both transportation routes and open space corridors are important goals for the future well being of the community, and there is always the potential for development to occur in a way which conflicts with these goals. To address these potential negative impacts, the city has established the following guiding principles for the corridor. These principles shall be used by the city in evaluating any planning, zoning or other land use related application within the corridor plan area. The city may reject any application that does not contain the level of detail necessary to conduct such an evaluation. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORRIDOR: • Development shall be consistent with the density limits established for the residential uses shown on the Future Land Use map. If a development site includes areas guided for different densities, the developer may request that the city average the guided density on a pro -rated basis over the entire site. However, the city may require the developer to conform with each guided density instead of a pro -rated average. Density bonuses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance may be granted in cases where the city determines that there is a public benefit that will be enjoyed beyond the boundaries of the development itself. • Development shall not reduce the development potential of other parcels by impeding access or leaving undeveloped any adjacent small, isolated, difficult -to -develop parcels. • Development shall include additional right-of-way for Douglas Drive or other public streets as necessary to preserve and enhance the transportation system. • Development shall preserve a public open space corridor along Bassett Creek for the purposes of flood prevention, open space preservation and a possible future public trail. • Development shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and systems, including but not limited to issues of traffic, parking, noise, buffering, screening, impervious coverage, building size, form and materials. The preferred residential development style would be townhomes or similar structures where each unit has a private entrance instead of apartment -style buildings where residents share a common entrance. • Certain office -type commercial uses may be compatible in areas guided Medium Density Residential or High Density Residential adiacent to Douglas Drive. The Zoning Ordinance should be revised to provide for these on a limited basis as Conditional Uses in the corresponding zoning districts In the interim such uses may be considered in accordance with the provisions of 515.27 Subd. 4 fel & ffl. In no event shall a commercial use be permitted that is found to be incompatible with adjacent land uses The city reserves the right to deny any application for development that it determines to be incompatible with these guiding principles or any other part of the Comprehensive Plan. IICY FSIISYSIGROUPSICOMDEVLPIPLANNINGIApplicationsl2002102(DouglasDriveCorridor)Vextchanges-2002-05-09.doc 0 09/02 Current Designations For Future Land Use Land Use: Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Park & Conservation Public & Institutional Community Commercial 0 250 500 750 Feet " N�E S Study Area Lp, 111'1 II II ILII Proposed Designations for Future Land Use Land Use: Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Park & Conservation Public & Institutional Community Commercial dy Area 0 250 500 750 Feet N'� E S ApDIT1ou&L C,7H 51NCE f}PQ L ST"' VvIE;e'rING- * SE� S�Po" C, or-- -rHe- S -T 0 254 500 750 Feet s;ms 4 c-*vvlvwb;vrl CAM A x kava 641f. Study Area P"p. —i r- 1 .31*8 Ana k9 tt ct I -F Crystal City Code 515.27, Subd. 4 e) 3) Transit service available within 300 50 square feet feet of entrance 4) Two-thirds of the required fee free parking 150 square feet underground or within the principal structure (not including attached or detached garages) 5) Indoor recreation and social rooms equal to 50 square feet 25 square feet per unit or 750 square feet total, whichever is greater 6) Major outdoor recreational facilities such 20 square feet as swimming pools, tennis courts or similar facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at minimum five percent of the construction cost of the principal structure e) Hospitals, medical offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, professional offices, commercial (leased) offices, real estate agencies, and funeral homes and mortuaries provided that: 1) The site and related parking and service entrances are served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. 2) Adequate off-street parking is provided in compliance with Sub - Section 515.09 of this Code. 3) Adequate off-street loading is provided in compliance with Sub - Section 515.11 of this Code. 4) Vehicular entrances to parking or service areas shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. 5) When abutting an R-1, R-2, or R-3 District, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Sub -Section 515.07, Subd. 9 of this Code shall be provided. 6) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Section 406 of the City Code. 7) The provisions of Sub -Section 515.53, Subd. le of this Code are considered and satisfactorily met. f) Retail commercial activities provided that: 1) Merchandise is sold at retail. 2) The retail activity is located within a structure whose principal use is not commercial sales. 3) The retail activity shall not occupy more than 15 percent of the gross floor area of the building. -39- Crystal City Code 515.27, Subd. 4 g) 4) The retail activity is not located within a structure whose principal use is residential. 5) No directly or indirectly illuminated sign or sign in excess of ten square feet identifying the name of the business shall be visible from the outside of the building. 6) No signs or posters of any type advertising products for sale shall be visible from the outside of the building. 7) The provisions of Sub -Section 515.53, Subd. le of this Code are considered and satisfactorily met. g) Parking ramps provided that: 1) Access is from and onto a collector or arterial street. 2) Entrances and exits create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. 3) Sufficient magazining or stacking space is provided in the structure or on the site to minimize or eliminate the blocking of traffic in the public right-of-way. 4) Parking spaces and aisle and driveways shall be developed in compliance with Sub -Section 515.09 of this Code and are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 5) The location is at least 60 feet from the boundary of an R-1, R-2, or R-3 residential district. 6) When abutting an R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 District a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Sub -Section 515.07, Sabd. 9 of this Code shall be provided. 7) When abutting an R-4 District or R-0 use which is not related to the parking ramp a set back of at least 30 feet shall be provided from the property line as open space and screening and landscaping shall be provided in compliance with Sub -Section 515.07, Subd. 9 of this Code. 8) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Section 406 of the City Code. 9) The provisions of Sub -Section 515.53, Subd. le of this Code are considered and satisfactorily met. -4o- Sent By: DELTA ARCHITECTS INC. ; 1 847 444 0401; May -9-02 11:11AM; Page i</1' Delta Architects Inc, 2941 Orange Brace, Riverwoods, Illinois 60015 Phone (847) 444-0400 f Fax (847) 444-0401 2350 W. Seventh St., St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 Phone (651) 690-3488 f Fax (651) 690-2613 May 09, 2002 Project Number: 02-202 THE CRYSTAL BUILDING 3200 Douglas Drive, Crystal, Minnesota 55427 OWNER: THE CRYSTAL BUILDING LLC 1:1221 96th Avenue North, Maple Grove Minnesota 55369 Phone: 612-418-8895, Fax 763-425-8876 SITE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Owner proposes to build an office building on the site. The design is intending to maintain a small scale which is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The Site which is 1.49.3' along Douglas Drive and 129.;17' along 3 2nd Avenue offers a total area of 19,314.94 square feet. The Site design offers 42 parking stalls of which five stalls have handicapped access. Vehicular access to the site shall be from 32nd Avenue. The parking lot will be buffered from the neighboring lots by a 5'-0" high privacy fence or as otherwise directed by the city of Crystal. The fence will be softened by landscape and with evergreen bushes. Landscape will be coordinated with Crystal officials. Per the parking design the gross building area shall not exceed 10,500 Sq. Ft. [ 42 Parking stalls X 250 Square Feet = 10,500 Square Feet] BUILDING: Building total designed gross area; 10,464 Square Feet]. The building will be fully handicapped accessible. An elevator will connect all floors. [ Main level (1,182 Sq. Ft) Second level (4,641 Sq. Ft) Third level (4,641 Sq. lit)] Main level construction shall be of concrete columns and masonry walls. Second and third level's construction shall be of concrete columns and metal stud walls. Floor construction shall be of pre -cast concrete cantilevering over fire protected steel beams. Roof constriction shall he sloped gable roof over metal joists. Building facade shall consist of masonry walls and store -front windows at the main level. The second & third levels shall be clad with bands of Aluminum clad windows and metal panels between windows, Sloping facade shall be clad with metal panels. hoof will be clad with class A fiberglass shingles or approved oTher. Should you have any questions regarding the above please feel free to call nc, Sincerely, Delta Architects Inc. *A/ Avi Farhi, Principal t Copies: To Owner, File. Attachments: None. Page 01 of 01 DOUGLAS DRCVF= SITE PLAN 1/8 1'-0.. t �J 1/4 1,_Qii M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 9, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for May 13th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-3, a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. A. BACKGROUND The Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (EDA) has acquired the following four parcels for infill redevelopment: Parcel A: 3818 Florida Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0013 Lot 9, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: Vacant. Owned by the EDA. The platted utility easement across the east 2.5' of this parcel has been vacated. Parcel B: 3821 Douglas Dr N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0001 unplatted land Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Karen Stombaugh) has permission to occupy house through April 30, 2002 and the rest of the property (garden area) through June 30, 2002. The EDA will rehab and sell the house on the open market. Parcel C: 640438 th Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0006 Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Acres, together with unplatted land Status: One single family house plus outbuildings. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Jeff Tepfer) has permission to occupy property through April 30, 2002. The EDA will demolish the house and outbuildings. Parcel D: 632838 th Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0005 Lot 1, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. The EDA is presently rehabbing this house for resale as an affordable home for a first- time home buyer. Notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing was mailed on March 28th to property owners within a 700' radius of the subject property. The mailed notice included a copy of the proposed Preliminary Plat. The public hearing notice was also published in the Sun Post on March 27tH. The public hearing was held on April 8tH The following exhibits are attached: • plat map showing the four existing parcels that make up the subject property; • lot area for each of the proposed lots, • memo from City Engineer addressing drainage concerns; and • revised Preliminary Plat including grading plan. B. STAFF COMMENTS The area is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1. This allows single family subdivisions of single family detached homes at densities not to exceed 5 units per acre. The density of the proposed subdivision will be 3.5 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the city's minimum width (60'), depth (100') and area (7,500 sq. ft.) requirements. Please note that, while the cul-de-sac lots are not 60' wide along the curve of the street right-of-way, they are at least 60' wide at the building setback line. For cul-de-sac lots, past practice in Crystal (and standard practice in most other communities) is to measure the lot width at the setback line for compliance with lot width requirements. The plat includes the following streets and easement dedications: • 7' along Douglas Drive (to provide a full 40' width along the west side of the centerline in accordance with Hennepin County's requirements); • 45' radius (90' diameter) cul-de-sac right-of-way; • 10' drainage and utility easements along all front lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all rear lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all side lot lines except as follows: The north sides of Lots 1 and 5 will have 10' drainage and utility easements to better accommodate side yard drainage between the new homes and the existing homes to the north. - The north side of lot 8 will have no easement due to the existing house having a lawfully non -conforming setback of 2.7'. To serve the new homes on lots 1-5, a new cul-de-sac would be built �ust south of the existing Edgewood Avenue dead end approximately 300' south of 39t Avenue. Water and sanitary sewer lines to serve lots 1-5 would be extended a short distance south from their current termini at the dead end. The improved street would have b6-18 concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement in accordance with standard city street requirements. The cul-de-sac would have a 30' radius (60' diameter) from curb - to -curb, which has been approved by staff from West Metro Fire and Rescue. Drainage issues are addressed in the attached memo from the City Engineer. The cul- de-sac and five driveways would drain north along Edgewood Avenue following the natural slope of the land north of the development. Other drainage will continue to the west, south and east as it has always done. While there may be existing drainage problems in the neighborhood, the opinion of the City Engineer is that this project will have no significant impact on these pre-existing problems. The new home on Lot 6 and the existing (rehabbed) home on Lot 7 would be served with existing infrastructure on 38th Avenue. The existing (rehabbed) house on Lot 8 would be served with existing infrastructure on Douglas Drive N. The standard park dedication requirement is now $1,000 per new residential unit. Since this plat would result in a net gain of 5 units, park dedication in the amount of $5,000 is required. The EDA will dedicate as parkland 7,764 sq. ft. (0.18 acres) of the property. At the Hennepin County Assessor's estimated value of $1.15 per square foot (memo in the 6328 38th rehab project file dated March 6, 2002), the value of this dedication is $8,929. In addition, the EDA is proposing to install a wood chip footpath -type trail to connect the new Edgewood Avenue cul-de-sac with the Florida Park property to the west. The value of this improvement probably approaches $2,000, meaning that the EDA proposing park dedications and improvements roughly double the minimum required by city code. The rehab of the existing homes at 6328 38th and 3821 Douglas Drive N is expected to be completed in early summer and both homes will be marketed at that time. Site work and installation of public improvements would begin in mid -summer 2002 and be completed by fall. The lots for the six new homes would be sold in the fall and construction on the new homes would likely be completed by spring 2003. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed Preliminary Plat is consistent with the requirements of the City's subdivision and zoning regulations. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-3, a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council would consider the application at its May 21St meeting. t v v� (• 1 . , �' Y I' \ V If M . I'1 �I V 11A1� YO - 1 ./ A4r00.I1IIs �t4 3 1 133 1 3 71 1 1 IA.- " 0.4/.�c. ~ - � 3 3.71 ,I , •'lt 133.71 133.71. � ` 0 4 2 OD ... l n v 33. 1 'V 13 .19 Z Q : I0• 5, 010 u 5 0 ° 10 133 7 1 O 137.11 oa W 9. G. • d% 9% G � Lu ° g �I 6 0 Vf 133.4 .44 (a 132.14 132.14 Q a 8 • R 8 Q1 • 1 m V wIP 0� 7 T W X 0 C0 �. 01 G. 3II3•. 1 133.2 CO 13Z laz IZ I b af 14 /3 .6 w 60 /3. /3j• .� 60 •, /3j 6 h (63a) .�o 4ar•-r O P' 1 I+. .41 �• N r� • ^ b k ! ^ �-6 8 v I 133 -55 il3g 3 .55 3. 3 192.0-6 .1 2 %3d. 5 a 1 7 ET 2 7 Z 2 2 /33. 3. X 1 3. A DQ9 / ^� . 3 S ti / L6� .44 6 3o:ax 5 4/ -?J s A /3L 3 ^•�n; Ii pVri --- 1 5o C-4J.1'v /s3,4S GRf ^ i/.95 e f�1 ll>i 4S 3a R} d'SI J 1 n G. h $ ^ Q 5 r7 !p Za ^ d3,l 5 / 3 3. 1 114.0 114.1 11, • L 9. 1,6 , 14_ ;p;>�2,-4'° 1. 1. "N).0CITY) M : „•cc > 'l 3. _ / � PT. OF PARCEL 225 C,AC.� (�,� :dl.X;cA,, i .•I � 10. v � V v ^• I � r � 8• T uud a°% 9• a•1;3' 4. rr c i' coq S.j ..-. ' v In /if ,� • B. B � .5. !7!= , G9 �-ss � 7• � �• (2 25) � G7 t p� In 33. r Q .15 ! G /. �• io f n� +L I G G - f G. 604 l 3 57. G. �+ G, `+~ 7. • . 3. Z. 1. g• I 3. �. I G. 21. A,r: AWPW ,' 8o 79 8o $0.1 5 80 3 6 5 4 3• 2= 1 so 9i 75 y 75 Js 7 �8(5� ' b 36 20 ' 1 = 22 19 20 21 = 22 I 23 17 I6 of -11+ 9 Bo 76.9 o g � r��9T p,tt'�515 779 114 " 8o AWPW ,' Si •zl al tnl 37th NO. " 79 8o $0.1 5 471 3 2 N I 4 3 2 80 [V 79.3 �0 l y 75 Js 7 �8(5� ' b 36 20 ' 21 22 23 N 24 N 13 = 14 15 ti 17 I6 of -11+ 9 Bo 76.9 Si •zl al tnl 37th NO. UtADftbSt. 4- `' m 112.17 b 60 • o° V o E vn- 4 0 37 ° I MA►RKWOOD EAST 61. 79 114 " 19 a la/ 5 4 3 2 I N ~ 71" y 75 Js 7 �8(5� ' b 36 10 it 12 13 = 14 15 ti 17 I6 15 ; 14 13 12 1 1P, o g � r��9T p,tt'�515 779 114 " ' UtADftbSt. 4- `' m 112.17 b 60 • o° V o E vn- 4 0 37 ° I MA►RKWOOD EAST � � .. DRIVE s a;,� e _ . t 114 1 I 75' 75 4o 75" y 75 Js 7 �8(5� ' b 36 ro z 3 "1 2 1 -W N 18 = 17 I6 15 ; 14 13 12 1 1P, o g � r��9T p,tt'�515 oti/fl 5 3 n 114 ' ^ , i i 0 •gtx 35 5 BI 75 10 o _ • 75 rn 103 g 1 29 ry 3QN 31 .. g = 19 20 H 21 " 22 ti 23M 24N 25 26 27 29 " 30 31 32 33 ti 34 $ 81 zG0 Ift N 7 o"' 44 �B 536 / i7Ad`""261o.F3• N.89'fj4o..w _^� spr toe, 898.93 X 0 . rg✓ T- �p"wj-w..!vvp .� rf,k 6� • • LOT AREAI sm LOT 1 = 9955 SQ. FT/ 0.23 ACRES LOT 2 = 10316 SQ. FT/ 0.24 ACRES LOT 3 = 14795 SQ. FT/ 0.34 ACRES LOT 4 = 13933 SQ. FT/ 0.32 ACRES LOT 5 = 8743 SQ. FT/ 0.20 ACRES LOT 6 = 9480 SQ. FT/ 0.22 ACRES LOT 7 = 9465 SQ. FT/ 0.22 ACRES LOT 8 = 12366 SQ. FT/ 0.28 ACRES PARK = 7764 SQ. FT/ 0.18 ACRES MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2002 TO: Community Development FROM: Engineering Departmen SUBJECT: Edgewood Gardens Drainage Issues Regarding the above, Engineering has evaluated the runoff from the proposed development. The cul-de-sac will pick up the runoff from the front roofs, yards, and driveways of the homes on the cul-de-sac. This water will be directed north along the edges of Edgewood Ave. to 39`h Ave. From here, most of it will flow east to Douglas Drive. During heavier events, some of it may continue north along Edgewood to 40`h Ave. Based on the relatively small area of the cul-de-sac itself and the area draining to it, when compared to all the drainage area contributing to 39`h Ave., it would be difficult to measure the overall increase in runoff created by the project. For the Edgewood homes just north of 39`h Ave., all the driveways and front yards have enough uphill grade that the minor increase in runoff would not threaten any property with flooding. In fact, because the time of concentration is so short, most of the runoff should be gone by the time anyone ventures out after a rainfall event. Local runoff and poor street drainage issues throughout the entire neighborhood will be dealt with when the streets are rebuilt in the next few years. At that time, curb and gutter and storm sewer will be installed. It would be premature to consider doing any of that work now, just for this relatively small project. The west part of the project will drain overland to the Florida Park wetland, just as it has always done. The same applies to the south and east sections of the project. These areas will also drain naturally overland as they have in the past. This residential development should create only minor increases in overall runoff rates and volumes. Thomas A. Mathisen City Engineer i:/pubworks/miscmemos/edgewoodgardensin em.doc �� 1-01" AREAS aT Y ,,, g9°i6 so. � tt 72s :acmes €OT 2 110316 S4Z, FT/ 0.24 AMES i,a3 .,• 94700 $0, FT/ C.34 ACRES Val 4 13934 Sa. FTI 0,32 AME (CT 5 8743 SO, Ft/ 0.2) ACRES LOT 6 :m 9480 Sia FT/ 0.22 ACRES LOT 7 = 8465 SO, F'Ti C,22 ACRES LOT 8 12.%8 M. c7/ 0.28 ACRE, t MIK ,. 7764 $0. f?J 0'a ACRES 2 X 9� ...:..._....._--8it1 * ax T1. t, ytas t, yI I t^ 3' rx"L P Rrat F4HGF it ,t"w 612.4 iGsl 9�CSD�. '6 S Z..e .0 9 6 I ��i LI e { ' X 91 o 2. a i; �a"," Xgag's € sa"A ,r as6.1 r' •..•'�.. ;'° ,i \fklu., `fru\ j \.. ��44 I .. L .... __ ... ,� `qi •{� \ 4 :ASS�� .... �.(1 /j �•Y (.� [ { ( 9ti.8 :X9�a,. 3i Y.5 2< ��t �` / 'r3YCS.d. � �. 3 .!t3Lb.•F-, "......._,.! A 1•�. (\ I r��ti i • tY N ` "out •, 9Ca.5t 89s•w "-ena--._ y�'���..�, " I ur ` a , .�.�" S 1� .•.-„..•• \ l 3�i � j c” X�•... { 3 .� c`� w- . � � W� f fA � tz ,, w»-xc....-.. s.4,y r. � � `p / on t; i �� `856.4#iSfi.k;" I tJ\ a IJ, t3''.& i "61 z,s X v P at1. Emmy PiG L t X SiiJRY tiikkk.J a.t /• :e ? t j "4'U `\ i BE RC4010, 4.4X' .. Q Do 9f3.9 6 X P g T i -Ex.< ( ! N x 91',4 TYNCAL LOT ` ii i i3`14.:Xt 6C it ^^ t LQ T i3E EUS' r C k IwD Iti FFGER TO PRES�R< TPEES 6` u g64 a I •r;^::. DNAINAG. AN, 0%.1TY CASCMEN .4'....",,,,,,•• r........ . .............. nHiGt,M ORA €. . ............ ::,�,. fir•^^;, Ty%E i I MNOTES ' XNuTi'a WALKOUT ! -•s.f W, 0, fJaMOTES SPLIT `.tNTRY WAVCKIT S .Nf.v. -8Z €3"ROTES IPUT ENTRY ! -F.5, 0EN TES F;:LL -P'�SEr ENT I F €aI'..i"'.c GP,AJi, _......... _. 'r�zji...•1............... € .. I ! i r <•. _; 1 Qii?;.;.i4C<�Y Gi SURF.A.,� ui'�'AI€vAwe. S I REE1 € HcRFf.4Y CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR REPORT WAS PRE-ARED BY ESE OR UNDER VY DIRECT SUPERV•TSKIN AND THAT i AM A Di.l>.Y RFCISTFREE; ENGINEER. UNDER THE LAM', OF THE STAT.. OF MINNESOTA REGI. h4 J, DATE • , �:: � ....__ �: � �r i �t '.�...._.__ t>P � ors�i aa�r•" ..__.__..._..t3��t' f `1 3 t '1 . O s _ e, _._ - . _ .. _.. ........ ...... .._ .._ ..... , r X 6fl9.w DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION DENOTES PROPOSED EE EVATION DENOTES DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR � CONTOUR.I'yi-3ti: S{;AI.E 77 T X `:a�� DENOTES SURFACE D�C4iNA^>E . I I I taw �< DENOTES "R ES t i mb 9v €t I --� -� te,...-.�•"' DENOTES SILT FENCE ii77 LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION 8t-7.0 r I S ar>.L eciRiva 902,4 ! Y° I 3CG,s El Ir D ...,. "F.J 11T Y t . ..... . . . ......... . le, GRAIN NG. um I PLAN 5F-6ett: I: r 0a saAt Fir r ar:v OR _.�_`� lir i ..4.�x i tom'.` )i "-es» •— _.. XQs8.1 xes :c; (CITY:/CRYSTA s€`.k. .% •GL R Pte` V.4'"c , TEM (76.) 5211-1-167 FAX (763) 53.1<1.188 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 4, 2002 TO: ning Commission (for May 13th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Review proposed changes to Planning Commission By-laws At its April 2nd meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to return the proposed bylaw changes to the Planning Commission to allow consideration of additional modifications. These are discussed in detail below. The Planning Commission had previously suggested several changes to the bylaws. These changes are described below, with deletions indicated with strikethFoug-4 and addition indicated with underlining. Additional changes suggested by staff to address City Council concerns are similarly indicated, with staff comments indicated with italics. Attached for reference are copies of the current bylaws and applicable sections of Crystal City Code. By-laws require approval by the City Council before they can take effect. The City Council has asked that the Planning Commission consider these additional changes to address their concerns. ARTICLE I. MISSION STATEMENT The role of the Crystal Planning Commission is to serve the City Council and citizens of Crystal by formulating recommendations in land use matters and by devoting the time necessary to listen to fact, to consider public input and to render decisions in an objective manner. To be successful in this role, Plaiuling Commissioners acknowledge and honor these values: • Open-mindedness: Decisions are made free from prejudice or bias; Commissioners are receptive of new ideas and to reason. • Respect: Commissioners listen to and show respect for the opinions and positions of fellow Commissioners as well as those who come before the Commission. • Equal treatment: Everyone appearing before the Commission has the same privileges, status and rights. be embfaeea and pr-aet ee Note: This was recommended by staff but deleted by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. The City Council had no concerns regarding this change. ADDITIONAL BYLAW CHANGES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION — 04/08/2002 Page 1 of 5 • Attack the problem, not the person: Personal attacks are not tolerated but honest and informed debate is encouraged. -- • Offer and accept constructive criticism: Constructive comments are to be encouraged and welcomed; unfavorable judgments that find fault and fix responsibility are not • Responsibility to the City of Crystal: The best interests of the city of Crystal are paramount and rise above parochial interests. • Shared responsibility: The Commission as a whole bears the responsibility for decisions and recommendations that are made. ARTICLE 111. ORGANIZATION A. Election of Officers The officers of the Commission shall be elected by the members of the Commission at the January meeting each year. Officers shall serve for a period of one year, commencing with the first meeting of each year. No officer shall serve for more than three consecutive years in the same position. Note: This was recommended by staff but deleted by a divided 6-2 vote of the Planning Commission. Based on City Council discussions on March 4th and March 19`h, there is some desire for increased rotation of officers through the use of term limits. Staff believes that the three year limit would be acceptable to the City Council but that other numbers (4 years, 5 years, etc.) might also be acceptable to the Couneil: C. Duties 3. The Secretary shall be responsible for administrative work necessary for the operations of the Planning Commission, unless city staff has been directed by the City Manager to assume these administrative duties. In the absence of the Secretary, a temporary Secretary may be appointed by the presiding officer to fulfill the duties of Secretary at that meeting. The Se etYJT �, in the absenee f the G a v \. L L • r C hull fJti 1 i7pIT shall pr-eside and per-fe� all Eluties of the ChaiTei:sen in the event of the Chaifper-s0*2-S �, 77,� able ee disq a�=cation vl d• bilit .., .. .1.. l,luvlzlcy: The Secretary shall keep the minutes of all meetings and all records of the Commission. Minutes of the meetings shall be mailed or delivered to all Commission members and shall include the notice and the agenda for the next regular meeting. The Secretary shall notify all members of any special meeting of the Commission. in the abbe ee of the duties of cee etar,, at thatllll.il'L� *'ng, Approved minutes shall be fefeffed provided to the City Council in the next available meeting packet or newsbrief. ADDITIONAL BYLAW CHANGES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION — 04/08/2002 Page 2 of 5 In addition to these administrative duties The Seer-etar-�-, in the absence of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, the Secretary shall preside and perform all duties of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence, disqualification or disability. Note: The City Council had no concerns regarding these changes. ARTICLE 14 III. MEETINGS A. The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve regular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at 740 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise set by the Commission at the January_ meeting of each year or cancelled by the Chair due to there being no business to consider. In addition, the date and time for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum. B. Quorum, consisting of a majority of the members ^min of the Commission, shall be sufficient to transact the business of the Commission. D. The roll shall be called at each meeting and a record mage of those members yresei+, absent and exeused present or absent shall also be recorded in the minutes of such meeting. E. The order of business will be as follows: Call to Order Approval of Minutes Public Hearings Old Business New Business Open Forum and General Information Open Forum Adjournment Note: The City Council had no concerns regarding these changes. The additional language in "A " about the Chair canceling a meeting due to there being no business has been added by staff; it merely puts in writing what has been standard practice for some time. ARTICLE IV. ATTENDANCE A. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the following language: Attendance is required at all meetings. In the event that a Commissioner is absent from three or more regular meetings in one calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences. Note: The Planning Commission deleted staff's proposed language whereby the Chair would request removal of excessively absent commissioners. The Planning Commission felt that this language was unnecessary since it is the City Council, not the Planning Commission or its ADDITIONAL BYLAW CHANGES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION — 04/08/2002 Page 3 of 5, Chair, who have the power to decide whether a Commissioner should be removed for any reason including excessive absences. B. Based on the City Council discussions on March 4th and March 19t1', staff is suggesting the following language as an alternative: -- Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from more than three regular meetings in a calendar year is unacceptable because it impairs the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the community. For this reason upon a Commissioner's fourth absence from a regular meeting within a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences and the City Council may take action to remove the Commissioner. Note: Staff believes this fixes the City Council's main problem with the Planning Commission's language, which does not clearly define an unacceptable level of absences. Staff believes that the use of the "may" in the last sentence is necessary because the bylaws cannot compel the City Council into taking a specific course of action. The important thing here is to establish an attendance standard that is clear and unambiguous for the Planning Commissioners: Missing up to three meetings in a calendar year is acceptable; upon missing the fourth meeting, the City Council may remove the Planning Commissioner. ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROVISIONS • - OPINION • Note: The Planning Commission has no power to determine how membership is apportioned amongst the various wards and sections of the city. The City Council had no concerns regarding this change. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review the bylaws for additional changes that would address the concerns of the Council. Based on City Council discussions, staff is suggesting the following additional changes to the bylaws to address these concerns: Article II, Section A (Election of Officers) to add the following language: "No officer shall serve for more than three consecutive years in the same position." 2. Article III (Meetings), Section A shall read as follows: "The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve regular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise set by the Commission at the January meeting of each year or cancelled by the Chair due to there being no business to consider. In addition, the date and time for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum." 3. Article IV (Attendance) shall read as follows: "Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from more than three regular meetings in a calendar year is unacceptable because it impairs the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the community. For this reason, upon a Commissioner's fourth absence from a regular meeting within a ADDITIONAL BYLAW CHANGES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION — 04/08/2002 Page 4 of 5 calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences and the City Council may take action to remove the Commissioner." 4. Other changes not covered in this memo (to be described in the motion). 5. Any combination of these items. A motion should be made to either (1) refer the bylaws back to the City Council for consideration as they were previously approved by the Planning Commission, or (2) refer the bylaws back to the City Council for consideration with additional changes such as the ones noted above. Planning Commission action is requested. ADDITIONAL BYLAW CHANGES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION — 04/08/2002 Page 5 of 5 c) No COMYVI nmks L— Commissioner Elsen pointed out the city used to encourage building fences on the property line. Planner Sutter responded by suggesting that owners adopt a maintenance agreement to ensure future owners of the property know who is responsible for the fence. Commissioner Krueger inquired why this issue wasn't dealt with when the permit was applied for and Planner Sutter stated that in fact, that was when it was discovered by the inspector. Mr. Swenson, applicant and property owner, was asked by the Planning Commission to come forward and help clarify the situation. Mr. Swenson stated that he has been neighbors with Ms. Foster for over 20 years both are willing to negotiate a maintenance easement to designate one property owner as rightful caretaker of the fence. He also explained that the discrepancy was caused by plans that were drawn inaccurately. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-01 for a lot combination and division of 5826 West Broadway and 5820 West Broadway. Findings of fact are as follows: The request is consistent with the requirements of the Crystal City Code, provided the following conditions are met: • No later than July 1, 2002, the applicant shall complete the required hard surfaced driveway as shown in the Building Official's notes attached to Building Permit #13156 issued October 2, 1997. • Staff shall include language in the approval letter that puts both property owners on notice that they and any subsequent owners are responsible for ownership and maintenance issues related to the existing fence and the city has no role regarding those issues. Motion carried. Old business 4. New business ❑ Consider proposed changes to Planning Commission Bylaws Commissioner Koss stated that he did not like the suggested term limits proposed by staff. He argued that if an elected official does well in a certain position, then they should not be limited in how long they can serve. pion a41,/2-00 Commissioner Magnuson stated that she thought the bylaws used to have a limit of three consecutive terms, but they were eliminated. She also said that she feels that the commission should have the right to appoint whoever they feel is the most deserving of the officer positions without having to be limited by terms. Commissioner K. Graham stated that the officer positions provide leadership opportunities for others on the commission and by limiting the terms, it would give others a chance to take on these roles. Commissioner T. Graham agreed with Commissioner K. Graham in thathe thought the term limit was maybe a good idea. He also reminded the commission that they have the ability to decide what the term limit should be, if any. He said that three years maybe just isn't the right number. Planner Sutter stated that the three year number was arbitrary, and that it had been chosen by staff only because it corresponded to the length of Planning Commissioners' terms. Commissioner Krueger stated that he was against any term limit altogether. He reiterated that the best person should lead the commission, and that is proven through the votes of the commission. Commissioner K. Graham agreed that the best should lead, but expressed that others may have a different opinion of who the best is. Commissioner T. Graham suggested that leadership rotation could operate at each Planning Commission meeting by having the chair appoint a specific member to lead at different public hearings. This way, all members could get an opportunity to take on a leadership role and offer their expertise on specific agenda items. The majority of the Planning Commission was in agreement that they should consider developing Commissioner T. Graham's suggestion further. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to delete the term limits suggested by staff in the proposed changes to the bylaws. Motion carried 6-2, with Elsen, T. Graham, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, and Nystrom voting aye, K. Graham and VonRueden voting nay. Concern was also expressed about the attendance of Planning Commissioners at regular scheduled meetings. Staff suggested limiting absences to three per year, whether excused or unexcused, before removing the individual from the I_. ICt�� 1.0,1"I JI1 VY1 ML 1 �Cs — a 2 t1 t 12- oe 2– Planning Planning Commission. Some commissioners stated that a pattern of deliberate absences by a commissioner may require removal, but most absences cannot be helped. Planner Sutter explained that for the good of the Planning Commission, it is imperative for all commissioners to attend the regular scheduled meetings. For this reason, staff feels that excessive absences cannot be accepted, whatever the reason. In response to the comments and suggestions made by the Planning Commission, Planner Sutter suggested changing the proposal to read "In the event that a commissioner is absent from three or more regular meetings in a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences." At that time, the Mayor and City Council would then be responsible for making the decision to remove the individual based on the circumstances of the absences. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the revised changes to the attendance bylaws. Motion carried. The Planning Commission was in agreement that the mission statement incorporated the role and values of the commission very well, except for the statement "Striving for excellence", which was said to be too vague. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to eliminate the "Striving for excellence" condition from the mission statement. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Koss to approve the changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Motion carried. ❑ Election of Planning Commission Officers for 2002 Commissioner Koss nominated and Commissioner Elsen seconded the nomination of Commissioner Paulette Magnuson as chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. Motion carried. Commissioner Elsen nominated and Commissioner Koss seconded the ✓'�,N nomination of Commissioner Richard VonRueden as vice chair of the Planning Commission for the year ending December 31, 2002. May, 1989 BYLAWS of the PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CRYSTAL Pursuant to City Code Section 305.67 relating to and providing for the establishment, appointment, organization, and responsibilities of the Crystal Planning Commission, the said Commission does hereby adopt the following bylaws and rules for the conduct of its affairs: ARTICLE I. ORGANIZATION A. Election of Officers: The officers of the Commission shall be elected by the members of the Commission at the January meeting each year. Officers shall serve for a period of one year, commencing with the first meeting of each year. B. Officers: The officers of the Commission shall be a Chairperson and vice Chairperson and Secretary. In addition, there shall be an official administrative secretary who need not be a member of the Commission. C. Duties: 1. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Com- mission, shall have such powers of the supervision and management as may pertain to the office of Chairperson. Z. The Vice Chairperson shall preside and perform all duties of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence, disqualification or disability. 3. The Secretary, in the absence of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, shall preside and perform all duties of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. The Secretary shall keep the minutes of all meetings and all records of the Commission. Minutes of the meetings shall be mailed to all Commission members and shall include the notice and the agenda for the next regular meeting. The Secretary shall notify all members of any special meeting of the Commission. In the absenc4 of the Secretary, a temporary Secretary may be appointed by the 1 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Cont'd presiding officer to fulfill the duties of Secretary at that meeting. Approved minutes shall be referred to the City Council at its next regular meeting. 4. It shall be the duty of each member to notify the adminis- trative secretary if such meeting cannot be attended. D. Task Force: Task Forces shall be formed when deemed necessary by the Chairperson. Such Task Forces shall consist of a leader, who shall be a member of the Commission, and any number of people, members or non-members, the -leader deems necessary to success- fully complete the task. The Chairperson shall appoint the leader of any Task Force, keeping in mind the interests of individual members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be ex officio members of any Task Force formed. ARTICLE II. MEETINGS 7:00- A. .7;O0A. The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve re ular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at p.m. The date and time'for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum. B. Quorum, consisting of a majority of the members active in the Commission, shall be sufficient to transact the business of the Commission. C. The Commission may hold special meetings to complete or initi- ate business at the call of the Chairperson, or upon the re- quest of three members of the Commission. D. The roll shall be called at each meeting and a record made of those members present, absent and excused, shall also be recorded in the minutes of such meeting. E. The order of business will be as follows: Call to Order Approval of Minutes Public Hearings Old Business New Business Open Forum and General Information Adjournment. - 2 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Cont'd ARTICLE IV. ATTENDANCE Attendance is required at all meetings. Unexcused absences from three consecutive regular or special meetings, or more than half of the meetings in one calendar year, require recommendation for removal from this Commission. Absences shall be deemed excused or inexcusable by the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson or Chairperson Pro Tem. ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. No member of the Commission shall be authorized to speak on behalf of the Commission publicly until the Commission has first considered and approved such statements. The City Coun- cil or City Manager shall be notified in advance of the nature of any public statement of official policy concerning the Commission. B.-' A�'po3n en of/ e me C s G e c' ssi, ha be s bio fit &oou , ci /� fo ace w' pro i o - y hic s att shed d ma a pa of e Co ion ylaw �fls ARTICLE VI. AMENDMENTS These rules and procedures may be amended by a majority of the membership at a regular or special meeting. Notice of the proposed amendments shall be mailed to all members of the Commission -by the Secretary prior to the meeting at which the amendments are to be voted upon. Any member of the Commission may, in writing, propose amendments to these rules and procedures. U Crystal City Code 305.09, Subd. 3 Subd. 3. Reappointment. A member of an advisory commission desiring reappointment upon expiration of a term must notify the city council of such intention at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the term. Subd. 4. Notification. The city council must cause to be publicized in the official newspaper and by posting in the city hall lobby a verification of vacancies and impending expiration of terms of members of various advisory commissions together with an invitation to interested citizens to apply for appointment. The notice must be published no less than once each month as long as a vacancy on an advisory commission exists. The council may not make such appointments until at least one week has elapsed from the date of the initial publication and posting. 305.11. Meetings. Subdivision 1. Regular meetings. Meetings of advisory commissions are held at such date, time and places as are set forth in their respective by-laws, and they meet as necessary to fulfill the objectives of the board or commission. The procedure at meetings is governed by the by-laws of the board or commission and Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. Subd. 2. Open meetings. Meetings of advisory commissions are open to the public. Dates, time and place of meetings must be published quarterly each calendar year in the official newspaper and in such other publications as the board or commission may direct. Notice of regular and special meetings of advisory commissions must be posted in a prominent place at the Crystal city hall. 305.13. Attendance; vacancies; resignations; removal from office. Subdivision 1. Attendance. Members of the advisory commissions are expected to faithfully participate in the meetings or other activities of the commission to which they have been appointed. Subd. 2. Vacancies. Vacancies in the advisory commissions are filled by the city council for the remainder of the unexpired term. Subd. 3. Removal from office. Commission members may be removed from office by a majority vote of the city council. 305.15. Organization; by-laws. Subdivision 1. Organization. Within 30 days after the first appointment of its members, an advisory commission must meet to adopt by- laws for the conduct of its affairs. Subd. 2. By-laws. Commission by-laws must provide for the election from its membership of a chairperson, vice -chairperson, secretary, and such other officers as it deems necessary. The by-laws must specify the month of the election of officers, term of office, duties of the officers, composition of task forces and committees, date and time of meetings, number of members to constitute a quorum, the order of business, attendance requirements, and other matters necessary for the conduct of the business of the advisory commissions. The by-laws of each commission are not effective until approved by the city council. The advisory commissions must endeavor to adopt uniform by-laws. . Subd. 3. Recorder. The commission secretary is appointed by the chair; provided however, that the city manager may assign members of the city administrative staff to serve as secretary to a commission as deemed necessary. The secretary performs the clerical duties of the commission. Crystal City Code 305.17 Hev. 1VV4 305.17. Minutes; reports; liaison. Subdivision 1. Minutes. The proceedings of advisory commission meetings must be recorded in minute form and transmitted to the city clerk, who must furnish copies to each member of the commission, the mayor and city council members. A commission may make copies of its minutes available to other advisory commissions and individuals as it deems necessary. The commission must keep a record of all resolutions, transactions, and findings. These records and minutes are public records. Subd. 2. Reports. Advisory commissions must make an annual report to the city council containing the commission's summary of the commission's activities, conclusions and recommendations. The annual report may include a proposed budget for the commission for the ensuing year. The report must be submitted prior to August 1 of each year. Other commission reports, conclusions, and recommendations must be made from time to time to the city council as may be requested by the council or as the commission deems appropriate in light of the matter being considered. Subd. 3. Requests for expenditure of funds. Advisory commission activities requiring the expenditure of funds from the commission's budget must be submitted to the city manager with estimated cost figures prior to any commitment of the expenditures. Subd. 4. Liaison. The city council must annually appoint one councilmember as an ex -officio member without voting rights to each advisory commission to provide a liaison between the city council and the commissions. 305.19. Application. Subsections 305.07, 305.11, 305.13, 305.15 and 305.17, do not apply to the board of adjustments and appeals. 305.21. Park and recreation advisory commission. Subdivision 1. Policy and purpose. The park and recreation advisory commission is established to promote the systematic, comprehensive development of park facilities and recreational activities necessary for the physical, mental, emotional, and moral health and well-being of the residents of the city of Crystal. Subd. 2. Duties of the commission. The park and recreation advisory commission advises and makes recommendations to the city council in matters pertaining to park and recreation programs in the city. Subd. 3. Membership. The park and recreation advisory commission consists of ten members. One member is appointed from each of the respective wards in the city, and six members are appointed from the city at large. Two of the members appointed at large may be students in a junior or senior high school at the time of their appointment. 305.23. Environmental quality commission. (Repealed, Ord. No. 94-9, Sec. 2) 305.24. Environmental commission. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The environmental commission is to stimulate interest in the proper use of, and care for, the natural resources of the city; be informed about laws, policies and regulations of all levels of government that may have environmental or ecological significance for the city; advise the city council on matters relating to the conservation of environmental resources, including the study and proposal of possible environmental policies; and -- promote public education and awareness relating to such environmental issues. Crystal City Code 305.29 thereafter, the commission must submit to the city council for approval a description of the commission's proposed program containing program elements and procedures and a proposed budget therefor. Expenditures by commission members and city officers and employees for activities conducted under the program must be made only in accordance with the program and budget as approved by the city council. 305.29. Planning commission. Subdivision 1. Policy and duties. The planning commission has those powers and duties assigned to it by Minnesota Statutes, section 462.351 to 462.364, (the Municipal Planning Act) and by this code. The planning commission is designated the planning agency of the city in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 462.354. Subd. 2. Membership. The planning commission consists of nine members. Two members are appointed from each of the four wards of the city and one member is appointed at large. The city manager, building inspector and public works director act as consultants to the planning commission. Subd. 3. Oath of office. Members of the planning commission must, before entering upon the discharge of their duties, take an oath as prescribed by section 12.02 of the city charter that they will faithfully discharge the duties of their office. 305.31. Board of adjustments and appeals. Subdivision 1. Policy. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.354, a board of adjustments and appeals is created and continued. The board consists of the planning commission. Subd. 2. Duties of the board. a) The board hears and makes recommendations with respect to appeals from any order, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning code. b) The board hears requests for variances from literal provisions of the zoning code in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357. C) The board hears appeals from the denial of a building permit for structures within the limits of a mapped street pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.359. Subd. 3. Rules; records. The board must adopt rules governing its procedure. The board must provide for a record of its proceedings including minutes of its meetings, its findings, and its action. Subd. 4. Hearings. A matter may not be heard by the board until the applicant thereon has been given ten days' mailed notice in writing of the date and place of the hearing. The notice is given by mailing to applicant at the applicant's last known address. Subd. 5. Review of decisions. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.354, subdivision 2, the decisions of the board are advisory to the city council. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 9, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for May 13th meeting) FROM• John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Set date for joint work session with the City Council In response to the Planning Commission's request for an annual joint work session with the City Council, staff is suggesting the following possible dates for such a meeting (all assumed to be from 7-9 p.m.): Thursday, June 20th (Note: This is just two days after a regular Council. Also, the Environmental Quality Commission meets the same night.) Monday, June 24th (Note: This is midway between the June and July Planning Commission meetings. Also, the Human Rights Commission meets the same night.) Thursday, June 27th (Note: This is the same night that the City Council normally holds their monthly work session. This makes for convenient scheduling since the Council members already have this date blocked out. However, it could become a problem if other issues come up that the Council has to discuss that evening.) Staff would prefer the Thursday, June 27th date because we can be assured of strong Council participation due to it already being on their schedules and there being no conflicts with other Commissions' meetings. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss these options and select the best one. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 2002) April 16, 2002: 1. APPROVED: Application 2002-4: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a mausoleum at Glen Haven Memorial Gardens (5100 Douglas Dr N). Note: Final approval (2nd reading of the Z. 0. text amendment) did not occur until May 7th and will not be effective until June 14th. The applicant will not be able to implement their project until the ordinance change is effective. 2. APPROVED: Application 2002-5: Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Almsted's Supervalu (4210 Douglas Dr N). 3. APPROVED: Application 2002-6: Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales (garden center) at Cub Foods (5301 36th Ave N).